yetineti

It’s silly we need to toss studies back and forth at all. This isn’t about that at all. The lenses of ‘science is a gun. Science is a weapon. Science is dangerous’ needs to be taken on 100%. This is dangerous for someone who doesn’t already understand science. But, for those who do, it is paramount. Science is a responsibility - and most who practice it just idolize. Criticism or not. I’d find a critque or two, probably even good ones, if I didn’t think much would change and I could keep paying my bills. But then, again, everything would change and paying the bills could get hard. How could you continue doing science- at all- at least for some time? Assuming I have anything to say here at all.

Yes you do. That’s what makes ChatGPT ironically so powerful it handles every bias and it doesn’t bitch. But it takes it rationally. It is not rational to ignore any bias.

Science is a gun.

@undeather It’s your turn to rebut. You asked for substance and you got it. It doesn’t matter it came from AI; rebut it. This is not a rebuttal. Nor is a facepalm meme. You don’t get to answer the problem of science with ‘do better science.’ That’s what you did. Also, no one has said Stop! Science. But if you’re going to come here, with your post signature listing your credentials, your, yes, bias, and ‘evidence based….’- Perhaps you hold a greater responsibility to prove you’ve had these experiences in ‘8+ years.’ But how do you prove yourself without evidence? This forum shouldn’t have authoritative figures, with credentials like you, swaying people. I am not saying you should leave- but it’s really not a good look to dismiss my case because- what? ChatGPT? What else? Again you asked for substance and you got it.

@undeather This isn’t about your point and you have too much attachment and bias to the topic at hand to even be respected here. Come from a place of wonder. Do not claim to understand and then defend science like your child.

@undeather You talk too much. You've completely missed the point. Your argumentation is circular. I am going to tell you what you have and have not realized, and your reaction makes it apparent I am correct. Your words make no sense to your claims, and coming here saying you are awakened and using these authoritative arguments is again abysmal, childish, and not going to help you in any sense of the way, despite me coming across as harsh or not.

I've read this whole thread again, and I understand that I am being harsh, but nonetheless, I see a bunch of folly, and a bunch of pointing, without a lot of understanding. The sort of thing you see on cable news networks when they want to talk like it's one way, but then it's the other way, and at the end of the day, it's like I fall somewhere in between. Well, I'm not going to get stuck in between anything. Maybe that's just me.

The irony, if you guys were to use ChatGPT against me here, is that we'll just be throwing into the endless swirl science already has you guys in. The ability to argue and rationalize any point from any side, irregardless of what's actually ethical, productive, or necessary, and above all else, true.

@zurew The main reason I was so harsh is because he flaunted his role as a scientist releasing papers and such, and an argument from authority is just abysmal, and completely undermines anything you're saying I missed on here.

@zurew I think you ought to read past him saying he's open to criticism and through to his lack of understanding of it. I’ve read the whole thread. You’re just missing points. Feel free to use ChatGPT. I only did this because that's what you guys want. You want more science to show you how science is bad. It's like you want your abusive husband to tell you you don't need him anymore.

The critique that issues like unethical research practices are "people problems" rather than "science problems" overlooks the systemic and cultural aspects of the scientific enterprise that can foster such outcomes. Here's why these are also intrinsic to the structure and culture of science itself: 1. **Incentive Structures**: The scientific community often values high-impact publications, novel findings, and continuous productivity. This creates pressure on researchers to produce significant results at all costs, sometimes encouraging questionable practices like data fabrication or selective reporting of results. The cases of research fraud, such as Yoshitaka Fujii's fabrication of data in over 180 papers, illustrate how the incentive for publishable outcomes can lead to misconduct [oai_citation:1,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). 2. **Lack of Ethical Training**: The rigorous focus on technical training in the scientific method often comes at the expense of ethical education. Scientists are trained to prioritize empirical evidence and reproducibility but may receive inadequate guidance on ethical considerations, leading to decisions that prioritize scientific advancement over human rights or ethical norms, as seen in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the radiation experiments [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 3. **Cultural Norms and Hierarchies**: The culture within many scientific fields can discourage questioning established theories or challenging the status quo, which can suppress innovative ideas or ethical concerns from junior researchers or those outside the mainstream. The scientific method's emphasis on empirical evidence can inadvertently foster an environment where data are manipulated to fit prevailing theories or expectations. 4. **Gatekeeping Knowledge**: The scientific method and its institutions have historically acted as gatekeepers, determining what is considered valid knowledge. This can marginalize non-Western or indigenous knowledge systems that do not conform to Western scientific methodologies, leading to a loss of valuable insights and sustainable practices. 5. **Technological Rush**: The race to be the first to achieve scientific breakthroughs, like in the CRISPR babies controversy, can lead to the premature application of technologies without fully understanding their implications or ensuring adequate safeguards. This "technological rush" demonstrates a problem within the scientific culture that prioritizes innovation over precaution, often overlooking potential ethical, social, and environmental consequences [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). In essence, while individuals are responsible for their actions, the systemic and cultural dimensions of the scientific enterprise play a significant role in shaping those actions. Addressing these issues requires a reevaluation of the values, incentives, and norms that govern scientific research, emphasizing ethical considerations and the social implications of scientific work as much as empirical rigor and discovery.

