Is he usually worse? This is terrible writing and thinking on every level, full of self-contradictions:
> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).
very next line:
> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.
"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.
Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.
Yes, a lot of his speaking and writing is wrapped up in inside jokes and asides to himself that obfuscate his points to everyone not in on the joke. He usually appears to be arguing against some concept he believes to be widely held (e.g. "irrational"), which sometimes comes off as a straw man. Especially because he usually states these suppositions, explicitly or implied, rather than demonstrating them with evidence. And the points he makes don't seem fully self consistent.
That said, this style of speaking in asides and nonsequitors actually works well on vlogs on YouTube, since jumping around can keep people's attention better than something straightforward and boring. Plus, visual cues can help tie things together.
On that note, considering that he's been promoting "the dissolution of the United States into its [racial/ethnic] component parts" in videos (viewable on his Peertube) makes me think that this article is supposed to prime the reader to be more receptive to the concept and implementation of ethno-states.
The point of the piece was to point out the issue with this way of thinking. Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.
> > not a single scrap of hard evidence [[ EDIT: this was to the commenter ]]
>
> The point of the piece was
You seem to have attempted to respond to my criticism of a HN comment by speaking for the author of a website piece who didn't write the HN comment I was talking about
.
> Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.
Not really, no. Most science proceeds without a hypothesis. Also, believing this makes me wonder why you're speaking up.
Standing my ground: people who don't have a formal degree in science shouldn't sit on the web announcing what science is for, because they genuinely do not know, themselves.
There is an actual "science exists to," and people who are scientists know what it is.
I understand that you're going to tell me I'm wrong if I don't teach you the scientist secret handshake, and that anything you say is truthful unless another internet person invests significant effort in taking you apart, or that I must provide reference regarding your claims. I'm okay with that.
I believe that my point stands.
The post makes a wildly long list of testable claims, and doesn't test them. A five minute look through the literature shows that almost every claim they made has been tested and come back "no, of course not."
If you find yourself attempting to speak for science as if it's a person, please consider not doing that, unless a college or university has degreed you in a science field.
Anyone who can discuss the type 1a/1b/2b split without the help of the internet can also tell you why science does not, in fact, exist to find the flaws in a hypothesis. None of those are hypotheses. Ample similar situations are hanging from the tree in literally every branch of science. That one's just common enough that I expect a typical internet user to know what I mean.
Thanks for understanding.
Dear journal: today, I saw someone attempt to correct me on that science is little interested in evidence. Also, I had some lovely tacos in the mission.
> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).
very next line:
> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.
"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.
Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.