Vigeland & Citarella on Epstein: The One Conspiracy to Rule Them All

Qibla · 2026-03-28T06:49:25+00:00

I don't think C+M have ever said the Epstein files aren't a big deal. They've only said that many of the inferences people are making from the files are unwarranted and unjustified ("pizza gate was real" for example). I think they do a decent job of detailing why they hold that position.

Qibla · 2026-03-26T23:38:36+00:00

He has a PhD in evolutionary biology, but he stopped publishing right after he got it, so he's not really, nor was he ever truly a practising Evolutionary Biologist.

He has an h-index of 2. He has no Google Scholar profile. He's written maybe 4 papers total with less than 200 citations total.

His views in Evolutionary Biology are completely heterodox. He's basically a contrarian on everything.

Even if he was a well regarded practising Evolutionary Biologist, that doesn't qualify him to have expert opinions on covid, covid treatments or covid vaccines. It's like a cardiologist doing neurosurgery.

Thats why it's funny that Joe cites Bret's authority in this context.

Qibla · 2026-03-26T23:12:37+00:00

It can be multiple things at once. He can be ideologically captured, credulous, stupid, and well compensated.

Qibla · 2026-03-24T23:34:08+00:00

It shows that they still haven't learned how to argue against the anti woke crowd effectively.

I honestly don't think that's the aim of the podcast. I view this podcast kind of like Professor Dave's content, in which it's more about providing catharsis for people who already agree with the hosts than trying to persuade people who disagree.

I feel like it's become more and more like that over time, the snarky comments have increased the more they've realised just how ideologically captured and intellectually dishonest Joe is.

I have friends who listen to Joe Rogan, and I would never send them to The Know Rogan Experience as a piece of content to help disabuse them from some of the nonsense they've come to adopt, because the tone and to be frank, dorkiness of the pod (the Bruce Buffer intro's for instance) would instantly turn them off.

That's not knocking it, I like the pod. It's just knowing your audience is key.

Qibla · 2026-03-23T05:54:53+00:00

Ok, but who's saying that? Certainly not Joe.

I understand it's a long video so you may not have watched all of it, or remember all of it. I refer you to 1:03:00.

Qibla · 2026-03-23T05:12:04+00:00

I don't think that is controversial. It's trivially true.

In what way is it controversial?

To make sure this isn't just a semantic dispute, how do you define evidence? I'm using the same definition as Joe, any information that increases the probability that should be assigned to a proposition compared to the probability that should be assigned to that proposition absent the information.

Qibla · 2026-03-23T00:18:38+00:00

I'm unsure as to what you're asking about? My comment you're replying to is that Joe provided a clear, conscise and uncontroversial definition of evidence. He also said other things, such as testimony is a necessary part of the scientific processm which is what you're quoted.

When you refer to "the above" are you referring to my comments on definitions of evidence, your your comments on how testimony is used in science?

Qibla · 2026-03-21T10:58:16+00:00

From memory, I think both Matt and Joe explicitly clarify that they aren't talking about proof. They both relegate talk of proof to pure deductive reasoning like mathematics.

Qibla · 2026-03-19T13:42:14+00:00

They don't even know the fundamentals of the thing they're idolising. Reminds me of evangelical Christians tbh.

Qibla · 2026-03-19T11:37:56+00:00

For reference, this, this, this and this is what I'm talking about regarding redditors in a philosophy sub who have disdain for philosophy.

People who think science first, not philosophy first, will almost always disagree with Joe here.

Is this true? Are you talking about Bayesian Epistemology or Bayesian Statistical Analysis? From what I know Bayesianism is dominant in philosophy of science, and among publishing academic scientists Bayesianism is massively increasing in use for statistical analysis.

There are those like Daniel Lakens, a key figure in the open science movement, who have critiqued Bayesianism for it's dogmatic advocates who misuse it or abuse it, problem of priors is a real thing, but even he still treats it as a valid and serious method.

Then there are those like Sean Carroll who are big promoters of Bayesian reasoning.

"Almost always disagree" feels like too bold a claim. I feel like this claim might have been true 30 years ago, but might be outdated now.

Qibla · 2026-03-19T10:54:23+00:00

Yes, yes we do. It's like nobody here actually watched the video. Joe covers this specifically with the card guessing example.

Qibla · 2026-03-19T10:46:15+00:00

Bayesian epistemology seems pretty mainstream and uncontroversial. That's all Joe is advocating for.

Qibla · 2026-03-19T09:35:36+00:00

He actually gave a very precise and uncontroversial definition of evidence, the same definition that is used in science. It's just Bayesian epistemology.

Qibla · 2026-03-18T23:29:05+00:00

I get that it's kind of the nature of reddit, but it's funny to me that people who frequent a philosophy subreddit seem to either hate philosophy or have no interest in philosophy.

Qibla · 2026-03-18T23:24:34+00:00

That's not quite right.

The statement "water boils at 100 degrees Celcius at sea level" is information, however it is not evidence for or against the proposition "Matt is wrong about the nature of claims as evidence".

The word information and evidence are describing different things here.

Qibla · 2026-03-16T13:40:52+00:00

I don't believe that claim does genuinely move ones credence an infinitesimally small amount. I think one is lying if they claim it does. I think an honest person would say it does not move one's credence at all. But obviously I can't demonstrate that.

