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…
Or Whether a Simulated, or Any, Universe Needs to Include Pain and Terror
By MARTIN REZNY
Do you also have these times when you’d swear that the universe is talking directly to you?
I was literally just watching the penultimate episode of the fifth season of the Lucifer show that came out a couple days ago. Spoiler alert, it ends on Lucifer being very hurt because of a particularly unjust loss of one of his dear mortal friends.
When his therapist says that this is what life is, that pain is an inevitable part of it, Lucifer declares that now…
…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…
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.
Hm, I guess this will require a full article to respond to it properly, but in short, I don't think that you, and many skeptical scientists, fully appreciate what is required to be able to study an adversarial subject, or, well, objects.
Rocks in space, or even alien debris or publicly broadcast signals, will let you observe them, while the human militaries and intelligence communities will also let you observe those objects.
You have to factor in the possibility of alien observers not wanting to be pinned down with scientific certainty, like for example to not interfere with our development…
The reason scientists don’t talk very much about UFOs or UAPs is simple: without sufficient data, we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions. It’s very easy to throw out an idea (or a guess) as to what each of these videos might actually be…
Well, it's kinda hard to get sufficient data, when scientists like astronomers aren't paying attention.
What are you proposing, exactly? That it is the job of scientists to wait for non-scientists to hand them a definitive proof of what a scientific anomaly is on a silver platter?
The real problem here is not the drawing of fantastic conclusions, it's the lack of serious scientific investigation.
When there are unexplained flying objects in the air, it's somewhat important for someone to try to actually explain them to the general public. Isn't it? Or are we supposed to wait until a plane crashes into one of them, or one of them lands on an astrophysicist?
…r, the conspiracy-laden idea that scientists know more about these than we’re letting on is absurd. As Benjamin Franklin famously put it, “three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.”
So, you're saying that we know everything all of the secret agencies have ever done, or in other words, that they're wholly incompetent at their job?
…something extraordinary as a means to further sow distrust in both science and government. However, the conspiracy-laden idea that scientists know more about these than we’re letting on is absurd. As Benjamin Franklin famousl…
You realize that in the previous sentence, you have literally proposed a conspiracy theory? Or can you prove that To the Stars Academy is aiming to "sow distrust in both science and government"?
In the interest of logical consistency, I would suggest either using conspiracy theories, or dissing them. Or, at the very least, putting some space between the two.