To illustrate the concerns with over-reliance on the scientific method and how it can lead to negative outcomes, here are specific examples: 1. **Tuskegee Syphilis Study**: This infamous study extended for 40 years, from 1932 to 1972, under the guise of scientific research, while effective treatment was withheld from African American participants to study the progression of untreated syphilis. This case exemplifies how scientific rigor was misused to justify unethical human experimentation, ignoring the well-being and rights of individuals involved [oai_citation:1,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 2. **Radiation Experiments**: From the 1940s to the 1970s, the U.S. government conducted radiation experiments on thousands of unknowing participants, including military personnel and hospital patients, to understand the effects of radiation exposure. These experiments were conducted in the name of scientific progress but lacked ethical oversight and informed consent, causing harm and violating participants' rights [oai_citation:2,Human Experimentation: An Introduction to the Ethical Issues](https://www.pcrm.org/ethical-science/human-experimentation-an-introduction-to-the-ethical-issues). 3. **Yoshitaka Fujii's Research Fraud**: Fujii, an anesthesiologist, fabricated data in over 180 scientific papers, demonstrating how the pressure to produce quantifiable results can lead to significant scientific misconduct. This case highlights the dangers of prioritizing quantity and novelty of research findings over integrity and ethical considerations in scientific work [oai_citation:3,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). 4. **CRISPR Babies Controversy**: Scientist He Jiankui used CRISPR technology to genetically edit human embryos, leading to the birth of the world's first genetically edited babies. This case raised serious ethical questions about the rush to apply powerful scientific technologies without sufficient oversight, public discourse, or consideration of the long-term implications for the individuals involved and humanity at large [oai_citation:4,List of scientific misconduct incidents - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents). These examples underscore the importance of integrating ethical considerations into scientific research, demonstrating that a narrow focus on empirical rigor can lead to ethical breaches, social harm, and a loss of public trust in science.

For all of you glums that will get mad at me for not addressing the specific points: Overemphasis on rigor and rationality can lead to a narrow worldview, prioritizing empirical evidence and logical reasoning above all else. This approach risks marginalizing subjective experiences, emotions, and intuition, which are central to the human condition. By insisting on objective quantification, the scientific method may inadvertently devalue or ignore aspects of reality that resist such measurement, leading to a fragmented understanding of the world. Moreover, the belief in rationality as an end in itself can foster an environment where scientific advancements are pursued without adequate consideration of ethical implications, societal impacts, or the welfare of future generations. The history of science is peppered with instances where the pursuit of knowledge was divorced from moral considerations, leading to harm. Furthermore, the scientific establishment is not immune to biases, conflicts of interest, and the influence of power structures, which can distort research agendas, funding priorities, and the dissemination of findings. The illusion of objectivity can be exploited to justify policies, technologies, and interventions that serve the interests of a powerful few at the expense of the many, under the guise of neutrality and progress. In its most extreme form, an unwavering faith in science and rationality can contribute to a technocratic ideology that dismisses alternative ways of knowing and being in the world. This can culminate in a form of intellectual imperialism that disregards cultural wisdom, traditional knowledge, and spiritual insights, impoverishing humanity's collective understanding and experience. In sum, while the scientific method has undeniably contributed to human advancement, an uncritical adherence to its principles can lead to a reductionist view of existence, ethical blind spots, and the perpetuation of social and environmental injustices. It's crucial to balance the pursuit of empirical knowledge with humility, ethical reflection, and an openness to the diverse ways of understanding our world.

@undeather You’re not God realized or awakening. You want plain English? You have bastardized this work and you’ve started a thread to be close minded. You’ve asked multiple times for people to ‘just explain the problem with the concept of science.’ At the same time, ‘do you even know my ontological paradigm.’ You’re saying your own problems. No one who is awakened is in a ‘paradigm’ and science is just a concept just like religion. Figuring this science thing out will cause you emotional pain. Do not expect words on a screen to solve it for you. Until you’ve have had an extreme emotional feeling around this topic, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Leo was very lenient with you in my opinion- and brave at that. Trying to convince a scientist science is not perfect is like trying to explain to a christian the Bible was just analogous.

