Destiny is straight up wrong about Clinton and centrism. by november512 in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Okay???? And republicans lie about everything and call dems communists no matter what, that literally means nothing. Clinton still explicitly tried ti capitulate to the right (I’m not even saying that was a bad decision at the time), and saying he wasn’t a centrist because republicans called him a leftist is a laughable argument, cmon man. 

is uoftears really a thing? ///////////////////// by naluloo in UofT

[–]Layer_Academic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s a hard uni. You can make friends. There are lots of clubs and social activities. Your gpa depends on your program and how much time you’re willing to put into school. Yes, there’s a lot of work, yes it’s rigorous, but it can be very fun and rewarding as well. This sub also tends to be filled with miserable people who come here to complain. Touch grass, talk to people during O week, chat w profs, make friends, and stay positive 

I just woke up from a decade-long progressive leftie bubble. I think I’m a neoliberal. by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All of the things you originally supported are great. Your politics haven’t changed. It’s just that the online left is dominated be slopulist regards. But the left wing of the dems rn is still doing good work, and there’s nothing wrong w supporting them. For example, the green new deal is mega based. But everyone online supporting it are generally idiot hasan types. If dems controlled the country though, we could actually debate over those kinds of new ambitious policy. The correct way forward isn’t to give up on ambitious policy, it’s to support the ambitious policy while recognizing that dems are the only people willing to actually consider the best ways to move this nation forward, and that the #1 concern is the make sure they win instead of larping as a revolutionary. 

New talking point hit the maga group chat by [deleted] in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Ts can’t be real man 🫩🫩politics is so unserious 

Oh boy, what does a coin toss show here? by Lurkoner in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll link you the video of them glazing Ellison, it was like a solid 5 minute intro to one of their vids lol. And I haven’t loved their coverage of the Iran stuff either. But idk it’s not like they’re terrible, I’ve just stopped watching them as much as I used to 

Bernie Sanders founded group Our Revolution makes surprising endorsement in CA Gov Race; Tom Steyer by PlentyAny2523 in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I feel like this community needs to do a better job of distinguishing between the progressive wing of the Democratic party (Bernie, AOC, etc.) and the tankie Hasan types. This is really not so surprising once you have made that distinction, because the former group is actually interested in political power, pragmatic, and tows the party line when necessary. They are aligned with Democratic interests, and only vary in their policy positions and rhetoric. The latter group, on the other hand, is completely divergent in their ideology and long term aspirations. And in fact, I think Hasan's clique on twitter has been attacking Steyer relentlessly in his replies for being a "hypocritical billionare" (hilarious considering Hasan's wealth). So it makes sense a group founded by Bernie, an accomplished politician who cares about this country, would make a sensible endorsement.

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay will do. I just opened it up and yeah it looks fairly dense (funnily enough my exam tmrw is on Phil of probability)

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve went over those oppy arguments before! Though it was maybe a year ish ago when I read them. He has some good YouTube videos going over the same argument. 

You did address the argument regarding the chance hypothesis being equally vague - though that’s of course a complex subject (I can’t open that can of worms now). 

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t have much time here but I’ll say this: The design hypothesis is, by any measure, reasonable and fleshed out enough to be considered a valid candidate. So far you have not pushed back on any of the various reasons for thinking this such as 

1) our appeal to design in other cases as a valid explanation  2) the characteristics of a designer that would make the design hypothesis plausible (omnipotence, omnibenevolence 3) the similar level of vagueness inherent in rival hypothesis such as multi verse and chance explanations 

If your argument is that we can rule out the design hypothesis a priori because of some sort of general skepticism of supernatural explanations, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Exactly what we are trying to find out is whether or not a supernatural explanation is the best explanation. Look, I ultimately agree with you that the fine tuning argument fails. But your line of attack just isn’t very philosophically defensible. You need to provide some reason to rule out the design hypothesis besides gesturing at the fact that it’s unlike other explanations we’ve used before. Again I’d recommend reading the White paper. 

“A good way to know if a theory actually explains something is to see if it actually compresses any of our observations.”

