Interestingly, the Mandelbrot and Julia sets are related to chaos theory, which is very distinct from quantum mechanics. Chaos is a deterministic process which is "simply" dependent on changes to initial conditions. Quantum mechanics is instead probabilistic.

The 'scientific consensus' was and is wrong, people have been medicated with ineffective and dangerous drugs while effective treatment eg ketamine isn't being widely used for treatment. This didn't happen by accident.

I can't believe I have to point this out: what do you think professional means here? Researchers, therapists or both, what is the difference? In what world can the therapist force a patient off of a demonstrably effective antidepressant (despite the patients wishes!!!) when such comprehensive metastudy was lacking? General public view does not coincide with scientific consensus/discussion either, so again, what part of this is telling you it's a sham?

Then add in the Mandelbrot and Julia sets.

Yes I can read, can you?

> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].

They are useful for identifying the limits of instances of human consciousness, at least. With an adequate sample size, it can also be used to develop an algorithm for how the human mind will behave when it is put into certain situations, what forms of rhetoric and memes it will grasp for when it finds the ground it was standing on no longer (or doesn't actually) exists, etc.

>Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.

The purity standard is what was stated on the label: 100%.

>a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.

Is it measured in any units? And if it is not being measured, does that not leave only the imagination (in this particular scenario)?

>b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.

Ignoring something is always an option, but it doesn't cause it to go away. It can certainly make it seem like it has gone away though, and you know what they say: Perception is Reality.

Do you even understand what the article is saying? This has nothing to do with "whole medical industries are based on fictions" or the efficacy of antidepressants.

>therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology

Yes they do, that's the point - whole medical industries are based on fictions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

Elaborate

No, peer review =/= metastudy =/= drug approval. These are different processes with different functions and responsibilities. Not to mention therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology without informing their patients that they are taking part in a study or questionable method that has X% success rate with possible complications.

I thought peer review was supposed to weed out the nonsense, not a meta study decades after the subject causes a massive wave of fatalities?

Yikes... I'd rather recommend Sabine Hossenfelder's youtube videos (she also has a book!) even though she doesn't care much for explicit philosophy than talk about this blogpost.

Schrodinger's cat was a literal attempt to mock quantum physics. Germ theory was similarly ridiculed even despite 40 years amazing data. Ignaz Semmelweis dropped his mortality rate for mother's and children during childbirth by 90% by simply washing his hands, nobody listened to him for DECADES. The list goes on and on. This why Max Planck said, "Science moves at the rate of it's obituaries."

This ideological territorialism. This is a corruption of impartiality and you can't escape it more than science can escape being done by people.

> the speed of light (around 300 million metres per second)

Good article.

We're talking about whether or not the only way innovation happens is through capitalism and markets. How can our IP system incentivize more innovation if the people who receive the largest incentivization aren't the ones actually doing the science? This relationship between capital and labor is fundamentally parasitic.

In this episode (https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/abusing-dolores) Sam Harris argues (as he has many times before) to Paul Bloom that moral blame is irrational in that it is impossible to blame someone once the truth of determinism is understood and hence it is understood that they couldn't have done otherwise.

Can this argument be correct if we're interpreting blame to be an emotion?

Though we have some control over our emotions in the long term we really don't choose them in the short term and generally speaking even when we do choose them that choice is not typically done within a hyper-rational framework although perhaps in principle it could be. To the extent that emoting in a particular way is viewed as an agential behavior it should be possible to at least intentionally calibrate our emotional responses in a rational way.

However I don't think that Sam is arguing that the practice of blame in general is going to have greater costs than benefits. His argument hinges on the premise that moral blame is predicated on the idea that the transgressor possesses libertarian agency (not sure if this is a term but I mean the type of agency which an agent which had libertarian free will would have). Therefore he is saying moral blame is irrational in the sense that it is a consequence of an irrational belief (the belief in libertarian free will). This strikes me as very odd that something which human beings seem to do innately could be predicated on something which in his view (and mine as well) is not even a coherent concept. When I think about blame from a first person firsthand perspective it also doesn't seem to be predicated on libertarian agency.

I suppose it's possible that all he really means is that if one really understood and accepted that a particular transgressor couldn't have done otherwise in the most general sense then it would simply be impossible to blame them. If we view this as a phenomenological claim then it seems at least plausible to me except that I think perhaps there are two types of moral blame which can be differentiated by their function. The function of the first type is to facilitate some sort of behavior modification algorithm in order to correct the behavior of the blamed. The function of the second type is to simply identify the transgressor as an enemy of the social group to facilitate the removal of the transgressor. The second type of blame seems possible even without any conception of agency at all. In fact it is possible (although generally considered wrong in our society) to blame someone specifically because of their immutable characteristics.

I'm definitely not naive on that topic

Respectfully, this isn't about pharma research or corporate-academic misconduct, that's just the backdrop for the real discussion. The real issue being described can best be summed up as (IMO):

Why is plagiarism bad?

If your answer is epistemological, great work, you "get" it (and, sadly, most likely didn't attend public school in the US). It matters how we know X so we can challenge the underlying assumptions when appropriate.

If your answer involves getting or stealing "credit", though - That's the heart of what this essay is condemning. Why should anyone feel a sense of ownership over "the truth"? And why should their reputation be harmed if they perform an honest experiment whose findings are later refuted? Yet, you don't need to look hard to find countless rants about positive result bias in scientific research; everyone knows it's a serious problem, but everyone also needs to eat, while operating under a system that only rewards successes.

a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.

b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

No, my man... meta studies are just doing their job in that case and are weeding out the nonsense from the good research.

That's not really a counter argument. If an inventor doesn't want to also be a business man selling, licensing, etc. their product, and they sell their patents to middlemen (who are responsible for the mentioned activities) for x% pay cut or front up payment instead of long term income, they still benefit from existence of patents. They wouldn't have anything to sell to the middlemen without it.

The part where patents are sold and change ownership after they're issued is irrelevant to the issue of inventors having ownership of their invention through patent.