yetineti

@Vrubel How are comments like these allowed? You should do anything to save any children. How are racist comments like these allow here? Vrubel is openly saying they’d do anything up to and beyond killing 20,000 (1000 times) the amount of Palestine children for just 50 Israeli children. Oh AND it’s the Palestinians fault the IDF killed them, he says.

@Vrubel Right…. If I think you’re wrong I am wrong… if I say one thing you could say the opposite. Do you run the IDF?

@Vrubel What are those lines? So far you have not demonstrated you understand the severity of the situation here. If you did, you’d understand why you get slammed. You’d understand that, ironically how you want Hamas to just lay down his weapons, you must lay down your ideas. Surrender your ideas. You really think you’re going to have a reasonable conversation with people who are going through what the IDF is putting them through? Also, it’s not fair to call it childish here while also calling people internet trolls and not engaging in real conversation yourself.

@Vrubel Name calling doesn’t go far here. And of course if one side surrenders it is more likely to be over. That’s been true in every war and it’s laughable to even suggest. Also, surrendering is much different than agreeing on anything. Have you ever been asked to just give up, surrender? How easy was it for you? Was it because you should or because the other side was simply intimidating? Israel calling for a cease fire is like taking all your legos and punching you in the face until you give my ball back and telling you, while I’m punching you, that if you would’ve never taken my ball I wouldn’t have had to take all of your legos and punch you in the face and if you just give my ball back I would maybe stop.

@Nivsch Of course I have taken that into consideration. What I have never taken into consideration is killing women or children. The IDF has currently killed 20,000+ women and children. Injured 50,000+ women and children. I am not a fool. This will happen in war but the proportions here are far beyond any other war anytime recently and its cause has been obvious disregard for human life from a scared and angry IDF. It’s becoming genocidal- many, even within Israel, think it already is a genocide.

@Nivsch I am sorry for whatever losses or personal experiences you may have with the war. But it’s not complicated. Israel has overreacted. They have killed a completely disproportionate amount of people many of which are women and children. They have freaked out and killed their own people waving white flags. They have freaked out and killed international aid. They have freaked out and killed an Iranian commander. They’re paranoid and have been unjustifiable for quite sometime now; it has become genocide. The people who recognize that already understand it’s mainly the government. They already understand the great culture, vegan, sexual openness, etc. No one cares 🥱 All the other stuff is much more important. People pushing back on this thread never hated Israel- they’re pushing back because a thread on polls, LGBTQ+, etc. is seemingly semantic, distracting and counter productive in war time. Especially a war of this nature. Israel is already getting billions every year from the United States and has been in good relations for decades. We get it; time to acknowledge some faults.

Average IQ + all Knowledge = fantastical illusion these AIs are intelligent

@Leo Gura I’m not trying to oversimplify, obviously bias, cognitive development, etc. exist. However, bias, cognitive development, perceived intelligence, etc. are all tied together by knowledge, as well as intelligence. AI’s seem smarter than us not just because they’re ‘unbiased’ - they have access to all of the information. Knowledge is not intelligence and vice versa. Thats my ‘theory.’ Frankly I find their IQs to be around 100 still. I do not find these AIs smart. I find them knowledgeable.

Blood looks good; I’m assuming diet is decent as well. Dumb question: do you work out? What’s your cardio look like? Other than that, do you have any major stressors currently?

Would a mod or Leo like to tell me off here? I was told I was ‘fighting windmills,’ however my points were ignored as well. If I am fighting windmills, I’ll stop and leave. But it seems although nobody has rebutted me other than facepalming and saying bad science just needs more rigor.

@undeather Why ignore me? I understand you are open to criticism. But you’ve shown zero willing to express its integration. At one point in this conversation, physics was a ‘hard’ science to you but you’ll so cavalierly also agree how untestable and abused something like ST is? But that’s physics? Isn’t that supposed to be a hard science? Can you clarify your position and rebut the substance I gave you, that you asked for?

@Extreme Z7 I wouldn’t do it. I don’t even kill spiders. I put them outside.

@Extreme Z7 Subjectively. Subjectively, inhumane. If the nazis thought it to be, they wouldn’t have stomached it.

@Extreme Z7 It’s not anti-human; it’s anti-Jew. It’s pro-nazi. Nazis are human.

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.