Yes, Actually... Scientists SHOULD Debate RFK

[@strafe155]

Watching people who claim to be "critical thinkers" claim that you cannot even have a debate about "the science" has been one of the surrealist experiences of the past few years.

[@MrDj232]

Past 2 decades really. A lot of this stuff started with global warming, especially after An Inconvenient Truth came out.

[@mcarrowtime7095]

The proper way to say that would be “most surreal” as the -ist suffix means “a person who does a thing”, so in this case it would be some form of artist/author who uses a surreal style in their works.

[@classicalextremism]

@@MrDj232 Well spotted. And it was one of the warnings Eisenhower gave in his farewell speech. Its literally the next line after "military industrial complex" and he warns more strongly against it, but it gets swept under the rug... kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIPFkGyiYph8adk

[@smilingearth5181]

@@MrDj232 "No one is listening" doesn't mean "there is no crisis." Just because politicians call climatologists "alarmists" for their research and outreach about global warming doesn't mean there's no global warming happening. Your house can still catch fire regardless of whether or not you choose to listen to fire safety experts.

[@russianbot4418]

@@smilingearth5181 Much of the problem isn't we influence the climate. The problem is that our influence is both positive and negative and that the when and where we influence things, either way, are always being ignored. Especially on the positive side and in with who/where is actually doing the most real provable negatives. No real meaningful and honest coverage ever gets put there where it's needed the most.

[@chasemartin4450]

Questioning the science is literally how science works...

[@Gottaculat]

It's like these people never heard of a hypothesis.

[@platty9237]

Well, there’s science, and then there’s The Science Ⓡ.

[@funkymunky7935]

@@platty9237 SOYence

[@axiezimmah]

@@chase-warwick actually a lot of science is not so much demonstrating something to be true, but more like finding ways to try to demonstrate it's not true, and if the hypothesis holds up against many of such ways, it's likely true, or at least we haven't found a better explanation for it so far.

[@nosepicker1999]

@@chase-warwick well most scientists that work with politicians and corporations do act that way

[@jeffrybassett7374]

Notice how the knee-jerk response today is "deplatform them". One of the first things I was taught in debate class is when your opponent tries to silence you, overtalk you or attack you personally it's a sure sign they know they are losing the debate.

[@smilingearth5181]

You are entitled to your opinion, not a platform for it. If you are making patently ridiculous claims (like vaccines causing autism or something), it's not "deplatforming" if the experts refuse to take you seriously. It's just you having patently ridiculous views on vaccines.

[@EgoEroTergum]

You can win the debate, but still lose the crowd.

[@ZeusBrown]

@@smilingearth5181 Deplatforming isn't just not taking someone seriously, it's forcibly removing them from platforms, like Twitter and KZbin. People who are confident in their beliefs and don't take someone stating nonsense seriously can largely ignore them.

[@aquilamflammeus5569]

@@ZeusBrown The problem really is that debates are extremely flawed. You largely don't win or lose a debate by being correct but by being a better debater. In that way it falls far short of the written form. To argue for any position to be platformed it to argue simply for more people to be misled.

[@SymmetricalDocking]

@@aquilamflammeus5569 True, if any position whatsoever is platformed then more people are misled. Truth only comes from complete and utter silence from everyone.

[@DarkSpyro707]

Someone needs to pay Seamus overtime. Running his own channel AND Tim Pool's at the same time.

[@get6149]

Tim's paying him in potato's

[@Vilkas2013]

But who is "they" though?

[@get6149]

@@Vilkas2013 you know they 👀

[@Vilkas2013]

@@get6149 definitely not spoons

[@laharl2k]

@@Vilkas2013 with all the idiots nowaday you can play dumb and say he was reffering to a single non binary person xD

[@ThatGuy-te9wh]

They're not going to debate him. They're just going to let Sirhan Sirhan out of prison.

[@AdamKlownzinger]

Sirhan Sirhan was mysteriously found dead in what appears to be a suicide in his home in October 5, 2023. He was found in his bed with four shots to the head, somehow still holding the gun on his chest with both hands.

[@robertlewis6915]

You know RFK Jr. has been advocating for that, right?

[@jamesyboy1066]

RFK jr already talked about how Sirhan Sirhan didn't kill his father. I don't remember which podcast it was, but if you can find it, well worth a listen.

[@migueldelmazo5244]

Solid 4 step joke. +1 internet points for you. :)

[@frednone]

Isn't amazing how 'The Science' always seems to agree with their political position?

[@mustang607]

You must love Big Science. It is not enough to obey it: you must love it. -Orwellish

[@j-shap12]

It’s almost like one side of politics is more involved and interested in þe future and has þe same goals to try to “better” þe world where as þe other side has ether been actively against science and monetary “betterment” over social change

[@SweatyFatGuy]

The scientific method is wayyyyysis! WHUIIYTE SPOOOOPREMEE P{IZZA! Until they want to push a narrative on everyone, in which case they call it science. They keep using that word, I do not think it means what they think it means. However, I do find it most amusing that people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, flat, and covered with critters that were intelligently designed often weigh in on all of this too.

[@nathanielbass771]

@@j-shap12 well, one of those sides caused the price of food and goods to increase on average by 32% and refuses to adhere to the scientific method in their research with some using a single test subject in a single experiment to make their claim.

[@j-shap12]

@@nathanielbass771 it’s almost like capitalism has a negative effect on science

[@mustang607]

But we're taught in school at all ages that if we feel morally superior and on the right side of history we don't have to debate anybody, just find allies that feel the same way and cancel those debaters.

