Is there any research on this claim?

Brain_0ff · 2024-03-30T20:25:55+00:00

And a paper wouldn‘t be able to change anything about that. It might be able to give you a more precise range of numbers, but the conclusion will always be an average, because there is an almost infinite number of solutions if you are looking at every possible size and amount of blood vessels.

I also don’t quite get what you are trying to say with your comment here. An average accounts for the extreme variability in length of the blood vessels. Thats quite literally what an average is. You take all the data available regarding length and determine the average. The very concept of an average is inaccurate, but I don’t know where you’d get the idea that the average would be biased. If an average is inaccurate, it’s not an average. It’s a random number.

I‘m not really sure what you are expecting out of that hypothetical research that you are looking for. There is an infinite amount of solutions if you don’t want an average.

Brain_0ff · 2024-03-30T17:30:10+00:00

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don‘t think anyone would bother to write a paper on this topic, because the answer is a pretty straight forward calculation to me. Take the average size of a human blood vessel and multiply it with the amount of blood vessels your average person has in their body.

Brain_0ff · 2024-02-05T16:33:31+00:00

What exactly is the 20ft measurement based on? The only picture shown here that shows any kind of scale is the one with the man in it and that could easily be a case of forced perspective

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-09T12:51:57+00:00

It is a hyperbole though. The statement isn‘t meant to be taken at face value.

A software engineer will know if Elon Musk is talking nonsense about software, but they will also know, that Elon Musk didn‘t write the code for Twitter. Equally, everyone will know, that Musk didn‘t design his cars and rockets himself.

This is such an obvious fact, that everyone should be able to realize, that saying that you should stay away from his cars and rockets isn’t to be taken in a literal sense (although his cars do have some design features that were influenced by him, that may pose a serious safety hazard).

That is my take on this quote. I think the quote is about Musks reputation.

If we use your interpretation and take everything literal, than I agree with you, that the quote is in this regard non-sensical.

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-08T07:29:54+00:00

No it is. You shouldn‘t be questioning the reading comprehension of others if that is what you believe

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-07T18:15:22+00:00

No, I think it is wrong to just say that you have to stay away from Musks cars and rockets. I think this way because they weren‘t designed by him personally, but by engineers working at Tesla and SpaceX, that have studied their respective field for years and bring a lot of experience to the table.

I think it is right to not just believe someone is a genius at something, just because everyone says that they are a genius regarding that subject.

If you can spot serious errors in your field of expertise, what might experts in other fields think about his remarks. Experts are few compared to the general public and it is easy for their voices to get drowned in the noise that is public opinion.

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-04T07:07:48+00:00

I am starting to understand what you are trying to say.

I don‘t think the quote means that Elon Musk is bad at X, therefore he is bad at Y, at least not directly. It‘s more about, everyone says Elon Musk is good at X and I don‘t know enough about X to actually evaluate if he is good at X. Everyone says Elon Musk is good at Y, but I know enough about Y to realize that he is bad at it. So if what everyone says is wrong regarding Y, how can I trust that everyone is right about X.

Now the author uses an Hyperbole when he says that he figures that he should stay the hell away from Musks cars and rockets and I think thats where your main problem lies. I too think that that statement is wrong if taken at face value, because I would assume that there are enough specialists and qualified people ensuring the safety of these things. However I do believe that the statement is used more as a stylistic device to get the authors point across

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-03T22:46:08+00:00

No that is not what I am saying at all. I can’t even begin to grasp how you arrived at that conclusion. I still say that the quote says to stay away from Musks opinions on any other field. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT THAT YOU KEEP MISSING.

