Epistemic Scoundrels Mega-Thread

[Oppositionless]

Fun medical woo takedown 

"If you get cancer you should just IGNORE THE DIAGNOSIS!" Positive vibes cure that shit baby.

Medical woo might be the most dangerous brand of woo out there. This vegetable police guy thinks a raw vegan diet can literally cure any illness. The cringe is next level.

That being said , there needs to be balance between listening to a doctor , and also doing a shitload of research of your specific condition. 

Edited May 1 by Oppositionless

[Aaron p]

This guy got a lot of hate because he was ripping Leo and attacking him. Adeptus has some good info but you can just see all over his content that he's a closet epistemic scoundrel.

I've learned not to be too harsh or critical when someone is delivering any generally positive content on psychedelics (as it's better than nothing)...but just look at this, this is a great example of his epistemic maturity. Now, granted, a lot of actualized followers probably just got emotional about him dissing Leo and starting flinging ego driven statements at him like "you haven't taken enough 5meo," but what's ironic is, this is probably true. He probably would understand if he took as much as Leo. 

Adeptus constantly misinterprets arguements and "strawmans" his opponent. Out of Leo's entire career Leo's stayed pretty grounded, but the chance of every single statement anybody says being accurate all the time, every time is virtually 0%. So adeptus cherry picks like 1 or 2 things Leo says in his entire career that weren't accurate and uses it to essentially discredit his entire catalogue of teachings. 

It's actually a bit of a pattern. He seems to build a good percentage of his brand of being a harsh, overly cold, logical and reductionistic critic of other teachers. He seems to enjoy building his channel by tearing down other, bigger channels, which seems to be like an underdeveloped tribalisic, "small guy" strategy.

When people reacted negatively to his clear epistemic chicanery and told him to try taking 5meo the same way Leo did, he continues to cherry pick peripheral aspects of people's arguments like boofing (that are not central or pertinent to the primary point at all), makes it out that the people submitting these statements are suggesting boofing is the be all and end all, and then continues to tailor his argument to proving how boofing is not special (which was never the primary argument people were trying to present). Or he tries to misconstrue peoples arguments (who are only trying to highlight the potential for transformation of understanding in higher doses) in making it out that these people are somehow only playing a competitive game of "who can take the highest dose." He assumes it's an ego game and refuses to enter the game he imagines other people have invented. 

Even listening to him speak is just cringy big time. Major emotionally reactive and personal attack vibes. It's like he's telling on a classmate in primary school 😬 my fave statement of his in this video:

 

"...they (psychedelics)don't permanently unlock jack shit and if you think they do your a mental mijit living in some kind of fantasy world."

 

But he has some good material 

Edited May 3 by Aaron p

[Oppositionless]

Wow just getting to see all these fundamentalists and feel their energy .  Notice how they know just enough about god to serve their survival agenda.

they're absolutely shameless 

 

 

This meanwhile is the best Christian I've found on YouTube

 

Edited May 18 by Oppositionless

[integral]

Vegans that think 100% of the population can be vegan and no other diet is healthy besides the vegan diet.

Edited May 21 by integral

[AION]

6 hours ago, integral said:

Vegans that think 100% of the population can be vegan.

Down bad 😭

[SOUL]

I grow more and more uncomfortable with name calling, even if deserved, so prefer to not use a word like scoundrel to label the person but after a little thought about the malfeasance Leo is trying to pinpoint I propose the phrase 'epistemic skullduggery' to explain what they are doing without resorting to just name calling and keeping in line with the theme used.

It separates the person from the deed and allows for someone to change their ways of not always behaving that way.

[Rafael Thundercat]

Jordan Peterson a epistemic scondrel. Nothing new of course, but as Vlad expose here,this scoundrels are good study material to see the effects of bad epistemic work

 

And the importance of videos like the ones Leo share like 8 proofs of God

[SwiftQuill]

Woke pseudoscientific ideological dogmatic scientifically illiterate hasn't ever read Thomas Kuhn or done any research virtue signaling scientism. We're way past the "a bit too biased to the left" and we've reached full on woke psyop.

You see, I'm like the Thanos of this forum. I'm here to establish balance (in the discourse). And like Thanos, I'm an unappreciated hero.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, SwiftQuill said:

Woke pseudoscientific ideological dogmatic scientifically illiterate hasn't ever read Thomas Kuhn or done any research virtue signaling scientism.

What does Kuhn have to do with this?

[SwiftQuill]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

What does Kuhn have to do with this?

Scientific paradigm lock. Externalism as a major component of the scientific endeavor. The video assumes (as most leftists assume) that science is without its epistemological biases and political biases. When in reality it's very political. Of course Kuhn doesn't get too deep into the Scientific Revolutions but still the video portrays science as this hyper sanitized unbiased activity which it clearly isn't. This isn't debatable by the way. It's been demonstrated historically and repeatedly.

I like to call this Applied Scientism*tm. The utilitarian way people use science as a weapon, and demanding strong double blind peer review citations from Harvard's DEI Wokeology department. And any independent critical thought, any independent research is poo pooed as an emotional reaction.