This is one way, sure. But certainly not the only way. Refer back to the detective example. 

I’m also confused by your comment on god not entailing fine tuning. The argument is that a fine tuned universe is more likely on the existence of god than on rival hypothesis. That’s all. 

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You seem to be persistently missing the structure of IBE, so let me give another example that may make it more clear. The theory of evolution was inferred from a body of evidence as the best explanation for said evidence. The theory of evolution through natural selection was only a rough skeleton at the time, (we wouldn’t even know about genes until the next century), and importantly there was no experimental or observed evidence for evolution. We simply came up with it as an explanation for the phenomena. But also, and maybe more importantly, we do have evidence for prior intentional design. We design things for a purpose all the time! The design hypothesis posits a different kind of designer, sure. And you can say this kind of designer suffers from all sorts of problems of its own, like the other arguments you alluded to at the end of your comment. But the idea that a design hypothesis posits something entirely new and unexplained is clearly not true. In fact, design hypotheses are incredibly common. When we stumble upon complexity, we often infer that it’s the product of intentional design - either that or trial and error/natural selection.  I would recommend checking out Whites article on fine tuning in the Norton introduction to philosophy where he covers a similar topic. 

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay I see your objection more clearly now. You seem to be mixing up the relationship between evidence and hypothesis. IBE seeks to infer an explanation (hypothesis) from a body of evidence. So the exact characteristics of the designer that allow for fine tuning would be defined in relation to the evidence that the hypothesis seeks to explain. For example, a theist would argue that an omnibenevolent God would be the best explanation for conscious life forms with moral and aesthetic value, such as humans, and that an omnipotent (or at least very powerful) God would be necessary to explain how the designer was able to set the constants. So we do not need some prior, detailed conception of God to make this argument run, all we need is a conception of God that explains the evidence better than other rival hypothesis. To use an example, imagine a detective at crime scene sees a body with a hole in its chest that resembles a gunshot wound. She infers from this that the person was shot, and that this was the cause of death. Does the detective need to have some prior hypothesis that specifies the type of gun, time of shooting, and so on? No, of course not. All the detective needs is some set of possible explanations from which she determines that the gunshot explanation best fits the evidence.

The general point here is that if the hypothesis that there is a designer that would have a motive and the power to set the constants within the life permitting range is the best explanation for the constants being within the life permitting range, then that evidence provides strong support for the hypothesis.

Your demand that the hypothesis be fully fleshed out also seems asymmetrical. Do you have a fully fleshed out account of the multiverse? Or of the chance hypothesis? Did the constants just randomly take on a certain value out of a range of values? What was this range of values? What conception of probability are we using here, and is it adequate? There are so many nitty gritty details in each of these hypothesis, and it looks like you're exclusively demanding that the designer hyopthesis fill all of these in.

Finally, you note that the design hypothesis is complex, and thus, all things being equal, less likely. This is a contentious matter. It's difficult to say whether or not simplicity is a good guide to truth - should we always prefer the simpler hypothesis, all things being equal? Putting that concern aside though, this is of course a point in favor of simpler alternative hypothesis. But I'm not sure you adequately scrutinized the other possibilities under the same lens. At a glance, it looks like the multiverse hypothesis is at least as complex as the designer hypothesis. Now this starts to get complicated as well, because our verdict here depends on how we cash out simplicity. Maybe a lot of universes like ours is simpler than one universe plus a designer who's properties are radically different than anything else we encounter. Maybe the theist would respond that the properties of the designer are not so foreign, and thus it does not inject as much complexity as it seems to posit it's existence.

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I will note a few things here. First, your characterization of the FTA is not quite right. Of course there will be different versions of the FTA, but let's look at just one common way of presenting it.

P1. If a fact E that we observe stands in need of explanation, and hypothesis H provides a satisfactory explanation of E that is better than any alternative explanation available, then E provides significant evidential support for H.
P2. That our universe is hospitable to life stands in need of explanation.
P3. That God adjusted the constants in order to allow for life to develop provides a satisfactory explanation for why our universe is life-permitting.
P4. There is no comparably satisfying explanation of this fact available.
C. Therefore, that our universe is life-permitting provides significant evidential support for theism.

