RT @JayMan471: Basically. Decline in sperm counts is based on questionable data
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-08 14:22:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612092272006266880
Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science
-
So to no small degree the ‘mathematical beauty’ problem, ‘mathiness problem’ esp
So to no small degree the ‘mathematical beauty’ problem, ‘mathiness problem’ especially mathematical platonism, by Cantor, Bohr, and Einstein plague physics.
Same is true for Boaz, Freud, Marx, Lewontin, Gould et all, Frankfurt school in NeoMarxism, and Rez Kelsen Dworkin in law.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-08 02:09:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611907872056557570
Reply addressees: @NomadicQuantum @LOLANA @georealpolitik
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611903822561181699
-
Well, you know, “that’s not my job” to say. 😉 But if you ask me to test whether
Well, you know, “that’s not my job” to say. 😉
But if you ask me to test whether a question is moral or immoral I can answer it scientifically whether we like it or not. 😉
The point of thinking in criminality is to ‘increase the sensitivity’ to the ‘soft crimes’ of all of us.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-07 01:56:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611542285648371714
Reply addressees: @Nefertiiti
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611541144873144321
-
Good/Order and Evil/Chaos are correct “enough” but can be framed as relative, cu
Good/Order and Evil/Chaos are correct “enough” but can be framed as relative, cultural, or an opinion.
However the science is clearer, and NOT an OPINION. And the science is what it is. There is a lot of attempted seduction, fraud, theft and hazard in the public dicourse.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-07 01:36:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611537243348545536
Reply addressees: @Nefertiiti
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611535254698995712
-
(Sorry, was in a meeting) If you want to schedule a zoom call with me, you can a
(Sorry, was in a meeting)
If you want to schedule a zoom call with me, you can ask these questions and I’ll help you understand what you’re missing (how science functions and why). I don’t want to type it up in twitter, and if I send you a link you won’t understand without help.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-06 23:01:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611498318189977600
Reply addressees: @blamblamtheman
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611470883490521088
-
So no. It isn’t, and hasn’t been easy to say. Instead, the Newtonian, Copernican
So no. It isn’t, and hasn’t been easy to say.
Instead, the Newtonian, Copernican, Darwinian, economic, and astronomic revolutions caused us to reform our understanding. And the genetic, cognitive, behavioral, and computational revolutions are doing the same – for some of us.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-06 13:32:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611355117638324224
Reply addressees: @shivaunt71 @AnnLesbyPhD
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611352393517760513
-
No. I’ve answered this question before, quite a few times. Hard to do on Twitter
No. I’ve answered this question before, quite a few times. Hard to do on Twitter. (a) quantum causal density, (b) category error, (c) error in prediction (man). BUT (d) evolutionary computation will discover all computable (combinatoric) possibilities. (This is the new insight).
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-06 00:04:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611151762680958976
Reply addressees: @ScottClaremonty
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1611142872086253569
-
The question wasn’t whether they work, it was whether (a) they were sufficiently
The question wasn’t whether they work, it was whether (a) they were sufficiently tested against side effects (b) they were necessary for otherwise fit and healthy people lacking cross-class proximal contact, and (c) and whether the state/private could mandate experimental drug.
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-31 18:52:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609261292308828160
Reply addressees: @NoahCarl90 @hbdchick
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608543944115388416
-
You should think about that a bit. Evolution in general? Or evolution in each or
You should think about that a bit.
Evolution in general?
Or evolution in each organism?
‘Cause evolution has a direction.
It’s just that experimentation is random.
And most experiments fail. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-29 22:21:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608588990244081665
Reply addressees: @Afterthought_01
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608582645738504192
-
Are you saying sexual selection is not natural selection? 😉
Are you saying sexual selection is not natural selection? 😉
Source date (UTC): 2022-12-29 17:21:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608513487994785794
Reply addressees: @Siigh4 @_evilleftist @andrewkimmel @elonmusk
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1608513042416910336