Yeah financial crises wouldn't be as bad if more of people's economic activity was more embedded in a family or local community with people they know personally.
The Greeks knew the Earth was round because they could look at ships appearing over the horizon and observe that the tops of their sails would appear first. Eratosthenes was further able to calculate the radius of the Earth to a decent first approximation simply by using the shadows cast by two sticks at reference locations. If they could do it, you can do it too[0].
The idea that you "cannot verify" is a very pedantic comment, and using flat Earth as a basis only makes it more comical. Of course you can't know anything "with absolute truth", but nobody cares about that. The relative distribution of evidence strongly disconfirms some hypotheses, there is already a culture of strong distrust and independent verification in the hard sciences (see the LK-99 saga), and you can rely on the long-term output of that process in the same way you can rely on your GPS to just work without needing to independently launch your own satellites. Needing to be your own scientist now is like needing to be your own farmer: completely unnecessary for most people.
[0] Yes, flat earthers claim these results are spurious because of optical illusions caused by hot air or the like. But the relative distribution of the evidence for _that_ hypothesis is pretty darn slim, which only furthers my point.
>Needing to be your own scientist now is like needing to be your own farmer: completely unnecessary for most people.
I wish I could tell that you were right. But you are wrong. This tell me more about how much you have spent time on a even a simple subject like food if you lived in USA. How can I even have a more nuanced conversation on a complicated subject?
Yet despite your inability to independently and directly verify it (which actually you could do), it’s foolish to look at all available evidence and come to the conclusion “we don’t know,” or “we shouldn’t make engineering or policy decisions on the basis of this hypothesis.”
> No you cannot, unless you are willing to spend a few years on it.
Can you or can’t you?
In any case, even if you couldn’t, it would still be foolish to look at all available evidence and arrive at “we don’t know” or “we ought not make engineering or policy decisions on the basis of this hypothesis.”
Smart people don’t say “the world is hard to interpret so all hypotheses are equal.” They say “the world is hard to interpret so we need to make difficult decisions with incomplete information.”
You have a fair point ( though I wasn't quite referring to that) , in the sense that we all make decisions based on best evidence that fits our own best analysis rather than be paralyzed by “we don’t know” stand.
My guess regarding most people that I know, is that a typical 'climate-denier' ( the ones I know) generally have investigated more that his 'climate-acceptor' counterpart who seems to have unequivocally accepted the official position.
Note I'm not saying that that the 'climate-denier' is right, I'm saying that he has made more efforts to understand the information available to him. Who is to say who brought into the 'propaganda'?
A lot of past chronic diseases have had cures found. Leprosy and tuberculosis for example. ALS is a tricky one though, not well understood and quite likely prion like.
Technology is a false god. Speaking of which, I spent about 15 years of my life being an atheist. I went to Mexico last Christmas and came back a changed man. I answered the calling of my conscience. I think over time the current political situation in the US is going to push people back to traditional values as well. Living life for yourself is always going to be ultimately unfulfilling. Men need to sacrifice and be responsible for others. And submitting our own will to the will of our creator is very liberating.
And if anyone from Mexico sees this, God bless Mexico. I’m thankful for Catholic nations. The level of devotion and permeance is awe inspiring. I have a new admiration and understanding now of the Catholic world. It almost feels like home in a way.
Everyone knows that. I’m not sure why you would even bother pointing it out when it’s common knowledge. Unless it’s news for you because you were very young. But the fact that one person says there’s no turnaround coming, and the next person, me, says there will be because of a degenerate society in decline means nothing. Believe in salvation is a personal choice that everyone gets to make. We are compelled to confess our belief, but ultimately everyone has free will for their own choice. I’m basing my view off of historical trends during periods of societal decline. There will be a point in time when there will be no Christian revival. That’s the prophecy of Revelation. People are, and will start looking for better answers. There is one answer that has not only served us well, but it’s also true. Unless someone is strictly materialistic and doesn’t believe there is any supernatural realm whatsoever, the question has to be asked. Is Jesus who He says He is. If people seek the answers, I believe they will come to the same one that so many have before us. That Jesus absolutely is who He says He is, our creator, God.
We don't even have a name for it now, that's how bad it is IMO. All those mere vessels relaying what "the average user" or "the industry" requires, which we should most humbly submit to. The way "disrupt" was thrown around, or the kool-aid required to believe that continuing down the route consolidation and inequality will somehow result in universal basic income. People who fly to 15 conferences a year rolling their eyes at anyone refusing to understand nuclear energy is the way to solve climate change.
I’m probably guilty of idolizing tech at times too. Others here have echoed the importance of using tech as a means to an end, not as an end unto itself. Thanks for sharing your journey.
Which would be quite impolite, tough fella. The nice thing about working in a professional environment is that I don't have to cater to your desires, I simply have to be polite and professional :)
I can't figure out if you're patronising on purpose, or genuinely polite. FWIW I suspect it's the later, and your sorrys and smiles are meant to soften the blow. But I guess that highlights the issue - it's sometimes hard to distinguish between the two, especially when the other side (like me) is used to a more direct communication.