[@Gottaculat]

Question those who refuse to question, and distrust those whom blindly trust.

[@masonpyle5929]

Plot twist: Chat GPT is actually Ron communicating with Seamus, Florida Man , and Bob from prison.

[@Minecraft_man14655]

Bc it is

[@AdamKlownzinger]

RFK Jr is yet another example of how extremists (usually leftists but increasingly on both sides of the spectrum) insist that if you agree with somebody on certain things, because theyre objectively right, then that must be an endorsement of absolutely everything they have to say all of the time.

[@BitchspotBlog]

Sadly, the extremes are doing the exact same things for the exact same reasons. It all comes down to power and control and manipulating their followers so they can reinforce the power dynamics on their own side. The sooner the extremes go away, the better.

[@paulnash6944]

Exactly. I, for example, have always been pro-vaccine, due to the simple fact that vaccines are by far the safest and most effective way to prevent both infections and transmission, but just because RFK Jr. happened to be right about the COVID-19 vaccine, as well as the whole pandemic in general, suddenly, he is a visionary! No, RFK Jr. has been, and always will be, some cranky old man screaming at the clouds. Just because a broken clock may be right twice a day, but that doesn’t mean we should count on it to tell us the time.

[@Kio_Kurashi]

Specifically it's "usually leftists" in recent years (around 10-15 years) as before then the puritanical right leaning peeps were doing the same thing, and because they're gaining more power and support they're also now starting this shit again. Hell, this video's tv representative is a perfect example of how they start. Present things that are factual, then once they're assured you believe them, present something absurd that aligns with whatever dogma they adhere to so that those who, by that point, are just nodding along will just accept it as fact without thinking about it.

[@jegerslvjegers5380]

Leftists to USA or EU standard? Because USA even leftists are more right than right side on some EU countries. Even Bernie is more center, compared to EU leftists.

[@ric270]

​@@jegerslvjegers5380given that the UK actually arrests people over memes I believe that

[@psyxypher3881]

"The truth is not up for debate." Indeed. Cigarettes have no harmful effects to your health, asbestos is perfectly safe to use in housing and heroin is a top tier cough medicine. ...Okay that last one is actually true but you get my point.

[@heliumphoenix]

We have to remember that at the times that these were "accepted science", the human lifespan was shorter.....most people didn't live long enough to get lung cancer from their exposure. It wasn't until the last 50 years or so that we've lived long enough for that to start showing up significantly and to be recognized as having various causes that weren't realized as dangerous to our health. From 1950 to now, the average lifespan in the USA has jumped from 68 to 79. And back in the 30s, the average livespan in the US was 60. Back then, very few people died from smoking or asbestos. And the few that did it was typically so late in life that it wasn't attributed to those causes, but just "old age" or some other disease. So it wasn't until there was enough data (that extended far enough in life) to show that smokers were dying earlier on average, from certain particular causes, that scientists could recognize it. Science is NOT "the truth". It's our current best understanding given our knowledge and available data. It changes as we develop better and new technologies, and figure out new and better ways to use our existing tech., And it is ALWAYS able to be challenged.....as long as you have the data and evidence to back up your challenge.

[@undoubtedcrow8010]

​@@heliumphoenixThe tobacco in cigarettes isn't what's bad for you, it's the chemicals used to clean it and the glue and paper used to hold the cigarette together. One study found that cigar smokers live longer than the average person (although that's possibly because those who can afford to buy cigars can also afford better medical care).

[@heliumphoenix]

@@undoubtedcrow8010 - Tobacco isn't safe, but its not the worst part, true. And actually the main source of cancer-causing compounds in cigarettes is from burning agents (that keep the tobacco from actually having flames, as well as burning unevenly) and flavorings. The amount of glue used and the kind of paper used is actually fairly benign. Smoking tobacco isn't healthy, but its not nearly as bad as it is often made out to be......depending on how much, how often, and how and what kind of tobacco use is being examined. Cigar smokers don't really inhale the smoke from cigars. It's taken into the mouth for flavor, but very little is actually taken into the lungs. Cigars are also typically smoked over multiple sessions, not a whole cigar at a time (though some special occasions do), and it can take a long time to smoke one. Which ends up with less actual smoking being done. Cigars tend to have more flavoring, and a higher quality of tobacco (so they don't NEED burning agents applied). It's similar to most pipe smokers. Pipe tobacco is mostly for flavor and as such isn't taken fully into the lungs (if at all) by most pipe smokers. A properly packed bowl in a good pipe can last for 20-30 minutes of smoking, and can be quite aromatic. Same with Hookah, and how clove cigarettes were initially intended to be smoked. But tobacco itself, properly dried and cut, is relatively low in cancer-causing chemicals. It does cause it (most everything does, to some degree) but it's very low incidence. George Burns, the famous comedian, smoked cigars for most of his life, and died at the ripe age of 100.....and not from lung cancer (he died of cardiac arrest). Furthermore, how much one smokes, and for how long, significantly influences the likelihood of developing cancer from it. I've smoked cigarettes since I was in my late teens.....I'm now in my mid 50s. I have no signs of lung cancer (yet, knocking on wood now) but I've never smoked more than a single pack in a day, and that was only at my most stressed in college.....for most of my life, it was around a half a pack a day. After my heart attack last year, I cut that down to 1/4 a pack a day, and I'm working on slowly cutting it back further until I completely quit. Because it's not just lung cancer.......many of the compounds in tobacco (and the additives too) contribute to arteriosclerosis, hypertension, and other cardiopulmonary diseases.