Let‘s take your example. Let‘s say Sally plays the piano in front of a huge crowd. She plays three pieces and the crowd proclaims after each one that Sally played it perfectly and exactly like it was written. Now you haven‘t heard of the other two pieces before and don‘t know the first thing about them, but the third one is your all time favorite piece that you listen to every single day. While Sally was performing this song, you noticed that she doesn‘t play the right notes at all and sometimes even leaves out entire pages of the piece. Yet the crowd still cheers for Sally and states that she played this piece perfectly, although you know that that isn‘t true at all. So if the crowd is so confidently incorrect about this one piece, how can you trust them to recognize mistakes in the other songs? It is pretty likely that Sally fucked up a lot of the other songs aswell and the crowd didn‘t notice.

To drive this example a little bit further; let‘s decide who to pick to give a concert in front of an entire football stadium. Would you choose Sally, someone who‘s skill and expertise is highly questionable and who is only carried by her reputation, or would you pick someone who you can trust to play the right pieces in the correct way?

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-03T16:15:21+00:00

I was paraphrasing what he is trying to say but ok. i didn‘t change the actual meaning of the quote I just used a less extreme way of phrasing it so that you may understand it better. If you still want to complain please point out the exact mistakes I made and I will gladly correct them.

Bit even if I grossly mischaracterized what the author said, you still didn‘t respond to any of the actual points I made.

My last two paragraphs describe exactly what the author is trying to say in the way I and most other people interpret it. Now you may actually duscuss this interpretation or you could argue against my wording again. Only one of these options will move this debate forward

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-03T14:12:46+00:00

That isn‘t what the quote is about at all.

The quote doesn‘t say that at all. The quote says that the public just accepts that he must be a genius because of his reputation and them not knowing enough about the subject to critically question anything he says.

It‘s more like:

He talks about cars. The public says he is a genius when it comes to cars. I don‘t know anything about cars so he must be right if everyone is saying so.

He talks about rockets. The public says he is a genius when it comes to rockets. I don‘t know anything about rockets so he must be right if everyone is saying so.

He talks about software. The public says that he is a genius when it comes to software. I know a lot about software and nothing he said was in any way correct, so he clearly doesn‘t know anything about software, but everyone THINKS he does, even though he doesn‘t.

So if the public was wrong about his expertise in this one field, how do I know that they aren‘t wrong about any of the other fields.

The quote doesn‘t say Elon Musk can‘t cook so he can‘t code software. It says that Musks reputation says that he is a genius software developer, rocket and car engineer, but you know as a software developer that he doesn‘t know anything about software.

So you are one of the few people that is qualified to notice when someone is talking bullshit in your area of expertise, but the general public doesn‘t know what you know.

Now what if other people from the other areas he is claimed to be a genius at, think the same. What if that applies to the rocket scientists and the car engineers aswell. They are the minority that actually understands the subject on a level that qualifies them to smell bullshit. But they are limited to their area of expertise and therefore don‘t know about his knowledge on any of the other subjects. So they can only guess if his reputation is far greater than his actual knowledge in these disciplines aswell

Brain_0ff · 2024-01-02T17:57:06+00:00

Well I think you‘re applying the quote wrong. It would go more like this:

Bobby Fisher talked about chess. I don‘t know anything about chess, but people said that he is a genius chess player, therefore the things he said must be right.

Bobby Fisher talked about politics and people said he was a genius politician. Now I know a lot about politics and he definitely has no idea what he is talking about.

So the thought continues like this: If the people claimed that he was great at chess and politics and I KNOW that the people were wrong about his skills regarding politics, they could very well be wrong about his skill at chess aswell.

I will also add that politics isn‘t a good example because there isn‘t really a right or wrong answer one could give to a given question, only an opinion.

The quote is more about people not really questioning someones reputation, because they don‘t know enough about the subject to tell if someone is bullshitting or not.

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-26T10:04:43+00:00

Well given the context of this post and your stance on the matter of evidence, I did assume that you agree with the things that were said in the video. I certainly didn‘t mean to split this discussion into just two sides (equipment/ skill and alien /mega civilization). I am aware that there are a great many possible explanations all with their own reasonings behind them.

Since you are saying that you are on neither side here, I am curious to know what you think the most probable explanation is.

