Welcome to my thoughts on life, the universe, and everything
I write about many things, have done so for many years, so trying to find your way around my blog may be daunting. These are some major topics:
Here are some other ways to navigate my writing. Words of Tomorrow is my main publication, in which you can browse my articles by tags. Sometimes, I also publish articles of other authors in the publication. …
A user’s review, but I’m serious about the magical implications
By MARTIN REZNY
So, here’s a thing I never thought I’m going to do on this blog, reviewing merch. It’s not that I’m so anti-capitalist that I don’t buy or use consumer goods, I don’t even hate people for reviewing stuff. When I want or need to buy stuff myself, being able to watch reviews beforehand is useful.
It’s just that normally, the idea of doing it myself isn’t interesting to me. When I choose to write about something, it’s generally because there is more to analyze and talk about…
n the pr…e did, in the process, some basement level virtue signaling and some bungled bigotteering. So, that total imbecile, Ed Snowden, didn’t realize that I came to Twitter to get corrected and collect free comments on my…
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
A disclaimer first, I'm generally a fan of your work and I'm sorry you got harassed by the cryptocurrency crowd. I'm not an expert on cryptocurrency or mathematics, so I'm inclined to assume your analysis is essentially correct and the cryptocrowd is wrong.
However, as somebody with a degree in communication theory and a lot of experience in competitive debating (including debate moderation and judging, which very much involves problems of informal logic like fallacies), I don't think your conception of ad hominem and "crude therefore honest" is the best communication strategy online.
Politeness isn't inherently dishonest. Or, to be…
Or die trying, there are some risks involved
By MARTIN REZNY
It has been recently brought to my attention that some people who have read my wizardy articles would like to learn something practical. Hm, why am I getting Skyrim mage guild flashbacks? Anyway, fair enough.
I generally try to limit myself to writing about what magic is and how it may work in theory. I don’t teach spells. In part, I don’t teach spells because I don’t do spells. The way I learned to understand magic wasn’t traditional, I didn’t memorize rituals from grimoires. …
Introduction to how aliens would engage in relations with a species like ours
By MARTIN REZNY
There has been a lot of interest in the topic of unidentified aerial phenomena and/or totally aliens lately. In response to that, there were also many skeptical arguments flying around explaining why it totally wasn’t aliens:
…hat it was engineered as a bioweapon by the Chinese government, go back as far as January 26, 2020. But were those claims — and, in fact, all the claims that followed — motivated by legitimate scientific uncertainty? Or were these merely political machinations, designed to disingenuously cast blame while simultaneously justifying a wanton neglect of necessary responsibilities by numerous governments across the globe?
It doesn't matter what the political motivation for questioning is. Specifically, it doesn't affect whether any accusation is plausible or true, or to what extent.
Sure, accusation isn't evidence, but to disqualify a theory immediately or primarily because of what kind of people were its first or are its major proponents is the guilt by association fallacy, that you were saying is bad only one paragraph earlier.
You should really decide whether you want to criticize people for using fallacies, or whether you want to use them yourself. Or, again, at least put more space between the two.
…l, full truth behind an issue, but are covering it up, presenting an alternative narrative instead. When you mix conspiracies with science, certain people are inevitably drawn to those ideas, which include:
Come on, that's a pretty severe false equivalence. At this rate, I'm surprised you didn't include flat Earthers.
These theories are not even equivalent to each other - there is much more and better evidence, and much less counterevidence, for the Moon landings than for what the official 9/11 explanation rests on, while the "ClimateGate" would require orders of magnitude more conspirators than the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. This is at best a really fallacious argument, or at worst a cynically manipulative one.
Not all conspiracy theories are equally obviously untrue, and some aren't untrue at all, even some that require large groups of medical scientists, like the Tuskegee experiment. That's why betting on assumptions is just not good enough when getting to the bottom of such cases.
My counterargument wasn't in any way a personal attack, sorry if it looked that way. It also has nothing to do with what I want.
It's about logic and reasoning. I seriously don’t think that the argument from parsimony applies in cases like these, at all.
It's true that, in the absence of data, anything can be anything. A macroscopic "object" zipping around could theoretically be a hologram. That's what the radars are for - to determine that the object is physical, by seeing if it reflects radio waves.
There are also all of the alleged crashes and materials and…
Or why understanding is great and all, but why it’s better done intelligently
By MARTIN REZNY
This is a response to an article written by Stephanie Georgopulos called Astrology Critics Don’t Even Know What They’re Criticizing. I would write a direct response, but Medium has finally made it too much of a hassle to turn responses into full-fledged articles, which irritates me to no end.
I guess nobody on the Medium team knows what a discourse is, but I digress.
As I have mentioned a couple of times already on this forum, I’m currently writing a book about astrology and…
As long as the UAPs move in a way that requires unknown physics, not just better engineering within the known physics, any hypothesis based on parsimony is essentially falsified - however unlikely you assume the thing that is here must be, well, it is here.
I guess it might be our technology, but then I would imagine the scientists should be the first to demand that the military or intelligence community share the new developments in physics with the mainstream scientific community.