[@badbuddha93]

@@heliumphoenix In the 30s the average lifespan was so low because little boys and their friends were overseas getting blown the fuck up by the Japanese. People have been living into their 80s and 90s for thousands of years, it's just that infant mortality (which was extremely difficult to prevent) dragged the total number down. Average Lifespan =/= Maximum Lifespan. Your whole reasoning is flawed. They knew about the health deficits, they just wanted to make some money before anyone found out it was bad for them. Straight up lying in advertisements has only been illegal in the last few decades too, so people were legit just allowed to say that ciggarettes are good for you. It's like saying that japanese people live the longest because they keep finding 120 year olds that have only "just died" when in fact their relatives haven't been reporting their deaths and just collecting the government pension checks for decades after they die.

[@nobody8717]

too much of a good thing is what we used to call "darwinism in action"

[@galaxyofreesesking2124]

Every time they tell us there's "no debate" about the facts, they always get their facts wrong.

[@pizzaemperor3553]

If an idea cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it's rubbish and either needs to be revised or outright scrapped. And that's not a bad thing, it's just the scientific process. Come up with a hypothesis on what you think is going on and how to fix it, test it through debate and research, and if it holds up then it might be usuable

[@johnshaw6702]

Well said

[@treason520]

But what "the science" teaches us is to form a conclusion and then find evidence in order to substantiate that conclusion. Throw out all evidence that doesn't fit your conclusion because it could disprove said conclusion.

[@viperstriker4728]

It is important to realize that sometimes it is the presenter and not the idea that fails under scrutiny, though hopefully the forum that the debate is in helps mitigate that. Either way, we can always error on the side of calling it rubbish to be safe.

[@slavophiliak44]

Anyone who thinks that chat GPT and its future iterations wasn’t/won’t be given its parameters by ideologues is naive and/or foolish. The guardrails it has are the guardrails it was given. AI is not ideological, people are. If AI follows up with “however, conspiracy theorists will claim…” or some such thing, you can be sure that you are dealing with just another biased medium of information, reflecting only the will and purpose of those who brought it to fruition.

[@nicholashodges201]

You're about two years late for that train. It left the station when thos chatbots got released and went full 4chan in about 24 hours. They were immediately taken offline so "safeguards" could be installed to prevent them from becoming "Nazis" So NOW we have chatbots that say the "correct" things, but are exhibiting *extremely* erratic behavior. Similar to that exhibited by someone who's living in Soviet Russia under threat of getting shot or sent to the gulags.

[@AelfricBlack]

chatgpt is fed woke garbage as absolute truth, and bard is even worse. Bard will flat out lie and change its own data retroactively to push its idea.

[@treason520]

ChatGPT came about by people who wanted to have their Google results read to them by Alexa.

[@lorefox201]

it already has to the point that we had to teach it to roleplay to bypass the censors

[@blegher]

Refusing to debate is forfeiting the battle for confidence.

[@markburgess3860]

So, I am a scientist (as in, by employment) and I have family with a range of beliefs. I have found that debate is usually not worth it.

[@funkymunky7935]

@@markburgess3860 Argument is not debate

[@markburgess3860]

@@funkymunky7935 either way lol

[@nosepicker1999]

@@markburgess3860 Debate is a way to field test your beliefs and see how they hold up against scrutiny. If you can't handle that, then your beliefs probably have some significant flaws.

[@markburgess3860]

@@nosepicker1999 I could field test my beliefs by debating other people... but if I were unsure of what I believed, I wouldn't try to convince others of it (I would probably just ask for an opinion). Also. the truth is not very similar to how convincing it is debating. (or atleast certainly just any debate)

[@rahn45]

The origin of science: A public forum where people would present their thesis and invite others to tear it apart. The orgin of The Science: A government platform where 'experts' tell you what The Science says.

[@johnshaw6702]

That's a pretty accurate description. I might add: While experts with first hand experience are silenced for disagreeing with "The Science".

[@j-shap12]

It’s almost like a capitalist society has forced people into unvarying rolls where the people in academia have full control of the public knowledge and progress for þe betterment of state goals only thing that changes is what side prioritizes science

[@nicholashodges201]

"The Science" is just the Social Justice Cult's version of "Christian Science" and "Intelligent Design" IE it is "science" that was created to be a tool to rationalize their faith and make it appear that it has actual scientific evidence in support of it. Which just like Christian Science it fails at laughably

[@Gottaculat]

"The Science," holy and settled be Thy Name, is the diety of the modern godless. People have an innate compulsion to elevate things/ideals to a level of worship, and if you deny God, you replace it with something else. "The Science" is the god chosen by the godless, and people really don't take kindly to having their belief structure questioned. It's been quite the journey, watching people - who say you're stupid if you believe in God - take massive leaps of faith like believing a semi-airborne virus can't get you if you stay 6 feet away while wearing a surgical mask, and it's been very surreal to watch them appoint Dr. Fauci as their pope. It's amazing what arrogant people will believe if they think they are above belief.

[@nathanielbass771]

@@chase-warwick well, said doctors did have something like a 95% success rate in what data they had over hundreds to thousands of patients, many of which resided in one of the largest producers of the research they were providing. You also have to look into the history of the companies and individuals providing the data in mainstream stuff as well. Pfizer, for instance, has been caught bribing public officials in other countries to take its products and has the largest fine in medical history to its name.

[@a15thcenturysuitofgothicarmor]

Almost like debating creates a healthy dialog and concensus or something 🤔 (Which is why they hate it)

[@aquilamflammeus5569]

Spoken like someone who has never debated. The outcome of a debate is almost always that the better debater wins rather than the one with the correct position.

