Leo Gura

No you can't! You never could because "validity" is a relativistic notion which is entangled with your epistemic, metaphysical, and methodological biases. No single law of science can be validated in isolation. ALL OF SCIENCE gets dragged into the validation process. As does, of course, your ego. Nothing in science can ever truly be validated because the scientific method has itself never been validated. Nor could it ever be because you have no criteria by which to validate it. Did you even watch my video? Cause you missed what I said. Go back and re-watch it carefully. You didn't get it at all.

@EternalForest Your logic is exactly how Catholics justify pedophilia in their Church. Outsiders complain about the pedophile priest problem and the corruption. Catholics respond: "Well, I still gotta keep going to church. It's the best we've got. Otherwise I just sit home all Sunday. So I'm gonna send my kids to the priest anyway, with the risk of them being molested, but with the possible reward of them finding Jesus." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again, this is where you must distinguish criticism from below vs above. Right-wing critiques of feminism and progressivism is from below. I have my own critiques of feminism and progressivism from above. Of course a Creationist's critique of science is not to be taken seriously because it is from below.

Actually, science's goal isn't the bettering of science. It is mostly about advancing one's career and survival. It's very dangerous to conflate survival with truth. Which is exactly the mistake science has made.

@EternalForest Thanks for the feedback. But now consider this: Isn't it odd how any time someone like me speaks out about the bettering of science, the majority of people hear it and take the attitude of, "Shut up. Everyone knows science isn't perfect and it's already bettering itself." Can't you see that this attitude is precisely what keeps science corrupt? How can science better itself when any time someone seriously points out a problem you ignore it because you tell yourself science is the sort of thing which betters itself. Science only betters itself if you are open to contemplating its errors without defensiveness or dismissiveness. It's like when your daughter gets raped and comes forward to you and you say, "Shut up. We already know society isn't perfect. It's inherent to society to evolve and improve. This is the best we can do."

@PlasmicProjection Hehehe... It would more honest if you just admitted that you like Trump as Trump, rather than coming up with all these backwards and factually-dubious rationalizations. Better economy than Obama? Lol. Trump's economy is worse, even pre-Covid. And Trump's handling of Covid has tanked the US economy for the next 5 years. Time to stop listening to right-wing propaganda channels. Trump has not even read the Constitution. So that argument is a joke.

Lol His image for the last 10 years has been that of a decrepit vampire prostitute who escaped from an insane asylum.

Anyone who wears a MAGA hat unironically should be disbarred from political office on grounds of mental deficiency

@tuckerwphotography I was amazed this didn't already happen 30 years ago, Lol. The bar is so fucking low What's next? Pope says rock and roll music is okay?

No, that is straight up materialism. The materialist fundamentally believes that there is a objective external reality outside of human perceptions but that human perceptions are not it, and that we will probably never reach "it". But it is there. "Interfaces" is a materialist notion. What is missed by all these people is that perception IS Absolute Truth! Perception is NOT an interface at all. Interface assumes some "other" thing which is being interfaced with. But ff course no such thing can exist if reality is ONE. The interface IS reality. What else would it be? Ta-da!

Well, your question is the classic question of epistemology 101 classes as taught in universities. Like I said, the entire history of Western philosophy from Plato to Derrida is a history of guys trying to define and understand what knowledge is. It's a very hairy subject. It will forever elude your grasp. But of course you have some vague intuition of what it is. Traditional Western philosophy defines knowledge as "true justified belief". But of course every term in this definition is problematic to define, so the definition ends up being circular. In the end, knowledge is a conceptual function of Universal Consciousness and all knowledge is relativistic, dualistic, partial, biased, and finite.

Imagine a scale from 1 to 10. Fundamentalist religion is a 2. Ordinary science is a 7. Hoffman is a 9. And what's I'm trying to teach is 100,000.

It cannot be defined because it's infinite. You cannot define Infinity. Any definitions will be incomplete and devolve into paradox and contradiction due to self-reference problems. Philosophers have been trying to define "knowledge" for over 2000 years. No one has succeeded yet. That should tell you something.

He's from UCI? That's was my school

A bit of it. Not the whole thing. The dude is a massive narcissist. It works fine for music. But not for presidency. Kanye would be a worse president than Trump.

You have to understand that no professional academic of high status will want to associate with me. Because it will get them excommunicated. The entire game of academia and science requires that you not associate yourself with anyone considered by the established consensus as a crackpot. And of course I am a crackpot by definition, since what I say cannot possibly be true according to science. This problem of question-begging and circularity runs very deep. To understand the things I teach requires such an open mind that if your mind was that open, you'd probably not be a serious scientist. Hence almost any professional I talk to will not understand what I am saying because his career requires him to not understand it. This is game that the mind plays. It's like trying to convince a tobacco CEO that tobacco is bad. Not for him it isn't.

As an artist, yes. He's a leader in his art. That's what he should focus on. Know your lane. His wild-eyed creativity is gonna be a terrible fit for governance. Governance requires a sober, pragmatic, careful, managerial approach. Not a raving lunatic with "dragon energy".

Maybe even worse than Trump because he's so freakin out of touch with how gov works. We need serious experts in gov, not narcisistic blowhards that are clueless about the details of government.

All knowledge is impossible. Experience is inherently unknowable. Truth is death

He might be better than Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, but he's still totally wrong. Interfaces can be jailbroken to reach Absolute Truth. Interfaces are an illusion. And evolution is an illusion. "None of us get to see truth" << this is the greatest falsehood of all time. I see truth right now.

Why don't you believe that your hand exists one moment and doesn't exist the next? Then it is created the next. This more reflects your experience. Yet you believe in a permanent physical hand. And what is the problem when Nazis believe that Jews are like cockroaches? It helps protect white Nazi purity from being poluted by those dirty Jews. Hey, as long as you are surviving, what's wrong with lies? If I steal your money by lying to you, what's wrong with that? I can buy myself a nice car. Great, right?

Good and bad are always relative to the ego's survival. Ego's death = bad Ego's survival = good Devilry 101

I should. I've been waiting for my $100 mil Joe Rogan Spotify deal

By doing better science

The gears are turning. Perfect timing.