Wish he was on bluesky, would be an easy follow.

Yes, yes I did.

Most apologist: *post loads of one-sided analysis of a topic*

Also most apologists: "how dare atheists post a one-sided analysis of this topic"

Thanks for continuing to not be like most apologists and having a thoughtful response to this.

I doubt Hegseth actually cares. This has gotta be a Trump fragile masculinity move because he thinks "defense" is a weaker concept than "war".

Its not about not wanting to keep kids safe. They generally get that keeping kids safe is a good idea. This is a symptom of their deep mistrust of expert opinion after years of propaganda about the liberal brainwashing at colleges.
In many of these peoples eyes not vaccinating IS keeping them safe.

That's an interesting idea, but 4 of the 5 autistic people in my house are pretty good at math. Might depend on if you get the demand avoidance flavor or not.

It's not clear to me how qualitative to quantitative wouldn't be just as unbridgeable. Structure seems to be definitionally a quantitative concept, so anything capable of forming structure seems like it must be Essentially quantitative.

I thought it was a very well articulated summary of the things I've heard/read you say on the topic, but don't find it particularly compelling. I'm not entirely sure if the quantitative to qualitative chasm is as unbridgeable as you need to make your point. But even if it is,

Kinda depends 60/40 type tendencies doesn't move me much at all. But if it's closer to 80% of relevant experts hold to one view, that could be decent reason to sway ones own view.

Assuming comparable levels of theoretical cost, withhold judgement while awaiting the relevant experts to advance the field to a point of broad consensus on a best theory.

The keyword though is profess. While there certainly are Some apologists interested in outreach, it's very obvious that many are only interested in selling confidence to the flock. Which I don't hold against them so long as they are upfront about it.

As traditional religions have. At which point, why bring in the tribalism of religion? Let's just have more people get on board with modern liberal values, the best science, and be more philosophically literate.

Also, while "best science" is pretty easily arbitrated, "best philosophy" seems like it can't be. The topics most relevant to anything in the vaugely religious family all seem pretty hotly contested. Making the effort either not feasible, or likely to have as many "denominations"...

My software lead calls it vibe coding, and we even have a chat channel now called vibing-with-cline

It's very silly, but apparently I'm also one of the most aggressive adopters on the program despite the fact that I've never been very into the space.

I'd love if you and Lance did some more stuff together. The last conversation I saw between you two felt like it ended just as it was getting to the real juicy stuff.

I've been clanker codung for work a bit the last couple weeks. It's utterly fascinating.