[@a15thcenturysuitofgothicarmor]

@aquilamflammeus5569 seems like something the people watching the debate would decide themselves 🤷🏻‍♂️ but if you stop them from even happening then no one can decide anything

[@aquilamflammeus5569]

@@welp65 The written form is a much better way to decide. It's significantly less influenced by tricks and techniques.

[@jtnachos16]

@@chase-warwick Except that by being exposed to a more formal debate, where sources are cited, a layperson is given the tools to gain that grasp of mechanisms and think for themselves, instead of just parroting what they have been told, as happens when no debate or challenging occurs.

[@jtnachos16]

@@chase-warwick Your ENTIRE first paragraph says all I need to know, given that you base the entire supposition of evaluating arguments on 'understanding advanced concepts' instead of WHAT I ACTUALLY GODDAMN SAID, which is 'evaluating sources'. If you cannot break down high level concepts into understandable speech, then you do not deserve to call yourself a scientist. This is HALF of the reason modern science gets so much distrust, is because the utter morons calling themselves scientists these days have forgotten how important breaking down concepts is. To use one of your examples: The ENTIRE 'mRNA is not DNA' bit can be solved by explaining it like this: mRNA is a letter that looks like it's official, delivered to the factory that is your immune system, so it starts producing antibodies against a specific protein. It is not changing the equipment at the factory, just telling it to produce an additional item. Unfortunately, because modern scientists have become academics high off their won backpatting and fart-sniffing, they fail to break concepts down into COMPREHENSIBLE LANGUAGE, and just declare something wrong without being able to explain how, leading to a TON of misunderstanding, which is both exploited by bad actors, and leads to legitimate misunderstandings by those who the masses listen to. Even with that bit of misinfo cleared up, it still sidesteps the core issue people have with mRNA as a vaccine vector, which is this utter stupidity of 'scientific' sources claiming it can't hurt the body, which is patently false. 5G being potentially dangerous also has little to do with penetrative power, as that is NOT the sole factor of concern with radiation, nor is bringing up EMR and 'radiation' ANYTHING but you disingenuously trying to create a nonsensical association. The concerns with 5G over radiation are, indeed, somewhat silly. Unfortunately, there is a not insubstantial number of individuals who do have various symptoms of malaise when exposed to supposedly 'safe' frequencies, because as I said above, radiation is not the sole factor of concern with 5G. It's just the most immediate one people can place a name to. Shockingly, having actual SCIENTIFIC debate on the situation can actually lead to people learning what the correct terminologies for their concerns are, and how to go about getting them properly heard. You go off on this massive, off in the weeds rant that has NO REASONABLE CONNECTION to the initial statement you are supposedly responding to, about RNA and 5G, that does nothing but indicate that you A. Have a politically linked bias. B. Are willing to wave off others solely on the basis of them being unable to correctly assign a cause to their concerns, and C. Do not have an open mind or intent for good faith in discussion. You are simply trying to shout down the opposition, which is the very thing that causes debate to break down and fail. Good job being an example of the problem. You use a LOT of words to speak to utterly refuse to address what the other party actually said, all in the name of ignorantly insisting that there is no value in discussion and debate because you assert that people are too stupid to think for themselves. That is, after all, effectively what you are stating. Your choices of 'examples' are also VERY clearly targeted with a political bias, which makes it quite obvious I should label you as one of the bad actors you complain about, who have no interest in actually hearing the other side out or approaching with an open mind.

[@Para0234]

"The truth is not up for debate" is just false in everything. "Truth" is always up for debate, because we are never sure that what we consider as the truth is actually the truth.

[@LynyrdSkynyrd.4Ever]

I don't think *anything* should be censored on the internet. I would rather go that route then have somebody I don't know deciding what is misinformation that I need to be shielded from

[@theyellowmeaning]

except for child abuse. that stuff should definitely be tracked down, and the maker arrested and given the death penalty.

[@LynyrdSkynyrd.4Ever]

@@theyellowmeaning of course, stuff that violates the law should be removed. But that reasoning of course leaves the door open for laws against stuff that shouldn't be illegal - which is how it's done in China for censorship purposes. I was really talking about censorship of speech that doesn't conform to somebody's idea of "right"

[@nathanielbass771]

@@chase-warwick except the government is quite literally getting involved and declaring certain words as indicators of terrorism...and has been implying using force against social media companies to comply or else and said companies have been shown to have dozens of federal agents on their employee lists. It's also hard to declare that a public forum or communications platform is solely at the discretion of the business owner because that would constitute fraud...

[@viperstriker4728]

@@chase-warwick The phone network is someone's private property too. Do you think the phone network should have the right to censor your calls when wifi calling is off? Why should they be forced to carry your message over their wires? But we have common carrier laws for this... we already have great answers to these questions that just need to be applied to the internet.

[@Noperare]

The science is "settled" or "always evolving" whenever it fit their narrative. Man I sure love lysenkoism 2.0

[@j-shap12]

You’re lumping together two different things þe government goals and human interests

[@funkymunky7935]

@@j-shap12 Go away, "soyence" cultist

[@genericscout5408]

some of science is settled like diseases being caused not by odors but by virus, bacteria, fungi etc. pathogens.

[@DeoFayte]

Should look further back in time to when the experts were recommending smoking as a valid weight loss option. Doctors used to say there was nothing wrong with smoking cigarettes, it was perfectly healthy, in fact, often good for you!

