Extreme Z7

Member
  • Content count

    1,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Extreme Z7

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 01/13/1997

Personal Information

  • Location
    Tacloban City, Philippines
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

5,946 profile views
  1. Now I don't know if AI will ruin humanity or humanity will ruin AI
  2. Tucker Carlson? Afraid to say something wrong?
  3. Putin being baffled that Tucker didn't ask any hard questions is proof that he's a smart guy who has no idea how dumb the American right has become.
  4. Man, that Tucker Carlson bit felt like a parody. My favorite part was when he went "I feel radicalised against our leaders. That's right, RADICALISED". He is a man of great subtlety.
  5. Dave is a Science Fundamentalist. And he had either no interest or was not capable of accurately understanding Formscape's points. Formscape is not "Anti-Science". He is against the almost religious attitude of adherence to the "One True Science" establishment that makes its adherents intellectually-arrogant and woefully closed-minded. Formscapes genuinely has a deep understanding of philosophy and epistemology. Dave literally called Formscape a "hypocrite" for "criticizing Science but still using Science to make videos" which is a very old and blatant strawman. Dave is a fucking monkey.
  6. Professor Dave's denial of Science Dogmatism is utterly pathetic.
  7. I think you're still missing the point that "science is imaginary" means "rigour is imaginary". And I don't think scientists come up with bad research because they're just "fucking around". Some scientists release bad research because it actually helps their careers (at least for a while). Integrity is at an all time low because people care more about success than truth (and this isn't unique to science.) I don't like the way you framed things as "Psychedelic experience needs to be balanced out with Rigour" which implies that psychedelic modes of thinking is the reason why scienctists supposedly are "fucking around" which I know is not what you mean to say.
  8. My mistake. I've editted it from "anti-human" to "inhumane".
  9. Dogmatic Postmodernist Bullshit. But in all seriousness, sure, but it's still an inhumane worldview mostly based on propaganda and falsehoods. Not all worldviews are equivalent.
  10. I was responding specifically to your phrase "Just take a look at the world. . ." So don't try to convince me into believing that you're only talking about science as an isolated relative construct. I've dealt with enough paranoid science defenders like you to know that you don't know when you're delving into far greater topics than you realize. Science will not just become better with more Rigour. Science will also become better with more Love, Ethics, and Consciousness. Science will become better with more Truth.
  11. Dogmatic pragmatism bullshit. A better efficient way to gas the Jews, for example, does not lead to a better world.
  12. Leo is arguing against the scientific virtue of scientism dogma (i.e science's precious "rigor") For most scientists, to question their notions of what is possible would threaten their careers. That's why most scientists don't care about real epistemic rigor.
  13. Video on The Star Trek Prime Directive