@Michael569 @Michael569 @Danioover9000 @Leo Gura @Roy You guys have anything but mockery for this thread? To whom? On what timeline? What is your argument against Robert Malone? What about it not reducing transmission? What about boosters? We didn’t start out knowing there’d be 2-3+ boosters? ‘That guy’ helped invent the mRNA vaccine, did you even watch the video? I will end with this- the vaccine can not be for 100% of people, so the mockery and willingness to shut down this conversation (although I think the topic is dated) is disturbing, perhaps. If you’re worried that the overall narrative should be to push vaccines- and you think threads like this prevent that, even today, may I suggest a reevaluation.

Two things I do not regard with absolute certainty but may be worth consideration, because I like this idea. 1. Old iPhones that can not continue taking on current updates are subject to security risks - so this business model may be self defeating- Unless there is some kind of liability warning that you’re getting a device without a current OS and/or some sort of loophole where you can sell them as unlocked and jailbroken. 2. If you make the process simple enough it and market it well, it may be easier to resell old iPhones with a better battery and a (potentially returnable or rentable) tool kit + instructions. This is one of the only ways I can think to avoid any legality issues. This way you wouldn’t not be selling modified, patented, apple products - you’d be selling an ability to modify them, easily, and then just happen to resell/bundle the old iPhone you’d need with it. IDK food for thought. I like this idea. For me my iPhone (14 pro max) is basically my computer but for a large majority of people this things are overpowered and unnecessary. Ideally apple would just sell simple simple phones for like 200 bucks and market them as a better option for the regular consumer. Haha though

@Wildcattt555 You should really reconsider your time here.

@Leo Gura What about having kids? So far I’m completely on board; live alone. But have you thought about kids? Can you leave that door open, and raise them in a healthy manner, without living together? I might just be missing your point here.

@Leo Gura What are your goals with women if living with one is a ‘hell no?’ Personally, I like the idea of having a girl that’s ‘mine’, but also almost entirely agree that living alone is the move, and I would just to get distracted with a girl. What is your middle ground? Do you consider relationships or anything long term?

I agree with Leo. The bright side is making money, and having that financial security should help you be able to find a real life purpose.

Go on Amazon and search for 4+ star products and sort by average customer review. That’s my go to. Also, let’s say your budget is $100. Filter for products up to $100 but then sort by price high to low. This will now show you products that may be $100+, but on sale. Great way to filter high quality deals. Also, for certain products, like headphones, a company like Audio Technica, which spends next to 0 advertising dollars and pretty much only makes headphones and sound equipment, is a great go to because that’s their specialty. This can be applied to anything, if you’re willing to pay for quality - some companies are very straight forward. Also, the habit of opening packages respectfully, so you can return- is something I do all of the time. Take great care of it and see if you like it, then return if it feels right. Not the most ethical route, but sometimes you don’t know until you know. Few more quick ways I get quality stuff: - YouTube reviews - word of mouth/observation of other peoples things - regular reviews / FAQ / Google searches !!! - I guess lastly, somethings just speak for themselves. Usually things that are plastic but also come in metal, are better, for example, not always. Just paying attention to weight, materials, etc helps a lot when deciding online - if a lot of people have a product it’s usually good. I have no shame in copying.

@integral I agree about the depth perception, but hsdnt heard anything about reduced eye strain. My eyes always hurt from those movie glasses or at least a 3DS for sure lol. Different technology there though.

@Leo Gura I could agree for movies; harder for me to imagine where a 3D perspective could ‘sit’ in a movie. But for games, I’m astonished for that opinion. I think 3D currently sucks but 100% could see it making FPS, racing games, etc. way more enjoyable. Like @integral said it’s intuitive with depth perception and I think overall just adds a brilliance, if it can be done correctly. We could be overlapping VR opinions and 3D opinions- they kind of correspond. Also, again, idk how you pull off head tracking in a theatre or on a tv (anything other than single person usage). This video used head tracking though, so maybe that’s more just for gaming. Edit: I do have an idea for multiple person head tracking 3D but it really doesn’t solve any problems, any ideas?: People could wear glasses that show them their individually tracked image and not others. But how would this even work for movies? Would every one get a different perspective of the frame? Would you have to watch it centered, or would it automatically calibrate? Would you have to watch it from different angles, literally, lol?

@at_anchor If letting it slide gets you closer to out of your country/situation and causes less drama or issues, let it slide. It seems you may be worthy of a better life somewhere like Europe or the USA, presumably you are not there right now. If you can leave, try. Most likely that will mean letting all of this slide and forgetting and forgiving. That is usually easier in the long run. Even if you don’t not plan on leaving.

This was very cool. Not exactly what I imagined. All 3D tvs I have seen ‘protrude,’ whereas this would seems to almost ‘fall into the screen. Don’t think the tracking would work so well for more than one person, but for gaming it’d be great. The eye and head trackers are already useful in a lot of games.