Joe Rogan quits YouTube for Spotify.

[lambrini]

❤

[EddieCheddar]

I see Neil Wrung kicked up a fuss about Rogan and Spotify called dear old Neil’s bluff

[rorymac]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

[lambrini]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Yeah, I agree, Rory. I listened to the podcast in bouts and finally finished it last night. Lots of "yes" followed by "no" and "yes" again. He isn't the same man he was a few years ago. Sad.
The essay app is a good idea, though.

[lambrini]

I see Neil Wrung kicked up a fuss about Rogan and Spotify called dear old Neil’s bluff

Publicity, my dude. Old man, look at my Spotify.

[Vespa]

I see Neil Wrung kicked up a fuss about Rogan and Spotify called dear old Neil’s bluff

Publicity, my dude. Old man, look at my Spotify.

I'm sure he's suffering sitting that quarter of a billion dollars he's made singing.

[Vespa]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Yeah, I agree, Rory. I listened to the podcast in bouts and finally finished it last night. Lots of "yes" followed by "no" and "yes" again. He isn't the same man he was a few years ago. Sad.
The essay app is a good idea, though.

'Once the 'I won't call you by your pronoun' grift run out of steam his role as insecure men on the Internet's stepdad ended he was clearly on the decline. Never understood the appeal of him.

[Sadact7]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Yeah, I agree, Rory. I listened to the podcast in bouts and finally finished it last night. Lots of "yes" followed by "no" and "yes" again. He isn't the same man he was a few years ago. Sad.
The essay app is a good idea, though.

'Once the 'I won't call you by your pronoun' grift run out of steam his role as insecure men on the Internet's stepdad ended he was clearly on the decline. Never understood the appeal of him.

He’s right on a few things imo. But they are generally conclusions which anybody applying the law of common sense would also arrive at. But because he says them on public platforms where they wouldn’t often be said, it makes him seem like a crusader and some sort of sage.

Therefore a lot of the other shit he says is swallowed wholesale by those who deify him.

[Vespa]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Yeah, I agree, Rory. I listened to the podcast in bouts and finally finished it last night. Lots of "yes" followed by "no" and "yes" again. He isn't the same man he was a few years ago. Sad.
The essay app is a good idea, though.

'Once the 'I won't call you by your pronoun' grift run out of steam his role as insecure men on the Internet's stepdad ended he was clearly on the decline. Never understood the appeal of him.

He’s right on a few things imo. But they are generally conclusions which anybody applying the law of common sense would also arrive at. But because he says them on public platforms where they wouldn’t often be said, it makes him seem like a crusader and some sort of sage.

Therefore a lot of the other shit he says is swallowed wholesale by those who deify him.

I watch him talk about climate-changing modelling once it was comical. His basic thesis is it can't be right because the science doesn't exist to model the entire climate - pretty much overthrowing the scientific method. It was also laughable in the context that he's a psychologist and using his new standard psychology must be nonsense because a unified model of mind doesn't exist.

[lambrini]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Yeah, I agree, Rory. I listened to the podcast in bouts and finally finished it last night. Lots of "yes" followed by "no" and "yes" again. He isn't the same man he was a few years ago. Sad.
The essay app is a good idea, though.

'Once the 'I won't call you by your pronoun' grift run out of steam his role as insecure men on the Internet's stepdad ended he was clearly on the decline. Never understood the appeal of him.

He’s right on a few things imo. But they are generally conclusions which anybody applying the law of common sense would also arrive at. But because he says them on public platforms where they wouldn’t often be said, it makes him seem like a crusader and some sort of sage.

Therefore a lot of the other shit he says is swallowed wholesale by those who deify him.

Jordan's university and public lectures on history, religion, the human condition and culture are some of the most intelligent and profound academic work of the 21st century (see below).

I'm not keen on the rise of the Jordan Peterson brand, though. His unqualified daughter spoke about nutrition at one of the world's leading universities. Can't stand her.

[Vespa]

Jordan's university and public lectures on history, religion, the human condition and culture are some of the most intelligent and profound academic work of the 21st century (see below).

Lol ... I think the likes of Penrose, Aspect, Hawking, Berners-Lee, Geller, Higgs and Wittan would have something to say about that. Even in his own field, he's hardly the new Jean Piaget.

[JimmyDee]

I watched him talk about climate-changing modelling once it; was comical. His basic thesis is it can't be right because the science doesn't exist to model the entire climate - pretty much overthrowing the scientific method.

I can't comment on the talk to which you refer, not having seen it <link?>, but he's correct in his assertion that all mathematical models are imperfect.
If climate-change models WERE perfect then we can close down ALL the Climate Research Institutes, on the basis that we know everything about the climate

Any half-decent scientist is happy to argue about new science ... that IS the scientific method. To put it crudely "Oh yeah, says who?", and then you argue your case. That's how science works. You don't just take their word for it.