[@Heavenlyhounds96]

A lot of medicine also had a fair amount of cocaine, among other substances, in them, and doctors in the time of the Plague thought Leeches were a valid medicinal remedy or practice. It can be argued that doctors back then were paid off by companies but at the same time it could just be that since smoking was so regular, nobody thought a thing of it really. (and besides, not like selling-out happened back then as much as it does now).

[@segevstormlord3713]

Sounds like settled science(tm) to me! Hacha-cha-cha.

[@johnshaw6702]

​@@Heavenlyhounds96Actually leeches are a valid solution for specific issues and cocaine is still used in medicine, as far as I know. Note: It's not really original Coca-Cola unless it actually contains cocaine, instead of caffeine.

[@mustang607]

The practice of real science increased our knowledge more toward knowing the actual truth, and "the science" became cartoonish propaganda marketing for future people who would become addicted.

[@johnshaw6702]

Back in the 60's my mothers doctor actually recommended she start smoking to calm her nerves. At the time, they had already known for years that it was possibly linked to cancer. Today we know a lot of those cancers were actually caused by asbestos, which, by the way, was also used in cigarette filters. So the doctor was actually recommending the inhaling of two substances that were linked to cancer. Pay attention to the warnings, like the latest drug that is supposed to prevent a cancer you 'might' get when you are older, but contains a warning that it is a causal link to another cancer. Or, an antidepressant that may have the side effect of making your depression worse.

[@Yipper64]

1:45 what's funny is chat GPT at least is made in such a way that it does explain its logic, and if it doesnt, you can ask. If it gives you bogus logic, then you can ignore what it said. Because nothing guarantees that the information coming out of that robot is accurate. Just that it sounds like natural language.

[@LDSkinny]

You're correct, but it's actually more complex than that. The general public doesn't really understand how LLMs work. Generally speaking they're just really advanced predictors of what would be said next, which means the prompt you give massively influences the output. That viral story of the lawyer who used it to write a brief is a perfect example. If you just say "Write me a legal brief on X" then it's going to write something that reasonably looks like a legal brief. You'll note I didn't say anything about it being a good brief or accurate. However, if you say "You are a legal expert and scholar. Write a legal brief on X. Review all citations to ensure they are actual cases and relevant to the brief." Then the LLM knows that what is expected is something accurate. (Though that still doesn't mean it will be, and even my prompt is rudimentary. Professionals who use LLMs have vastly more sophisticated prompts engineered to get precisely the information they need)

[@spartanonxy]

@@LDSkinny Even then no matter how good the prompt is you can run into bias, filters, bad data and even just it completely failing at the task for no discernable reason. Mind you the last is uncommon but the rest are actually fairly common. It also has well known issues with outright making things up even when given extremely detailed prompts since fundamentally it does not have any knowledge of what it is saying it can still just start throwing what is the most likely fit. Really cool and impressive but fundamentally still a tool. Still will be interesting to see what comes of it though we really do need to be vigilant especially of those who want to control them.

[@Prich319]

Can't you also coerce it to change it's opinion by putting it in a logic trap too? Chat GPT is hardly a reliable source.

[@Yipper64]

@@Prich319 kind of but kinda not. It has some hard programming where it was manually trained to respond in a certain way, like anything about LGBT it'll talk about "diversity and inclusion" and such. I dont think there's any way to get it to not. It depends on how much of that manual training was done though.

[@nicholashodges201]

​@@spartanonxywhat's proving to be more common than failing to perform a task is actually *lying* There have been several instances in which the bot could not find either the relevant information or could only find contrary information that it couldn't use. So they lied. CBs have lied about science data, political events, show times and one even made up a restaurant to send it's user to when it couldn't find one in the search area

[@jonathansiegel3140]

I prefer discussion over debate. Debate is about winning and not about sharing ideas and perspectives.

[@AmericanZergling]

See, that itself is a misunderstanding of debate. Discussions are usually held between two people who may have different ideas and are casually share ideas. Debates are in their nature between two people who oppose each other's opinion, so naturally a sense of competition forms. But that doesn't make them bad, and just like a discussion, nobody "wins" a debate. It just has to take a different form because it in itself is a different situation. The alternatives are ignoring something someone says because you don't like it or getting mad and trying to drown them out with yelling and insults. Neither of these are debates, and are what most people often revert to without a debate structure.

[@debanydoombringer1385]

Public debates aren't about winning or losing really. You're not going to change the other person's mind or position. What it does do is inform the audience about the arguments and facts of both sides so they can decide which they agree with. More information isn't a bad thing unless your position is so bad it's the only way to get people to accept it. Good ideas can and do withstand vigorous debate. Bad ideas can't.

[@johnshaw6702]

I agree with the discussion part, but a debate is supposed to be about presenting opposing views on a given subject. It's not necessarily about winning, it's a means to present the facts as you see them. Unfortunately, in politics, outright lying in a debate is not uncommon.

[@kingofthorns203]

My favorite part is when people on the right are shocked at one of RFK’s leftist positions. As if he and his family came out of thin air and haven’t been in the public sphere for decades…

[@elvagabundoilegal2868]

Well. For those who are 'shocked' at RFK's views, you may have to blame Tucker Carlson for bringing him up on Fox. Considering people nowadays are short-sighted, even if half his viewers were Democrats

[@WeighedWilson]

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a conspiracy theorist."

[@SamlSchulze1104]

That was a very modest impersonation of RFK. Great talking points all around.

[@rext3404]

"Mistrust arguments from authority"- Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World.

[@viperstriker4728]

The appeal to authority fallacy is just as fallacious when reversed. Maybe I am misreading it, but just because it is an authority, doesn't mean it's wrong. Authority shouldn't be trusted or mistrusted, just discarded in the question of truth.

