You should study AI brain chip instead, because its the holy grail of making people near omniscience.

I think the point people are making is that the process as it currently exists often lacks repeatability, in the sense that many published studies don't actually have anyone trying to repeat the results. Like, sure, you have grasped how the scientific process is supposed to work in theory, but no one is naive enough to think science is like that in the real world.

Ethic are nothing but sets of rules by which we conduct ourselves so even if self-centered they are still ethics, they are not dead they've changed and from my perspective for the good because selfishness is in the human nature so egoist ethics are closer to the human.

they should be skeptical about whether or not what they’re being told is science actually is.

Do you know if Pigliucci has a citable manuscript related to this?

Is there a transcript or subtitles?

That how you end up with Scepticemia.

I’m already a contrarian, so I’m good to go

Using science is about iteratively getting closer and closer to the truth, it is not about absolutes - since conclusions can become outdated by actually being wrong, or get supplanted by better conclusions. It's about delivering conclusions with high confidence, not absolute facts. In a vacuum, science itself is a perfect, unfailing tool. But since human beings use it, it's used imperfectly. And, when used correctly, the process is driven by data, not ideas. Science itself (meaning the tool) shouldn't be questioned, but the conclusions people reach and the way it is used should be/are questioned. What conclusions we trust should be dependent on factors like how often that conclusion is reproduced, how thorough the methodology is, and how many limitations were taken into account. The average person should have some understanding of this, so that they don't blindly believe in things and so that they aren't fooled into thinking there's a scientific consensus on a matter that does not have a consensus.

Words have connotations. Skepticism is different from critical thinking

But you use the DOW or your research etc. to then act on faith. Good faith is built on previous experience or information to believe something. Pilots can make mistakes, even with certifications, but you have faith that they won't. Even switching on a light requires faith that the switch will continue to work as it has in your previous experience. You don't know that it will, but can have a strong faith it will.

I want to like this video, but I'm wary and suspicious of it's motives and message.

I worry all the time about being the well-actually guy.

No, I watch the DOW, I research my doctors before choosing one. I expect my airplane pilots to have proper certifications and I research the weather on my route beforehand. I do not just throw myself into situations "on faith".

I've gotta start reading titles better while I'm scrolling. I read this as "how to be septic."

Faith is just what's at the other end of the spectrum from skepticism, has nothing to do with religion. You have faith in currency, in doctors, airplane pilots, etc.

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

We should be skeptical, but not too skeptical, but of course also be skeptical about who got to define our idea of "too skeptical" and how. Many people seemingly assume they can skip any actual skepticism, and go pick up all the ideas labeled skepticism, and discard all the ones labeled too much skepticism, and be done, and moreover, that they have already done this. You see it all the time in polemics about "critical thinking in schools", for example - the idea that the more critical thinking, the more children's beliefs and opinions (and votes) will end up similar to yours.

I live quite well without "faith".

And that's the problem. They don't want to take part in actual scientific/rational discussion. Many are only driven by emotions not by rational objections.

I’ve talked to serval anti vaxxers in person and have used logic and explained statistics and they still didn’t want to let go of the conspiracies.

[deleted]

It's easy to misspecify or misgeneralize our needs and wants. When we make AIs that do have drives (usually in toy universes where we research reinforcement learning or meta-learning, or artificial evolution), we often see a concerning combination: superhuman performance, and strong pursuit/maximization of the wrong goal. Here's a paper listing evolutionary examples. There's another list of pure RL examples but I don't have the link handy.

Not once did I object to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. I support reducing CO2 emissions. I support it by supporting using nuclear power. But what does "having my support" even do in this matter?

Also, I don't have to pass Cicero's test. I am not beholden to Cicero. You do not have to be beholden to him either.

The circumstances that Germany found itself in 2011 would not extend for the foreseeable future: Pax Americana which allowed for historically low military spending would not extend, uninterrupted supply chain that is predicated upon this Pax Americana would be jeopardized, the severing of energy autonomy (and thus political autonomy) by shuttering nuclear energy makes Germany increasingly susceptible to foreign influence. The resurgence of Russian aggression (which is something both Romney and Trump would derided for highlighting) exposed how fragile these systems upon which such worldviews are predicated. Germany could have shored up its energy and political autonomy by expanding its reliance on nuclear energy.

edit: you have edited your reply 3 times now. I don't even know what I am responding to anymore.