61–70 of 100 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You're wrong; countries use medicine. There are national formularies which determine by and large what medicines are allowed to be used. This is not hard and fast, doctors are given wide latitude to prescribe medicine for off-label usage, but I think Sinovac and Sputnik V are both examples where "countries" use a medicine. There are many other examples outside of COVID.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
COVID has entered a post-rationalist phase of discussion. Nobody today is trying to convince another person using a rational unemotional analysis of the presented data. As we've seen more clearly in this crisis than ever before, people weaponize data and arguments and emotions to manipulate the beliefs of other people, and it takes an inordinate amount to debunk carefully constructed data lies. I work on a set of pri…
I guess 'rationalism', as a name, calls a certain kind of person out of the ether: 1. They like rationality, and feel it's opposed by 'irrationality'. 2. They want to be part of some 'rational group'. 3. They're ignorant enough not to know the name is already taken. 4. They're ignorant enough not to know that the name means pretty much the opposite of what they believe. (A real rationalist, for instance, probably wou…
I think the use of "rationalism" follows modern philosophy trends and isn't a reinvention. They are "actually" empiricists as opposed to rationalists, yes, but most of those rationalist ideas[0] moved to continental philosophy and are now part of the modern rationalists' enemies, humanities people who read French theory. "Rationalism" descends from analytic philosophy/logical positivism/scientific method types, so th…
This is false. Rationalism predates analytic philosophy by nearly 300 years. Maybe you mean "rationalism" does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the use of "rationalism" follows modern philosophy trends and isn't a reinvention. They are "actually" empiricists as opposed to rationalists, yes, but most of those rationalist ideas[0] moved to continental philosophy and are now part of the modern rationalists' enemies, humanities people who read French theory. "Rationalism" descends from analytic philosophy/logical positivism/scientific method types, so th…
Wait, I'm getting confused between the two senses of 'rationalism' here. My guess is that contemporary 'rationalism' doesn't actually descend from any explicit philosophical tradition, just because if you read an introductory philosophy book, you'd not join a group with that name combined with their ethos. I'm not that well versed in analytic philosophy - I think it's come a long way since the early days, so now stra…
It definitely doesn't. The community started in almost complete ignorance of philosophy in general and that philosophy had already covered everything they were trying to.
> I'm not that well versed in analytic philosophy - I think it's come a long way since the early days, so now straddles both sides of the rationalist/empiricist divide.
I'm pretty sure they meant "rationalism" comes from analytic philosophy, which I don't think it does although now at least they've realized it exists. Actual rationalism predates both by approximately three centuries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're wrong; countries use medicine. There are national formularies which determine by and large what medicines are allowed to be used. This is not hard and fast, doctors are given wide latitude to prescribe medicine for off-label usage, but I think Sinovac and Sputnik V are both examples where "countries" use a medicine. There are many other examples outside of COVID.
Quoted post unavailable.
I don't know the exact distributions of medicines around the world but that is a reference data, and I'm familiar with the general profiles of that reference data as well as the history of drug approvals globally.
It's pretty well understood by everybody in the medical field what it means for a country to use a medicine.
I do know what the term gerrymandering is and I ignored your comments about the electoral college (I don't know what they have to do with the current discussion).
I am not carrying anybody's water but my own. Oh, and i guess the parts of the global medical estasblishment that operate in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does America use LSD? Hell yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKUltra
Use is present tense.
So, under that argument and my definitions, yes, America uses LSD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the use of "rationalism" follows modern philosophy trends and isn't a reinvention. They are "actually" empiricists as opposed to rationalists, yes, but most of those rationalist ideas[0] moved to continental philosophy and are now part of the modern rationalists' enemies, humanities people who read French theory. "Rationalism" descends from analytic philosophy/logical positivism/scientific method types, so th…
> Rationalism descends from analytic philosophy/logical positivism/scientific method types, so they're into experiments now. This is false. Rationalism predates analytic philosophy by nearly 300 years. Maybe you mean "rationalism" does.
This article was a bit long-winded, but it makes a very fair point and I don't understand why it was flagged.
if the content of the article was not heresy and instead came from some trusted scientific authority, this would not be the case.
The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…
> Regardless, this seems like a silly diatribe after the medical community has already investigated the Ivermectin idea to great lengths and at massive scale and concluded that any effects it might have are too small to be worth pursuing. It's weird to see someone writing volumes about re-litigating last years' amateur scientist social media battles. Many rationalists are driven by contrarianism and are the living em…
Well, this is defensible, since if you read this with s/is true/gets an increased probability of truth/ it's just Bayesianism. Sadly, sometimes people are waiting till later to find out which contradictory thing is true, but sometimes they're just bullshitting.
The "rationalist community" is morbidly fascinating in their tendency to be so self-important while also having a deficit of self-awareness. The author of this piece can't understand why an internet-famous blogger/Substack writer that he follows doesn't have time to drop everything and debate the minutia of a blog post he wrong last year on a topic that has long since been settled. Note that Scott did listen to him,…
> Regardless, this seems like a silly diatribe after the medical community has already investigated the Ivermectin idea to great lengths and at massive scale and concluded that any effects it might have are too small to be worth pursuing. It's weird to see someone writing volumes about re-litigating last years' amateur scientist social media battles. Many rationalists are driven by contrarianism and are the living em…
once i accepted that to be more rational I had to accept that I was not completely rational, I was able to reason more probabilistically. This helps, because there is actually no physical system that is truly logical (except for a bit, and making a logical bit is nontrivial), but rather, the only way to understand physical system is to apply probablistic (not logical) reasoning; think of the difference btween a perfect step function/dirac delta function versus a sigmoid.
Thanks for the pointer to second option bias. I can already see I'm going to waste part of the rest of my day finding the part of rationalwiki where it turns out my beliefs were anticipated by Wittgenstein.