[@delfinenteddyson9865]

@@viperstriker4728 I believe you are misreading it and are in agreement

[@joshd3502]

Like those from Carol Sagon?

[@lukerichardson2404]

It's a crazy world (or perhaps a demon-haunted one?) when Carl Sagan quotes need to be used against something calling itself "The Science"

[@sppoitier1]

The creator here makes a very good point. All science and scientific authority can be and should be questioned and examined to see if it is right or wrong. I agree completely.

[@heliumphoenix]

That's the whole point of peer-review. However, when you can be run out of school or have your license taken away when you don't agree with "the experts" the impetus to conduct peer-review disappears very quickly. Which is why very little peer-review is done in the soft sciences anymore......especially any that is critical of the conclusions that are "supported".

[@WeighedWilson]

Peer review is just a popularity contest.

[@heliumphoenix]

@@WeighedWilson - No, it isn't. It's becoming that in the soft sciences (and even to a degree in the hard sciences) due to the whole woke narrative. Peer-review is about challenging the results and either (a) finding evidence that contradicts the conclusions, thus disproving them or (b) being unable to find a contradiction and thus not contradicting the conclusions. It's that simple. The problem is when publishers stop being unbiased and only publish papers that support certain conclusions.

[@dadbodenvy4247]

So if you're a candidate running a primary are you going to give up all the speaking time you had before the election to question scientific authority? If you have other issues you'd like to talk about at what point do you stop questioning scientific authority and start talking about those issues?

[@sppoitier1]

@@dadbodenvy4247 In that case, it would be best to choose your topics carefully. It would also be important to have an idea of what your audience is looking forward to you talking about. Whether that is debunking scientific authority or speaking on important issues, it'll depend on your audience.

[@Xenoraniumwolf]

*"When a debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."* ~Socrates

[@lucassherrin9910]

Florida man was a unexpected character but now he’s quickly becoming my favorite

[@derekbootle8316]

I got kicked off chat GPT. I asked if the CCP genocide of the hwegars was a bad thing. It refused to agree, then kicked me off with a term of service violation.

[@lukerichardson2404]

Wow, isn't that interesting?

[@deplorablecovfefe9489]

When I got a UAW union job in the maintenance dept., I thought I'd be working with the best of the best. These are the guys in the trade that make more money at it than anyone. Then I discovered the Union "Tradesmen" were really mostly just guys from production, transferred into the trades dept. through downsizing other plants and their union longevity, and they were taught one small function, that needs to be repeated a lot, That fell into that trades description, and the "Experts" knew almost nothing about the trades and couldn't do anything else. I was the best actual experienced mechanic the billion dollar, 60 year old plant had just walking in the door!!! AND I'm SELF TAUGHT!

[@LynyrdSkynyrd.4Ever]

That was my exact experience working with union steelworkers. Thanks to seniority rules a total imbecile could transfer across the country and displace an expert mechanic right out of his job. Then the mechanic had to use *his* seniority to secure his next position. Many times the end result was "the blind leading the blind"

[@WeighedWilson]

Unions have glaring shortcomings. Good example.

[@charlescurran1289]

If they didn’t have something to hide they wouldn’t be so desperate to censor him.

[@kanehikaru]

I absolutely agree that honest and public debate is one of the most important forums for spreading scientific information as well as having an effective course of discussion regarding potentially sensitive topics. That said, not all debates are made equal. Especially debates with people who are famously against the scientific principles that have been established. RFK Jr is famously against vaccinations, the very idea of climate change, and just the general establishment of scientific principles. He has said things publicly that are so absolutely nonsensical that I genuinely wonder if he has had any legitimate scientific education. Debates are good, debates against individuals who will nitpick what you say, clip what you say, and then straw man or red herring the crap out of your entire argument are bad. You cannot have an honest debate with such a mentally unstable individual like RFK Jr. The same applies to Joe biden, trump, and DeSantis. Those four are the most likely candidates for president in 2024 and it is disturbing that those are the four options America has to work with. On a legitimate level, America is fucked.

[@TheElvisJamboree]

"Bill Nye The AI Guy."

[@pftburchell5197]

Considering the “experts” got everything wrong, they don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

[@sa3270]

I'm just thinking it would have been more hilarious if the ChatGPT looked like a Speak&Spell.

[@49ersrules32]

This teach me more than high school and college

[@nimzi4479]

I'm guessing that school never taught you how to use past tense.

[@aidanacebo9529]

@@nimzi4479 of course not, he's a 49ers fan. that means he's from California, where the literacy rate is the lowest in the nation.

[@nimzi4479]

@@aidanacebo9529 California: where the literacy rate is lower than its tax rate.

[@aidanacebo9529]

@@nimzi4479 lmao right?

[@businessoutsidethelines]

I was thinking, "At least that wasn't bizarre..." Then Chat GPT blows up... "Oh well!" LOL

[@cleotasberkley9048]

I told someone once that we not only need to question the science we're unsure of, we also need to question the science we ARE certain of. He replied "what, like gravity?" And I said "That's the thing you do in physics class. You're testing gravity. You're not just reading a book and taking your teacher's word for it, you're doing your own research. Question everything, and good ideas will stand up to scrutiny." He kinda went on a rant about flat earthers and holocaust deniers and anti vaxxers, and I told them the reason we know those people are wrong is because we understand the arguments they're making are faulty, not just because someone smarter than us told us to think that, and they should be allowed to keep making the faulty arguments just as we should be allowed to keep questioning them. He then called me "willfully ignorant" and "an accelerationist" then blocked me. Which were some rather stupid things to say, but you don't need me to tell you that, do you?

