Laird
Member
At any rate, his lapse into name-calling told its own story. People who are comfortable in their understanding don't do that
Ouch... do you think you might have scored an own goal?
At any rate, his lapse into name-calling told its own story. People who are comfortable in their understanding don't do that
I really hope Jason Louv is reading this forum - just so he can read your reply!"You're an idiot! Guy! Guy! Guy! For Christ sake . . ." His arrogance and poor character are what shines most brightly from this convo--defensiveness is the hallmark of an indoctrinated mind.
This guy is such a complete TOOL! He trusts the NASA website as GOD, I'd bet he hasn't done an ounce of research outside what the mainstream is dictating to him. He has to waste time calling names and getting his panties in a bunch without providing any data, yet dismisses Alex when he can't riffle off a couple names right off the cuff? I actually so appreciate this interview, am pretty enthused about it even, b/c it demonstrates to me how right I am, as much as that usually sucks more than feels good, in my experience.
Climate change (geoengineering), Moon landing/space (NASA), vaccinations--if any of y'all believe what you are hearing in the mainstream media, please, I really really hope you will look more deeply into these topics. Just read the opposition, that alone will fire up any natural skeptic, and even some hardcore believers I'd be willing to bet. If you want to know where to look, where I've looked, I'd be pleased to pass that along. I'm no expert on any of it, I can't answer your (legitimate, surely!) questions, but I can tell you where to look and research. If you come to different conclusions, that's fine too, I have no defensiveness on these issues anymore b/c I know if someone has no doubt the official stories are correct, they haven't looked, or they are not able/willing to see. I don't have the answers, not on any of it, but that means ALL questions are valid, the questions alone are what will inspire, and eventually, save us. If 'they' can get us to stop being curious, to stop questioning authority, to stop demanding tangible proof, they have won. And the reason Trump is dismissing science is 2-fold, at least. It works great for his Bible-thumping Christian southern base, who don't give a hoot about science anyway and love to argue and quote 'the great books' as much as the NDGT-pushers. Secondly, it riles up the atheists real nice too and then you can get a real social media war going on for all the technocrats to take another lesson in human programming.
What's most infuriating is he pretends to care about people and the future of civilization and that this is his motivation. I'm sure many reading are familiar with the fascinating book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. If you can't tell in 10 seconds of the start that Louv has 'shyster' written ALL over him, this is proof positive our sense of recognizing the warning signs in other's mannerisms, demeanor, etc., has declined over time, perhaps due to all the actors we surround ourselves with in media and politics. I used to have some blocks in this area of recognizing poor character and trusting my instincts and a bit of therapy and studying of psychology and sociology really helped me sharped this instinct again and I hope that will be the case for everyone. Discernment is of utmost importance in these times and will get more necessary in coming decades.
Thanks for reading, sorry I have been so intermittent lately on the site, it's just a stage I suspect, b/c I still really appreciate the show and comments here. :)
I think asking questions about how Louv is able to maintain a materialistic world view while believing in magic is fair given the fact that he makes his living selling books about magic and tries to give the impression that magic is real to him. It seems far more likely that he is a materialist who does not believe in magic, but believes that the terminology of "magic" will help him sell books to people he thinks are credulous enough to buy anything.I have to say I admire the sheer chutzpah of a community that is prepared to take the anti-establishment, anti-expert consensus view on everything, and then react without any humility or understanding when they stumble across a person who doesn’t see the world that way.
Evolution, consciousness, vaccines, climate change, jfk, cancer treatment, homeopathy, moon landings, 9/11, cattle mutilations, pizzagate, allopathic medicine, magic etc, etc...
I have to say I admire the sheer chutzpah of a community that is prepared to take the anti-establishment, anti-expert consensus view on everything, and then react without any humility or understanding when they stumble across a person who doesn’t see the world that way.
That sounds all well and good provided that you assume that scientific institutions are totally focused on the truth - which is what they say they are.I suspect it feels very empowering to out-smart the experts in their field, and we all like to feel we have a special insight, but how often can laymen do that successfully and consistently? How do we formulate critical thinking skills, in a world where “evidence” is but a click away for anything (see flat earth) yet there is no voice given to authorities or expert consensus. Taking the fringe position is likely to be more often ‘wrong’ than ‘right’... and can occasionally be downright dangerous:
I am not inclined to call all the problems in science 'conspiracy'.The conflict between might have been overblown, but not invented. It seems to boil down to Jason granting less credence to the role of conspiracies in shaping the world, more credence to the positive impact of mainstream science on our world, and more credibility ("cosying up") to mainstream skeptics given these two tendencies.
ultimately thatJason is a charlatan trying to make a buck that doesn't even fully buy the bs he's selling.
And we need to stop wasting precious time about how real global-warming / climate change is or not -- maybe just accept pathways towards a world with less carbon
Duncan Trussell is an actor and comic who has a podcast (DTFH) that has a balance of trivial and non-trivial guests.
I am not inclined to call all the problems in science 'conspiracy'.
I think science likes to see itself as being immune to all the problems that invade other subjects such as psychiatry, or music, or literature. The trouble is science is far more squishy than it likes to believe it is. So for example, it shuns the evidence that obviously clashes with its core paradigm - such as positive parapsychology findings. I don't think the majority of those who do that think they are conspiring to do anything - they probably assume the excluded research was faulty somehow - despite it being peer reviewed. However in doing this, they overlook the problem that peer review really doesn't work very well.
Can you suggest a book for beginners that covers magic/the occult from a more scientific perspective?My message is; Avoid Louv. Don't read him unless you are well grounded in the subject area he deals with, and have the wherewithal to know the difference between a fair comment and manipulative bullshit. There are better and safer options
Don't be a snowflake and don't let other's be a snowflake. "Assertive" blows away "push-over" any-day.
Can you suggest a book for beginners that covers magic/the occult from a more scientific perspective?
David
Can you suggest a book for beginners that covers magic/the occult from a more scientific perspective?
David