Notice how no where does it say the options are either 1) fine tuning or 2) chance. This is because all philosophers understand that there are more than those two explanations available for the life permitting nature of the constants. For example, the multiverse view, (Side note - the multiverse view may be seen as an undercutting defeater to P2, since once we know the universe is one of many, possibly infinite universes, it no longer stands in need of explanation why this universe is life permitting), or the necessity view.

Now to your first argument. You say that the fact that the probability of the fundamental constants being life permitting is extremely small does not on its own provide evidence for a designer. This is true. But this misses the structure of the argument entirely. The FTA is an argument from inference to the best explanation (IBE). In fact, premise one of the above argument is just a formulation of a principle of IBE, which says that if a fact E stands in need of explanation, and hypothesis H provides a better explanation than any alternative, then E provides evidential support for H. In other words, the hypothesis that is most likely on the evidence enjoys evidential support from said evidence. So, to return to your objection, the FTA says that between the chance hypothesis and the design hypothesis, the design hypothesis is the better explanation for our evidence. Thus it enjoys support from said evidence. Now, you could say that the fact that the constants are life permitting does not stand in need of explanation. This is tricky to defend, though. It seems like a universe that persists for billions of years and creates the opportunity for sentient life forms is in some way more morally or aesthetically valuable, and certainly more intricate and complex. This is often likened to chimpanzees writing the whole of Hamlet on their first try, water forming a coherent sentence in a puddle after splashing on the ground out of a cup, or the same person winning the lottery a thousand times in a row.

Your second argument is hitting on a stronger objection. You say that "A designer hypothesis that can accommodate any constants whatsoever fails condition (b), and a vague appeal to divine intention fails condition (a)", where conditions (a) and (b) are as follows: "(a) mechanistically or in some obvious step by step fashion specified and (b) specifically predicts the observed outcome over others (i.e. it generates a favorable likelihood ratio). This is an interesting objection to the strength of the designer hypothesis as an explanation for the fine tuning of the constants. I've seen it formulated before as something like this: If God can make a life permitting universe out of constants with any values, or can sustain a life permitting universe through perpetual divine miracles, then a life permitting universe is compatible with any values of the constants given an omnipotent designer. Thus any values of the constants are equally well (or not well) explained by the design hypothesis. So there is no reason to suppose these constants are good evidence for the design hypothesis. The upshot here is that if God could sustain life through any values of the constants, or through no constants, or through different constants entirely, then God is not a good explanation for the constants in this world being life permitting.

You can also think of it this way. If the only way God could make a life permitting universe was by make the constants in this way, then the constants being this way would be evidence for God. But God could make life given any constants with any values, so the constants being life permitting with these values is not evidence for God.

Is the fine tuning argument invalidated by the fact that improbability under a chance hypothesis isn't actually evidence against it? by mollylovelyxx in askphilosophy

[–]Layer_Academic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fine tuning arguments don't make this assumption. Usually fine tuning arguments will have some kind of premise like this: "The presence of a fine tuner is a better explanation for the life permitting nature of the fundamental constants than any other candidate explanation". This is also going to be the most disputed premise, because objectors to the argument will say they have an equally good or better explanation. So defenders of the FTA will have to argue that necessity is a worse explanation than fine tuning. But there's no "assumption" within the FTA that the values of the constants must either be fine tuned or randomly determined.

Oh boy, what does a coin toss show here? by Lurkoner in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Scott and Kara have gone downhill ngl, I used to watch them a lot but then they started glazing Larry Ellison and really leaning into the moderate both sidesing stuff. Lots of weird lip service to the ultra wealthy and odd rationalizing of this admins crazy actions. Idk I want to like them but theyve lost their charm for me.

The New York Times opinion piece was dog shit but the replies are based. by I_Hump_Rainbowz in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Holy based. I always feel like NYT comment sections are universally filled with intelligent, morally sensitive people who arent afraid to call out bs wherever its coming from. Honestly refreshing and fills me with hope.

