dougselsam:
If it were up to me, I’d delete you.
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LY3ftiLqmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3XW6NLILqo
Like I said before, and will probably say again:
I of course agree with always questioning everything. We’re trying to do applied science or engineering so we always want to prove ourselves wrong:
Falsifiability - RationalWiki
We should never forget that our reasoning process can go wrong. This is why you always want to check your careful reasoning for flaws. Make sure that no fallacious , instinctive reasoning slipped in. Try to find errors, even look for evidence that you’re wrong. After all, how hard is it to confirm your beliefs if that’s all you’re trying to do ? Anyone can find some evidence for anything! If you want to prove yourself right — try to prove yourself wrong . Because if you try to prove yourself wrong — and can’t? Then it’s a really good indication that you’re right. Want to be even more assured? Invite others to prove you wrong. And remember — admit it when you are wrong.The Big Questions of Philosophy
If out of 3000 raw ideas only 1 proves to have some success, like the study I linked to earlier says, someone able to point out the drawbacks of ideas is worth their weight in gold.
That person still has to be specific though, and in applied science be able to, for example, suggest experiments, discuss previous research (and link to it) , or point to laws of physics that are relevant.
The more specific the questions and answers, the more useful.
Where we possibly can find agreement is if criticism needs to have those things, the original claims on here should try to have those things as well. If you make a claim, for or against something, try to:
I think that @kitefreak often doesn’t do that in his claims and you don’t in your criticisms.
1 Like