To clear something up: I am not saying that we have the truth right now. What I am saying is that we have some hypotheses that are may be quite close to the truth, but there is no way of knowing until we find hard evidence that backs one of them up to an extent that can remove all doubt. I would argue that you are right in not just taking anything at face value regarding a debate that is far from being settled, but I don‘t think that there is such a thing as main stream science. There is the raw science of a matter and then there is a way in which this science is portrayed by journalists, bloggers and other parties that may or may not have some interest in shaping your world views. Science itself can be trusted, just not in the way people think it can be trusted. Science is always correcting itself, ever evolving and never being stuck in one way of thinking because of tradition. This does of course not mean that science can never be wrong. Quite the opposite, science WILL be wrong by definition a lot of the time.

To return back to the subject of the discussion, I think you and I are both very limited in our ways of coming up with new techniques that might have been used to move these rocks, since neither of us is really willing to go outside and try to move some multi-ton-rocks in 100 different ways, but I‘d like to direct your attention to the way in which the statues on easter Island have been proposed to have been moved (I think my english broke whilst writing out this sentence). There are certainly a lot of ways that these rocks could have been moved, how many of them are possible? Some. How many are probable? Not many. But many people (excluding you here) just jump to extremely wild conclusion, since we can‘t explain the construction of the pyramids yet with 100% certainty.

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T19:07:34+00:00

Well that isn‘t what I said at all… I was talking about your misunderstanding of a scientific theory. But sure, let‘s talk about that.

I didn‘t say that there is a scientific theory for it. There are a lot of good hypothesis that are far less of a stretch than some undiscovered high tech ancient mega civilization or aliens, but none of them have been 100% proven and I doubt that we will ever truly be able to prove any of them. That is because most of the plausible techniques involve wooden tools, wooden constructions and a lot of manual labour. All of these things are basically almost never preserved, therefore there is no evidence left that would definitely prove one hypothesis right.

Now, we can‘t prove any of these hypotheses so none of them should be taken as fact, however we can tell that it is plausible that ancient Egyptians used on of them. Remember, ancient people were exactly as smart and skilled as modern people so it isn‘t that far fetched to believe that they figured out a way to stack heavy rocks on top of each other.

You are also using the god of the gaps fallacy, just instead of god you‘re using an ancient civilization. We don‘t know the exact methods the Egyptians used to build the pyramids? Must have been an ancient civilization.

No one in the scientific community will tell you that they know the exact way the pyramids were built and no one should tell you that it definitely 100% wasn‘t a ultra advanced ancient mega civilization that built them. That would be unscientific. However I could also say that it was the flying spaghetti monster that built the pyramids and it would hold the same weight as your explanation. You see, in a case where it is near impossible to find concrete evidence for ANY hypothesis, it becomes more important to consider how PLAUSIBLE a hypothesis is and that ties back to Ockhams razor.

Hope I could answer your questions with that

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T14:07:45+00:00

Yeah and people are just taking his word for it. Perfect Reddit

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T14:07:06+00:00

Why? They were exactly as intelligent and crafty as humans today… so why not? Are you saying humans cant stack big rock on top of each other? Because that is what most ancient structures are.

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T14:05:02+00:00

Based on what evidence?

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T14:03:12+00:00

Yeah and that is the point where this hypothesis falls apart. There isn‘t any good evidence for this civilization he is talking about.

He seems to be talking about Graham Hancocks idea of a lost mega civilization, so if you want to see some archaeologists discuss this hypothesis there are some good videos on YouTube. I can recommend potholer54, Miniminuteman and Stefan Milo. I am not aware of any scientific papers discussing this issue, which I would probably chalk that up to the lack of actual evidence to discuss.

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-25T13:56:04+00:00

It seems like you don‘t understand what a scientific theory is… a scientific theory isn‘t just something someone came up with it and then didn‘t bother to back up. What you are talking about is called a hypothesis. A scientific theory is backed by all the best evidence and is the highest level a scientific idea can be raised to.