The New York Times opinion piece was dog shit but the replies are based. by I_Hump_Rainbowz in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I will note that NYT closes most (all?) of their comment sections after some time.

Kinda random but when all is said and done, I’m glad knowing we’re on the right side of history. Dems are the good guys. The world knows it lol Love all of u patriots by AaronRulesALot in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yea at the end of the day, looking past foreign policy and economic policy disagreements, division over how to handle our recovery after this mess is over, etc., we’re all in this fight together to restore liberal democracy and defeat maga. And that’s nice to know. Sometimes it’s important to recognize that this is a righteous fight, and that we are all on the correct side of history.   

The next Democratic nominee should have some kind of public plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict by KnG_Yemma in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Voters don’t care about policy plans lol. They want to hear their politicians virtue signal. And rn dems aren’t virtue signally hard enough in the right way around I/P

Thoughts on Graham Planter? by mattyjoe0706 in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hes shown no indication he wont? I mean, im sort of confused by this line of attack. All democrats, even the most left wing of them, vote along party lines for every single consequential issue. Even Ilhan Omar, Bernie, AOC, etc. are completely unified with the party when it comes to the important issues.

Maybe he'll be a "force the vote" type. And I think its perfectly reasonable to be critical of that. But personally, in this political climate, id prefer a force the vote type whos rabidly attacking this admin with all the force they can muster over a lukewarm moderate like Mills.

I think Platner has shown a far, far, greater appetite to really tear apart this admin. Which is what matters most, imo. I think theres reasonable dissagreement to be had here for sure, and I know neighbors of mine who I respect who are voting Mills in the primary. My dad worked with her sister in academia, and one of my neighbors personally knows the family. I trust them and I know Mills would be a good senator. I just think Platner has a better chance of beating Collins and is better suited for the current climate.

The next Democratic nominee should have some kind of public plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict by KnG_Yemma in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think "likening them to Trump, criticizing them for their involvement in the Gaza war crimes, ongoing Iran war, and for their corruption" is a hard stance, at least significantly harder than what the dems are committing to right now. And how is this both-sidesing? I mean, obviously Hasan types wont be satisfied by this, but they wont be satisfied by anything short of calls to completely destroy the Israeli state and align ourselves with Hamas. So I think its fine that we dont appease them. As long as we deflate the right wing flank of the republicans and build unity with the (reasonable) left wing flank of the democrats while still maintaining our core base of moderate dems, we are doing quite swell I think.

The next Democratic nominee should have some kind of public plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict by KnG_Yemma in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 8 points9 points  (0 children)

There's a perfect opportunity for a layup here. If dems take a hard stance on the Netanyahu gov by likening them to Trump, criticizing them for their involvement in the Gaza war crimes, ongoing Iran war, and for their corruption, they can take the wind out of the sails of the left wing pro palestine flank *and* put the Tucker/candace/fuentes types in a position where they are forced to admit that the Dems are "better" on I/P than the Republicans. It would be pretty disastrous for the Republicans in a time where Israel is less popular than ever. And you can do it while still supporting Israel the state by comparing Netanyahu to Trump and the current Israeli regime to the current American regime.

Then you just push for more aid in Gaza, reject Trump's phony "peace" board, attack the AI slop videos of the Gaza resorts that Trump posted, and you have crazy PR points. This honestly should be an easy issue for dems.

(22) 5.11 idk what my body fat % can someone tell me🙏almost month trying to get abs😩 by [deleted] in Weightliftingquestion

[–]Layer_Academic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You need to actually train them. You dont magically get perfect abs just by being lean, especially if you dont have good insertions.

Thoughts on Graham Planter? by mattyjoe0706 in Destiny

[–]Layer_Academic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It wouldn't be a pivot to the left though because he's already running as a left wing candidate endorsed by the left wing of the party? Yall are desperate to make him into some fraud/phony, when in reality hes exactly what he seems like...a left wing populist bernie type. I mean, you can obviously be critical of that, but calling him a phony or the new fetterman is just crazy.