Without a doubt. And most things are too big to know completely. Hence the brief model discussion last night. And we’ll never know if those models are accurate. That said there are still explanations based on objectively verifiable criteria and explanations based on hearsay, conjecture or falsehoods.
100%. When I spoke with them, I was impressed with their complete lack of tension while talking about these issues. They obviously weren’t afraid of being wrong in any way. They probably had a ‘prove it’ mentality. They had their opinion and simply required evidence if they were going to change it. No new evidence, no change of opinion, no big deal either way. But I was also impressed with how flimsy the reasonings were. They didn’t seem aware they were flimsy. But they may have and just didn’t feel the need to elaborate at the time. Which also makes sense in the context of the gathering. There were multiple individuals, none of whom had any expertise in the areas, no idea they’d be discussing those matters beforehand and each gathered there for another reason altogether.
@Kub933 Right but it doesn’t explain the bad arguments. Reading your observation has me think back to my example where she said it’s hubris to think humans can change the climate because the Earth is so big. It was and is my impression that she was literal. It’s my opinion she literally believed that. But she’s not right because it’s simple. Just because it’s simple doesn’t mean it’s a quality explanation. I’m sure actual freedom doesn’t incur upon you an innocence that makes you gullible and you suddenly lose your ability to vet information well, spot logical fallacies or use deductive reasoning. But I now think that if your skill set didn’t include those thing before actual freedom then it won’t include them afterwards.
I think some of the criticism leveled at Richard and Vineeto is essentially that they don’t understand nuance…essentially amounts to considering them simpletons
In the poker world there are countless examples of genius and near genius people who simply can’t understand the fundamentals of no-limit or deep stack pot limit poker. I play with a guy who graduated top of his class in chemistry and worked for Bayer for decades: Doesn’t understand shit. Another graduated from medical school at 20 and doesn’t understand the game. Another guy is one of the top corporate lawyers in the country: Clueless. To use me as an example, I was a terrible student. Just the dopiest knucklehead kid you could find. But in Alegebra 1 freshman year of high school, I got B’s without ever opening the book before quiz day. In Geometry sophomore year, I got D’s while studying as hard as I was then capable of. And in Algebra 2 junior year, I went back to getting B’s without opening the book before quiz day. Same guy. Same broad subject matter almost: Mathematics. Yet I had a knack for one and was a complete blank for the other. I think some people are bad at deductive reasoning. Maybe they’ll never be able to remember the common logical fallacies, identify good argument vs bad arguments, vet information. Whatever the fatal flaw(s) may be.