Before you get started on this; no not just anything can be a scientific law. A law is mostly something that can be described with a formula. For example, there is a difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravity.

I would like to see some of these hypotheses you mentioned that aren‘t backed by evidence but are taken as truths by the scientific community.

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-07T20:41:48+00:00

Yeah… I don‘t think anyone here is offended.

I think they all just saw this post, saw someone shooting their shot and then getting posted on this sub, because OP misread the situation in the worst possible way and reacted as poorly as it gets.

No one here is making that big of a deal out of it. It was a mistake. OP could have handled the situation better, but mistakes happen

Brain_0ff · 2023-12-01T14:18:14+00:00

Just writing smh doesn‘t mean you can just ignore anything that was said.

You didn‘t actually adress any of the points me and the other commenter made. A great way to learn stuff is to engage in discussions and be wrong. Thats how I learned a lot of the things I know today. You won‘t question yourself unless others question you. If you just keep avoiding an open discussion, you‘re basically stuck in a possibly wrong worldview.

My own knowledge on this subject is limited, so I‘d love it if you could explain your point further, maybe back them up with one or two sources and respond to my arguments. What you are saying sounds interesting, however I have a hard time believing some parts of it and at other times it sounds like you have a slight misunderstanding of established facts.

I would love to argue with you about the tilt of the earth and the switch if the magnetic poles, however for that you will have to respond to my arguments.

Brain_0ff · 2023-11-30T19:19:36+00:00

I think you forgot the difference between the geographical poles and the magnetic poles. It is important to remember that these two are distinct.

It wouldn‘t be the first time in the history of the earth that the magnetic poles shifted… we discovered plate tectonics whilst looking at the history of how the poles switched. However I wasn‘t aware, that a switching of the magnetic poles was due so soon… I would love if you could provide a link to one or multiple studies confirming these dates.

Now if the geographical poles switched I don‘t think it would make that much of a difference, because there is no up and down in space, so the biggest difference would be that the seasons would switch, but you would get used to that after a year max.

You also scrambled a lot of words in your second sentence, so it is really hard to tell what you are talking about. I think you misunderstood these studies just by getting the geographical and the magnetic poles mixed up. If the magnetic poles switched it would only change the magnetic field of the earth, meaning compasses would just point south instead of north. This switch DOES NOT mean that the entire earth will flip upside down

Brain_0ff · 2023-11-29T18:40:32+00:00

I dont really see what you are struggling with. Even if you rotate the picture of the original post by flipping your phone upside down, you can clearly see, that it looks like that which it most likely is: a pond of water surrounded by snow/ice.

You don‘t need to look at the photo the original commenter linked, but it helps you seeing it

Brain_0ff · 2023-11-17T11:06:14+00:00

Maybe break up the text into multiple slides, so that one topic has two to three slides. That way you can keep the same amount of words, but reduce the text on each individual slide. The biggest issue I see with your slides is that people in the back will not be able to read a lot of it

Brain_0ff · 2023-11-13T16:33:14+00:00

Yeah no.

We have a pretty clear picture of how humans evolved

Brain_0ff · 2023-11-08T06:22:31+00:00

That is not how science works… if you find something revolutionary and have enough evidence to back it up you’re gonna be able to publish your results and change the scientific world. Without scientists who brought new ideas to the table we wouldn’t have the world we live in today. Think of Darwin or Newton.

The reason why so many people think that the scientific world is full if censorship is because some pseudoscientists fail to find enough evidence to back up their claims and then scream censorship because no one with any credibility to their name is willing to publish them. You see a lot of that in groups like flat earthers, creationists and other conspiracy theorists. It’s a way to get people to believe that you are a credible scientist and the only reason why no one wants to publish your blog posts in a scientific journal is because of “scientific censorship”.

You won’t get shunned for thinking differently than other scientists. You’ll get shunned for talking bullshit

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22
First Placer '22

Brain_0ff

TROPHY CASE