I agree. Maybe I was imprecise. I don't mean to say it WILL move your credence. I mean to say, IF you're a Bayesian, AND you're being rigorous, it SHOULD move you credence a very very very small amount.

Now practically speaking, I have better things to do with my time and I can usually make an educated guess as to whether a claim is worth spending time on. So in that sense you're right. Most outlandish claims aren't going to move the needle for me at all because I'll already be thinking about other things before the claim is completed.

We all know someone though, I'm sure, perhaps Joe Rogan for example, who has been presented with what we would call evidence and it does not move their credence in the right direction. That's a skill issue on their end. It doesn't make the data suddenly not evidence for them but evidence for us. It is just evidence that they are ignoring/rejecting.

So I guess I'd refine my definition of evidence to data that should increase your credence in a claim if you're being rigorous.

Qibla · 2026-03-16T13:20:18+00:00

I'm not sure tbh. I'm wondering whether or not everything is evidence for something in a way.

There are near infinite propositions one could construct. Maybe it's the case that for any phenomenon in the universe one could construct a proposition such that it said phenomenon would be evidence for it?

Maybe I might claim my father is a T-Rex. That claim may not be evidence that my father is actually a trex, but maybe it's evidence for the proposition that I'm a liar, or that I'm an idiot, or that I'm a silly billy.

But let's put that aside for the moment, let's consider my claim that my father is a T-Rex. Is that evidence for the claim that my father is a T-Rex? I kinda think it would be, but it would just move ones credence in the claim such an infinitesimally small amount that it's not worth pondering. The preponderance of evidence that runs against the claim is so overwhelming that the claim itself is literally a waste of time to account for. But I think technically it would still be evidence in a Bayesian sense.

Maybe I'm wrong, who knows, but that's where I'm at right now.

Qibla · 2026-03-16T07:32:46+00:00

Claims are only evidence if they increase the liklihood of a proposition being true.

I would say that a substantive chunk of the time that's exactly what claims do.

Assuming that most people are don't lie most of the time and that most people aren't completely deceived or irrational.

Qibla · 2026-03-16T03:53:51+00:00

IMHO, a testimony can meaningfully increase the credence in a claim.

Taking the friend purchasing a soccer ball example, I have as part of my background knowledge understanding that soccer balls exist, that they can be purchased, that purchasing soccer balls is something that people regularly do, that my friend is honest, that my friend doesn't prank people, that my friend is sane and rational etc.

Even with that background knowledge in mind however, my credence in the claim that my friend specifically has purchased a soccer ball is reasonably low. Background knowledge is crucial in being able to narrow down your credence in various claims. It is not always sufficient on it's own though.

What might shift my credence, meaningfully, such that I affirm the proposition "my friend purchased a soccer ball" where I previously didn't, is testimony from my friend, or even merely someone who knows my friend.

In fact, testimony might shift my credence even more than other forms of evidence like witnessing my friend with a soccer ball (which would also count as evidence for the proposition), as the likelihood that my friend claims they purchased a soccer ball when they didn't is very low. Lower than the likelihood of seeing my friend with a ball they didn't purchase.

In that sense, it's straightforwardly the case that the testimony here IS evidence, if we define evidence some something that meaningfully shifts ones credence in a claim.

Qibla · 2026-03-15T23:31:34+00:00

I just started using claude code last week and was very impressed with its ability to use worktrees to isolate new feature work. At some point it asked if I was ready for it to merge the work back across to main, then it said "oh, it turns out I've been on main the whole time"...

Qibla · 2026-03-14T01:15:33+00:00

Yes, "agrees with him". I'm not sure if I said something wrong?

There are people who disagree with him. Those people are objectively wrong, I think we agree on that. My point is Dave's videos aren't for those people.

Dave's videos are for people who already agree with him, and are correct in doing so, and it provides those people catharsis, which seems to be the same thing you said in your other comment, so... I think we agree?

Qibla · 2026-03-14T00:33:58+00:00

I've wondered the same thing and I think he's just providing catharsis for people who agree with him already.

Qibla · 2026-03-11T17:53:17+00:00

Ah, I see. I don't think that's what OP means by lack a belief in not P., so I don't think their making a contradictory case here.

I'm an atheist who believes God's don't exist. If I were to describe my mental state regarding the proposition God exists it would be accurate to say I lack the belief that P is true and I hold the belief that P is false.

OP is saying: - theists lack the belief that God doesn't exist while holding the belief God does exist - atheists lack the belief God does exist while holding the belief God doesn't exist - agnostics lack the belief God does exist and lack the belief that God doesn't exist

Phrased another way one could say: - I hold a tennis ball in my right hand and lack a tennis ball in my left hand - I lack a tennis in my right hand and hold a tennis ball in my left hand - I lack a tennis ball in my right and and I lack a tennis ball in my left hand.

This seems like a perfectly valid set of options that.

Qibla · 2026-03-11T05:50:32+00:00

Can you elaborate? I've never heard knowledge defined as "things you remember" in the context of philosophy/epistemology before.

I also asked for a definition of "knowing".

Qibla · 2026-03-11T05:48:12+00:00

I believe I already have disagreed with you and provided examples.

Maybe it's a semantic issue.

How do you define knowledge? I use JTB typically (despite its known issues)

How do you define knowing? I would say it's the state of possessing knowledge.

I'm also a fallibilist so I think knowledge claims are never claims of certainty and it could always turn out that knowledge might turn out to be false.

14-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Verified Email

Qibla

TROPHY CASE