In these two links the title has nothing to do with the content, it just seems like an attempt to grab views. The second video mentions NOTHING about time not being real, existing, etc. A scientific american article had a title called “Why life does not exist”. Except the content of that article just boiled down to “defining life is hard so nothing is alive”, which just sounds like nonsense and is a bullshit point. There are gray areas so the whole thing is gray, can’t help feeling cheated. The point is that the title was just a grab and the content is either anything but that, or more philosophy than science, etc etc. It’s making me a little less trusting in science if they’re going to these lengths. New Scientist I know is like this too and they have the nerve to paywall their stuff. I dunno, anyone else seeing this or am I just unlucky?
This is a huge debate, the crossover of science and journalism, both of those disciplines have problems. A scientist that can do quality journalism, or a journalist that gets the science, those are rare.
This is more just a randos on youtube thing and often I don’t know enough about what they say in order to know if it’s right or not.
I know that there are lots of people out there and everything like that and that someone wouldn’t advocate for something if they thought they were wrong. But what if they don’t want to acknowledge they are wrong?
I’m not entirely sure how right it is. Some of it reminds me of Elanor Roosevelt’s quote about “no one can make you feel inferior without your consent” and other popular stuff like sticks and stones, etc. On the other hand I can’t help but feel like it’s not a story that makes something hurt. Like if it’s a partner then what they say means something to you because you care about them and their opinion, it’s not always a trauma response or about us. If we care about someone we value what they say and sometimes it can be right and we just don’t see it. His reasoning seems like a way to insulate yourself from criticism.
I know I likely won’t get him to admit that something is wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that every article I read from him is missing something or getting something crucially wrong yet I can’t put it into words. I don’t know if that feeling is my BS detector or just nothing.
What if you don’t know enough about something, like I don’t know enough about linguistics to know if this dude is right in this review or not.
I know I read the book before and was rather unimpressed by it, I also question anyone who tells you to “forget everything you know” as it usually is followed by nonsense.
Science is not really at fault, here. The truth is clickbait journalism is just the way it goes online. It’s tempting to blame journalists, but the problem is digital media itself being too easy to consume.
Sorry I can’t summarize critical thinking for you. You’re going to have to do some study. If you aren’t an expert in a field, you can still figure out if someone else is by their degrees and accreditations. On a specific paper, is it being referenced, are other experts saying it’s wrong, has it been around long enough to get reviewed?
These are skills you need to develop. The news will report a new finding, because it’s news, but won’t follow up on reviews or retractions.
I’m mostly getting at the Amazon review. Guy says he’s an undergrad in the field but then again I guess that doesn’t mean much given how it could just be a single take and in linguistics there are different theories about language and the like.
With the link about respect he says that someone can’t make you feel happy or sad because it’s based on the meaning you assign to their words. But that would imply something like free will existing, which isn’t certain. Also we are social animals who evolved to seek acceptance of the tribe and connection with others, and being shunned is bad and we react like that. So he’s wrong, other people CAN make you feel good or bad. There isn’t really a test you can do and it’s just his say so. In fact his blog is just his say so, so I feel like I can safely ignore it.
He seems to be against feeling any sort of negative emotion or being a victim, we alas sometimes we are the victim in life and denying that doesn’t make it better.
Sounds like you don’t know enough.
Like… if you think science learning inspires wonder and that stuff you don’t know enough or don’t understand it (or both).
There is increasingly a lot of totally shameless click-bait out there. I have to assume that the “creators” thereof have never heard the story of the boy who cried wolf, as in fool me once, shame on you but fool me twice, shame on me. Perhaps the worst of these cases actually present pictures and names of beloved and trusted authorities who then never even appear in the linked presentation.
I think a great deal of the misinfo for science and other stuff is sort of getting a “nose” for when something seems off. Like the article I linked about connection I noticed the three commas in the letter from the person is repeated elsewhere in the article, which is a bit off that such a thing would happen. Makes me doubt it’s a real person.
It doesn’t help that the issue is vague and doesn’t list anything specific, like when they say everyone is lying but doesn’t say about what, and they conveniently list the lesson that affected them which just happens to be the last one in his free series (that you have to wait a week before you can get to a new one, yes it’s that dumb). It just feels a little too deliberate and fishy once I piece it together.
I’m already suspicious of any blog that plugs their course for you to sign up on for more information. But this guy’s stuff is just a rip off of The Four Agreements.