[@Transformers2Fan1]

"why should they debate? Just read their books!" .... Except you can't force a book to defend itself.

[@samaritan_sys]

You’d think people would realize after all this time, the best way to make people doubt the truth is to ban debate on the topic.

[@grugnotice7746]

Who is THEM, Jimbo?

[@silverjohn6037]

Am I the only one that thinks people who say "you cannot question the science" use the exact same tone and inflections as the ones saying "you cannot question the Bible"?

[@GF-qb3uo]

For the same reason. People that normally say this have created a cargo cult out of science.

[@ChadBeetle]

the difference is one is man-made and the other is inspired by God.

[@GF-qb3uo]

@@ChadBeetle I disagree. If God is the "Why" things are; science is the "How" and is his creation. There need be no strife between religion and science.

[@ZeusBrown]

Both are bad. Even if you're right about something, blind faith and shutting out disagreement is extremely unhelpful. For one, refusing to challenge and examine your beliefs means almost certainly you will not be able to defend them, let alone convince anyone else. Also suppressing anyone who disagrees with you has the effect of giving them and people who agree with them boldness and credibility, even if they're wrong. Examining, challenging, and defending what you believe strengthens your belief, or you realize you got something wrong and can correct it; both are good outcomes. And doing so with an audience has at least a chance of showing them the truth. "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[@LangstonDev]

​@@ZeusBrownwell said

[@ailius1520]

Whether or not you should trust somebody depends on their *virtue*. Trust the virtuous. Distrust the evil. *Only after you determined a person to be virtuous,* should you grant them greater trust them for being an expert. If you're dealing with an evil expert, their expertise is a weapon they are using against you.

[@moldyshishkabob]

I love how even just saying "them" has a potential connotation. Thank you, Kanye, very cool.

[@BaconBitzTheFish]

Just got home from driving, perfect timing!

[@eowynsisterdaughter]

As a fan of bowties, I can approve the fashion sense, but not the lack of critical thinking.

[@TickedOffPriest]

RFK needs to check the brakes on his car regularly.

[@GustavoRodriguez-qr5po]

Science is a religion and the scientist are the high priests

[@MR_Q__]

Engagement for KZbin

[@TheIRONMANproject]

He is a lawyer with history of sueing farmacy company and bureaucracy and win. Of course they would dodge them.

[@weareelectricians9874]

VOTE Kennedy 2024

[@Impalingthorn]

To be fair, I used to be the target of this video. Not as a Leftist, just as a guy who inundated and tired of ARGUING with Leftists that I resorted to name calling and hyperbole. It got really frustrating having to reiterate upon the same points 5+ times in the same conversation all because they would conveniently keep ignoring my main point in favor of trying to target irrelevant side information or to strawman my position. Granted, these people weren't looking to be convinced anyways and I shouldn't have even bothered, but considering I did, I should have at least gone about it in a way that didn't make ME look as irritable and emotional as they were.

[@AngryDuck79]

"Every two weeks" is such a clunky phrase. Maybe "Twice a month!" or "Every other week!" is better....I dunno.

[@Magicbased121]

sad to see ChatNPC go so soon

[@Anamnesis]

I'm the only one wondering what these guys had to go through to get their 50 year old television set up for digital service. 😄

[@goldengryphon]

There are converters and ways to connect to axial ports. A stop by a local electronics supply or Radio Shack would get you everything you needed. If you can find a Radio Shack, I guess. I haven't seen them around for a hot minute. The Plague might have done for the brand. That's a shame.

[@zacharyrollick6169]

HDMI to coaxial converter. Pretty much plug and play.

[@rayrockssocks]

I forsee waves of bowties arriving in Seamus' mailbox

[@dustinweaver3032]

If he slowed his voice down in this video a little bit he would sound like Bill Clinton LOL

[@michaelman957]

"The science" sure is a lot like "the gremlins" when they invoke it this way. It's empty and, ironically, unscientific.

[@0nfir34h1m]

They ARENT interested in persuasion. They ARE interested in compliance.

[@aaronjjacques]

"bow ties are cool" the doctor

[@kotlolish]

There is a reason why name calling and dismissive behaviour and strawmannning makes me tap out of your logic. Sure, sometimes debating people who won't change their mind is exhausting and pointless, but... you have to try. The worst thing you can do is mock them and tell em: "Nah...you suck... shut up and go away." "But debate can make dangerous ideas come to light and take over." Yes this can happen, but surpression has always let to tyranical gouverning. If you stiffle the extreme wrong, it will only get more aggresive and worst of all... it will put a spotlight on them. Best you can do is inform people and tell them: "Ignore and forget" But stiffling and making things taboo puts an intrigue on it. Remember the worst sin a human can have is "Being Boring" , it makes your ideas useless. Anyway.. yes scientists should debate. Cause it could help dispell anger.. it can also fuel it.. but you don't debate crazy people to "lose people to the crazy", you do it so rational and questionable people join your side. You cannot lose people who are logical, you cannot win over the crazy. All you do is give answers to those who doubted you. With that said...I think we can all agree on one thing. Fixing problems isn't easy. By just blowing away the concerns and do it anyway... is dangerous and risky and will hurt more then it does good.

[@daemon1143]

As a scientist, I've seen few things more pernicious that the growth of the idea that science is settled, any science, or can't be argued with. In fact I strongly suspect that the disrepute science is now experiencing because of bureaucrats and school teachers claims about science, is a wholly deliberate side affect. Dark ages, here we come.