This is similar to Professor Dave's video attacking the other philosopher "No, science isn't dogma". Miscaracterizing the idea of externalism in science.

Science reaches what's called the Normal Stage in its evolution. And even with anomalies scientists will emotionally fight to keep the status quo. Under the pretense of some bullshit excuse in the scientific methodology. It's been years since I read Kuhn so forgive me if I'm not explaining it too well. But the argument stands regardless.

Anyway this video is really low perspective. Regardless of your take on the trans issue. Surely one can defend trans women beating the crap out of cis women, but not like this.

Also the "there's many studies on this topic but all of them have small samples"... So? Clearly this guy has never done any academic research. You can conduct research with small samples. And you can conduct meta studies by comparing the results of various studies. The sample size isn't "just 1". The size is that, times as many studies there are out there. If there are 20 studies of sample size 1, that's a decent sample. Sure it's not 30. But with even small samples you can conduct horizontal studies, by comparing various metrics among few individuals as opposed to few metrics among a lot of individuals.

I've studied philosophy of science, I've spoken with college professors, I've done scientific research myself. The things I'm saying aren't mere opinion or "antiwoke bias". It's facts.

[Carl-Richard]

@SwiftQuill What specific claims in the video do you have problems with?

Edited May 31 by Carl-Richard

[SwiftQuill]

@Carl-Richard literally the entire video. The premises, the conclusion, the wrong assumptions, the bad application of science. It constitutes fractal wrongness.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, SwiftQuill said:

@Carl-Richard literally the entire video. The premises, the conclusion, the wrong assumptions, the bad application of science. It constitutes fractal wrongness.

I watched the entire video and nothing made me think of Kuhn.

This video made me think of Kuhn:

 

 

Edited May 31 by Carl-Richard

[SwiftQuill]

@Carl-Richard here's a sample of the various issues in the video.

1. Reversal of the burden of proof

If you wish to implement changes to a system, it's on YOU to prove that it's better than the current system.

"Duuh but the burden of proof is on the positive claim, and the positive claim is that trans women have an advantage"

Wrong. It's not so simple. The burden of proof doesn't work like that all the times. Otherwise you could implement changes to systems all the time and demand OTHERS to give you evidence why such changes are harmful. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim OR in certain cases the person who wants to change the system.

2. Disingenuous framing

"I'm going to make fun of these silly stupid right wing transphobes!"

The discussion of trans women in women's sports is legitimate. This isn't a "alt right far right MAGA" idiot's point. This is a point many centrists agree with. Many people who are apolitical (as myself) agree that it seems unfair for a trans woman to compete with cis women. If you bring up the "silly right wingers" BS it's disingenuous. It means you're being loyal to the "trans rights movement" and not taking the topic with intellectual integrity. Don't think about this as a left vs right issue. Don't think about it as a "trans rights" issue. Because that type of framing distorts reality.

3. Scientism

Dismissing the tons of evidence out there, statistics, that show trans women do have an advantage over cis women. Focusing on double blind peer review papers from Harvard as opposed to available data out there. Various terrible assumptions about how science works (assuming there is an unlimited number of studies on any given topic, and a lot of data on any given topic). Forgetting to question why there is a lack of studies on this topic. Could it be... because trans women would rather NOT partake in these studies, because it would harm their careers?

Not understanding how samples work, how research works. The scientific claims and reasoning in the video, it's painful. If Leo gets triggered by stage orange science, I get triggered by stage green WOKE pseudoscience.

4. Strawmans everywhere

"It's not true that every individual woman is weaker than every individual man."

No one makes this argument. Complete red herring and not a point worth bringing up.

No one in history has ever believed this. Why did we invent men's sports and women's sports to begin with? Even back in the day, people knew that generally speaking, men tend to have an advantage. And it's a guarantee that if we separate these two categories, both men and women's competence are represented equally.

It's exhausting that I have to explain this.

5. Ad hominems/Genetic fallacies everywhere?

"Why are right wingers so obsessed with female sports?"

Attacking the person, not the argument.

6. There are certain sports in which men don't necessarily have an advantage over women

In the entire video, this is the only point that isn't completely wrong. Sure I can imagine that in archery perhaps men don't have an advantage over women. Still, that doesn't mean you SHOULD end those categories. The only factor here isn't "if you have an advantage then let's create a category". It's not just that. I think the concept of representation also matters. If we split female archery from male archery, that does guarantee both demographics are represented. And just because it's not obvious, it is possible that men would have a slight advantage over women. Such as due to better spatial vision skills. Such that you would get a result where 80% of men end up taking all the archery prizes. 

So no, I'm still unconvinced just because no advantage is obvious, that you SHOULD put trans women in women's sports.

This is a very very short version of my complaints of the video. I could write 50 pages worth of material on why this 40 minute video is wrong.

[Leo Gura]

Here's a cool idea to solve the trans sports issue: give trans women a handicap score.

So, if on average men run 20% faster than women, then a trans woman can compete with women but will need to run 20% faster to win.

It's hard to apply for team sports but works for solo sports like weightlifting or running.