The problem is that all the science you learned at school was about things where the argument had been settled decades or centuries before, and you think that "argument" is unscientific. Follow "The Science", they say, as if it were Tablets from Moses.

Physicists, in particular, are only too willing to throw away everything they have always believed, if experiment agrees with the predictions made by the new theory.
Anyway, whatever.

[Vespa]

I watched him talk about climate-changing modelling once it; was comical. His basic thesis is it can't be right because the science doesn't exist to model the entire climate - pretty much overthrowing the scientific method.

I can't comment on the talk to which you refer, not having seen it <link?>, but he's correct in his assertion that all mathematical models are imperfect.
If climate-change models WERE perfect then we can close down ALL the Climate Research Institutes, on the basis that we know everything about the climate

Any half-decent scientist is happy to argue about new science ... that IS the scientific method. To put it crudely "Oh yeah, says who?", and then you argue your case. That's how science works. You don't just take their word for it.

The problem is that all the science you learned at school was about things where the argument had been settled decades or centuries before, and you think that "argument" is unscientific. Follow "The Science", they say, as if it were Tablets from Moses.

Physicists, in particular, are only too willing to throw away everything they have always believed, if experiment agrees with the predictions made by the new theory.
Anyway, whatever.

People generally misunderstand the scientific method, as you have here, that's not a dig at you it is very common if you've never been subjected to it.

When you're taught formal science you do a lot of experimentation to demonstrate evidence to support a theory. So to support the theory that mass attracts mass undergrads will do the famous Cavendish experiment that established the gravitation consent; at the time it was considered as evidence that mass attracts mass. What never happens is an educator says these are unquestionable facts; that's why they are called theories.

Feynman is probably the great scientific communicator ever explains it beautifully here



The method produces evidence to support a theory, it never says that it's established fact just the most likely explanation based on the existing evidence. Theories are brutally culled within day to day research.

The most well-known example of this would be gravity. The Newtonian model was widely corroborated by the evidence until General Realvativey came along with a model that is supported by more evidence. But even though GP is one of the most broadly corroborated theories today it'll still eventually going to be overturned because evidence shows it doesn't in some circumstances confirm with reality.

The problem I have with Peterson saying because climate modelling is incomplete it shouldn't be taken seriously is because NO model of ANYTHING is complete because that's how science works and Peterson knows how it works and is throwing out to make an invalid point.

As he knows if someone doesn't agree that climate change is anthropogenic they must provide an alternative with supporting experimental evidence. So if I said it was caused by squirrels and measured squirrels generating greenhouse emissions at a rate that would explain the curve that started in the 1800s I'd have the beginnings of a valid argument. . At the moment none of the alternative propositions come anyone close to the mountain of evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Peterson is just using the toolbag of science deniers which is disappointing as his entire grift is he's a published scientist.

[kevin04]

❤

I watched this and found it uncomfortable. Seems to be gone a bit hatstand but wouldn't say what medication he's on. I recommend narcotics anonymous and prayer for humility. Hopefully someone will tell him rorymac from talkforum said that

Try to take JP at face value, especially with the crazy hyperbole around him.

I think a lot of what Peterson has said is good, a lot of what he says is absolute nonsense, and don't have a particularly strong opinion on him either way. I usually listen to him if he goes on JRE, but even in his more lucid, pomp, pre-benzo, Russian coma etc, I always found him a bit of a whirlwind and hard to follow.

I'm sure my IQ is less than three digits, but this appearance was an absolute ramble. The first 30 mins is just rubbish, "there is no such thing as climate", and he would jump from straw man to long words back to an original point you had forgotten he was trying to make. I cringed as well at the sociopathic businessmen like Trump, and Peterson refusing to see many as that. He wasn't even suggesting every one, just many were.

And, what was the tuxedo for? Joe didn't even ask why he was wearing one! Dress to impress, but lets not kid on that wear a tuxedo on a podcast is still a strange occurrence so I'm mystified why it wasn't brought up!

[JimmyDee]

People generally misunderstand the scientific method, as you have here, that's not a dig at you it is very common if you've never been subjected to it.

Not sure what I misunderstood.
Observation ... theory ... experiment ... argument.
If everyone agrees that the experimental results weren't due to an error in the method and other people have got the same results then the new theory must be a better model than the old theory. The best experimenters design them such that they will give different results depending on whether the old or new theories are correct.*
There's a wonderful book about Cold Fusion, "Too Hot To Handle", by Frank Close, explaining exactly how proper science works.

(*)Sometimes, of course, the theory comes after the experiment. Some of the big breakthroughs have come by someone saying "Hmm, that's odd". The photoelectric effect, for example. Brownian motion for another.

ETA ... Brownian motion is a crap example. Forget I said that.