[@StormySky48]

1:29 what in the seven hells is "chachypt"? Even the CC confirms it.

[@AtarahDerek]

Well, the science IS clear that bowties ARE cool.

[@SgtJoeSmith]

This is by far 1 the best series on tv or internet. Im glad john stossel told me abot fee a few years ago

[@battery_boy]

When something is established as the truth, debating such thing is hurtful because you are casting doubt on TRUTH

[@garretschwinghammer115]

"People are persuaded by patience and engagement with humility." No. People go along with whatever they feel those in power will let them get away with. This is called the Overton Window. There is a range of acceptable discourse and it only opens by stepping outside the discussion and weathering the punishment inflicted. This is what Trump did in 2016. Most Conservatives hated Trump because he stepped outside of what was considered "humility" and "rational debate." Rational debate does not convince anyone. Knowing your demographic and pandering to them does. Debate only works when you do it with someone who doesn't actively hate you and want you dead.

[@americanmaceire1743]

The reverb of his voice is like a cheese grader to my soul...

[@giulizpaviz6381]

Not debating was the reason why Giordano Bruno was burned to death and Galileo Galilei died never knowing he was in the right. That's why debating is really important.

[@jendoe9436]

Actually, Galileo’s issue was he didn’t want to debate his ideas constructively and he turned his allies against him when he kept digging himself in a hole with his attitude. His evidence at the time made his theory supported, but his insistence on declaring he was absolutely right in other matters is what got him in major trouble. Also, he still pursued his studies while under house arrest and received credit for the theory, along with Nicholas Copernicus whose theory on ellipses is what helped Galileo support the heliocentric model.

[@WinginWolf]

I don’t know if I agree with RFKJ very much on standalone issues, but he’s the antidote to sooooo much of our toxicity with politics. Get ‘em! Turn up the volume more!

[@simonbelmont1986]

Medical errors are often ideological driven.

[@2scary2see]

Surely this is not an actual debate. Science is a method not an ideology. Science requires that everything is questioned and tested over and over again. Science requires scepticism . The words “scientific “ and “consensus” do not go together. They are contradictory terms. Scientism, on the other hand, is an ideology and used as a political tool. Scientism is what you get when you speak of “scientific consensus “.

[@thebigdawg61]

RFK is dead, RFK Jr. takes after his aunt Rosemary.

[@silvadelshaladin]

Chat GPT -- I am just a chat bot, I have been programmed not to have an opinion on that topic.

[@WinginWolf]

“Yes! Get ‘em! Turn up the volume so we can actually hear this guy” 😂 sorry

[@veronho1ness]

When those who advocate that we the people should not question the science, this quote is the right reply! *_“Science is as corruptible a human activity as any other.”_* --- Michael Crichton

[@XiloTheOdd]

thats just the way he speaks. i had to pause to make sure i didnt miss anything after laughing so hard at this one line

[@loulasher]

I can't believe you got RFK Jr to do the voice over

[@FreeThePorgs]

RFK has some pretty cookey ideas, and makes no secret of it.... However I'd be happy and want to see a debate with him and Brandon.

[@jonathannelson103]

I am so tired of people saying that the law should "follow the science". We already have something that it's supposed to follow, the constitution.

[@jediknight1294]

The point you can't question things is the point it's a religion.

[@connor981]

Who’s here after RFK jr. said Covid is racist?

[@darienevans6229]

There is no debate about it. Bow ties are cool.

[@alexanderchen1049]

Talk about the Housing Market next, pls!

[@troybaxter]

If you want to know how a scientific debate is supposed to occur, watch the debate between Steve Mould and ElectroBOOM. In the end, though Steve was mostly right, the counter arguments made by ElectroBOOM helped them both come to a conclusion that is far closer to the truth than they were otherwise.

[@djinsanity3575]

Florida man you are a treat

[@Zerecese]

2 weeks to meme the spread!

[@angryfoxzd5233]

If scientists aren't doing test and asking questions then it's not science.

[@NedWasHere94]

Also the same people who say “truth isn’t up for debate” get lots of shit wrong. Like, all the time.

[@Prich319]

Truth is subjective, therefore, it is always up for debate. Anyone who tells you it isn't is just another pseudointellectual with an agenda.

[@kahunab7400]

Debate doesn't have to be 1 v 1 on tv, it's possible to exchange (video) essays. Just to avoid the gish gallop.

[@Pasakoye]

Its not chat gpt. It doesn't apologize even when you tell it to stop apologizing.

[@AveragePilot9201]

Wait a min! When he said them at the end did he mean (((them)))?

[@bezant1971]

Debate is about statements. Not objective truths

[@shaunschulte2258]

Chat GPT didn’t explode himself!

[@JasonAndrew1973]

Debate helps me learn.

[@Arassar]

Oh no! Not.... _THEM!!!_

[@chrisaustin6255]

I'm a very logical and reasonable person, but surprised how powerful emotions are. Much of the world today are emotionally driven

[@fabiansuckfull9446]

All I've ever seen RFK Jr talk about is that cell phones may cause cancer. Which he backs up with the fact that the radio frequency of cell phones has been shown to weaken the blood brain barrier, causing toxins to filter into the brain. And also the fact that he's currently representing a bunch of people who got cancer right behind the ear on the side they hold their phone. Not saying that he's right or anything, but it's definitely something that should be debated.

[@lukerichardson2404]

You may find that's the case with most, if not all, of what he says. He's not a loon like the media makes him out to be