Edited May 31 by Leo Gura

[SwiftQuill]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Here's a cool idea to solve the trans sports issue: give trans women a handicap score.

So, if on average men run 20% faster than women, then a trans woman can compete with women but will need to run 20% faster to win.

It's hard to apply for team sports but works for solo sports like weightlifting or running.

How would you calculate that handicap? And how would we make sure that it's not unfair against trans women? I think that would only create even more contention and make things more complicated.

I just think it would be easier to create a new category for them. Same with bathrooms. Men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms? "Other/non binary" bathrooms. Without going super crazy with "trans mtf disabled ethnic minority autistic gender fluid" bathrooms. Just "other".

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

How would you calculate that handicap?

The difference in average performance between a man and woman for a sport should be calculable.

What's the average difference between how much faster men run than women?

Get an olympic swimmer man and have him compete against an olympic swimmer woman and just calculate the difference. You could do this for every sport.

You could even calculate it for team sports. Calculate how much better a men's soccer team is vs a woman's soccer team.

Edited May 31 by Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

If you wish to implement changes to a system, it's on YOU to prove that it's better than the current system.

So normal science? Not very revolutionary, tooth and claw (maybe that was Feyerabend not Kuhn)?

 

48 minutes ago, SwiftQuill said:

2. Disingenuous framing

"I'm going to make fun of these silly stupid right wing transphobes!"

The discussion of trans women in women's sports is legitimate. This isn't a "alt right far right MAGA" idiot's point. This is a point many centrists agree with. Many people who are apolitical (as myself) agree that it seems unfair for a trans woman to compete with cis women. If you bring up the "silly right wingers" BS it's disingenuous. It means you're being loyal to the "trans rights movement" and not taking the topic with intellectual integrity. Don't think about this as a left vs right issue. Don't think about it as a "trans rights" issue. Because that type of framing distorts reality.

3. Scientism

Dismissing the tons of evidence out there, statistics, that show trans women do have an advantage over cis women. Focusing on double blind peer review papers from Harvard as opposed to available data out there. Various terrible assumptions about how science works (assuming there is an unlimited number of studies on any given topic, and a lot of data on any given topic). Forgetting to question why there is a lack of studies on this topic. Could it be... because trans women would rather NOT partake in these studies, because it would harm their careers?

Not understanding how samples work, how research works. The scientific claims and reasoning in the video, it's painful. If Leo gets triggered by stage orange science, I get triggered by stage green WOKE pseudoscience.

4. Strawmans everywhere

"It's not true that every individual woman is weaker than every individual man."

No one makes this argument. Complete red herring and not a point worth bringing up.

No one in history has ever believed this. Why did we invent men's sports and women's sports to begin with? Even back in the day, people knew that generally speaking, men tend to have an advantage. And it's a guarantee that if we separate these two categories, both men and women's competence are represented equally.

It's exhausting that I have to explain this.

5. Ad hominems/Genetic fallacies everywhere?

"Why are right wingers so obsessed with female sports?"

Attacking the person, not the argument.

6. There are certain sports in which men don't necessarily have an advantage over women

In the entire video, this is the only point that isn't completely wrong. Sure I can imagine that in archery perhaps men don't have an advantage over women. Still, that doesn't mean you SHOULD end those categories. The only factor here isn't "if you have an advantage then let's create a category". It's not just that. I think the concept of representation also matters. If we split female archery from male archery, that does guarantee both demographics are represented. And just because it's not obvious, it is possible that men would have a slight advantage over women. Such as due to better spatial vision skills. Such that you would get a result where 80% of men end up taking all the archery prizes. 

So no, I'm still unconvinced just because no advantage is obvious, that you SHOULD put trans women in women's sports.

This is a very very short version of my complaints of the video. I could write 50 pages worth of material on why this 40 minute video is wrong.

Don't see the Kuhnian relevance. Just comments on left-rightism, scientific literacy, fallacious argumentation.

Edited May 31 by Carl-Richard

[SwiftQuill]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The difference in average performance between a man and woman for a sport should be calculable.

What's the average difference between how much faster men run than women?

Get an olympic swimmer man and have him compete against an olympic swimmer woman and just calculate the difference. You could do this for every sport.

But there are some issues.

1. Being trans can be a disadvantage

The whole hormone treatment stuff can indeed diminish your capacity. So you can't use "men" as the standard.

2. I don't think anyone would accept that

I can't imagine a trans person, going into the field, knowing "Ok I have to run extra X meters compared to these folks around me, for me to win". I don't think any trans person would willingly tolerate that. And if they lost, they wouldn't perceive it as a loss.

Likewise with cisgender women. Even if the trans person wins, the cisgender woman would have still reached the end flag earlier, it probably wouldn't feel as either a "true defeat" or as a "true win".

If I were to run against someone with a disability, and I were given a handicap (having to run extra meters), just hypothetically, I don't think it would feel right.

I'm not trying to be a devils advocate, nor am I saying I have a solution. But I don't think that would work.

[SwiftQuill]

@Carl-Richard I think being educated about philosophy of science would help. But I'm not going to insist on citations and philosophers and all of that. I've made my position clear on why I think the video is low perspective.