Red wrote:Are you pretending to be this stupid?
I don't understand what is stupid about it. Are you expecting me to watch a 17-minutes-long video in a foreign language without subtitles because maybe there are some convincing arguments about how effective activism is hard science? If there are some arguments that are convincing to you there, share them.
Red wrote:Your favourite logical fallacy.
I don't think that's personal incredulity fallacy. Personal incredulity fallacy is "I don't understand it, therefore it's unlikely, even though I am not an expert in the field.". I do have some expertise in computer science, I am studying it at the university. So, saying I don't understand something related to it and therefore consider it unlikely is not personal incredulity fallacy. It's like
@brimstoneSalad makes the difference between fallacious appeal to authority and an appeal to a qualified authority.
Red wrote:Doesn't matter, they were still discussing something that's even less mainstream than veganism.
I don't understand what you mean. It's veganism itself that's become politicized and associated with far left (or, in some countries, far right), and that's why people hate discussion about it.
Red wrote:Intersectionality is different from whatever you're referring to.
So, what is intersectionality? I thought it was basically taking stance on as many social issues as possible.
Red wrote: I know that's difficult for someone as crazy and biased as you, but it's possible for many people.
OK, how do you know you are one of those people who can follow science?
Red wrote:Almost anyone is.
Almost everyone can't make a YouTube video in Latin. And almost everyone can't make a compiler. You seriously think most people have made something more impressive than those things?
Red wrote:I'm just reminded of this whenever you use the term
OK, what does "soft science" mean to you? Also,
@brimstoneSalad, do you agree with me that claims that farmed animals aren't an efficient way to feed the growing population of humans are soft science claims (not that they are probably not true)? Claims that factory farming leads to antibiotic resistance is a hard science claim, it takes only a basic understanding of evolutionary biology to be understood, and people who deny that sound rather silly. But the science of how meat is contributing to global poverty appears to be hard to prove. How do you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most of the beef today doesn't come from grass-fed cows?
Red wrote:It's a matter of COUNTING, dumbass.
Incompetent people can easily screw up counting, just like they can screw up measurements.
Red wrote:You don't need a scientific evaluation for this.
I keep getting error 462 when I try to visit that web-page. Can you copy the relevant parts of it here, please?
Red wrote:I was going to bring that up too, but either grass fed or grain fed, both are terrible for the environment.
Probably. But the claim that grain fed cows are terrible for the environment due to antibiotic resistance is a hard science claim. Claims that grass-fed cows destroy the environment are soft science claims.
Red wrote:Are they right in believing that?
Well, I think that they are. That the dangers of climate change have been vastly exaggerated.
Red wrote:Not everyone has heard of Allan Savory's arguments, you know.
So? You are trying to also reach misinformed people, rather than just the ignorant ones, right?
Red wrote:If I were to guess, it may have to do with work ethic and also showing passion for the field.
I mean, why do you believe that employers value those things? Those things are incredibly hard to investigate. Like Bryan Caplan says, most studies that try to establish how much higher education is worth are fundamentally flawed: people who finish the university are the people who did better at high-school, and what those studies show is that there is a correlation between being good at high-school and earning more in real life, rather than that there is some value in the diploma or in the things taught at the university.
Red wrote:Several organizations have already done so.
Why trust them?
Red wrote:There are plenty of courses online for free for learning the basics of some languages.
Well, most of the useful things I've learned about programming, I've learned from those online courses. But that's still not enough to earn some money.
Red wrote:Higher level stuff in STEM benefits from having an expert available to help correct errors.
Are you joking? Two of my professors teaching programming (no less) explicitly told me they wouldn't know how to build a compiler at all, yet alone better than me. Computer Science professors are people good at publishing papers about programming, not necessarily good at programming.