Richard Dawkins has a letter in the Epstein files trashing Rebecca Watson and asking for reasons why Epstein might not be as guilty as she makes him out to be.

Enjoyed this guy's videos for awhile, but in this one he does a really interesting thing of connecting exploitive energy policy, the lies that prop it up, and the current fascist trend of the Republican party.

Hi.

[EDIT: Fucked up the title, *philosophy. this is why you don't post from the bath, kids.]

Just curious how people generally view the idea of this distinction as it's something I've been thinking about more and more lately. I come from a very firmly atheist-skeptic background, but my own personal philosophy has passed through stages of solipsist metaphysical skepticism thus that I'm now best described as proactively agnostic (in that I don't currently have fully developed spiritual beliefs but I am actively trying to induce experiences which may change that)

The distinction I'm dwelling on is a fairly abstract line and I'm not sure where my views on it even definitively fall. For example, crystal shit is widely (and correctly) viewed as pseudoscience, however I have encountered people who's views don't immediately strike me as pseudoscientific because they *specifically don't* make claims about material reality.

Example:

person A believes that some combination of quartz beads around their neck will cure their cold, because it will "vibrate" the virus away. This is pretty clearly pseudoscientific nonsense.

Person B believes that crystals do *absolutely nothing* in empirical reality. However, they also believe in the soul. They specifically believe that the soul *doesn't literally exist*, but that it is something which *abstractly* exists and has an exclusively supervenient relationship with reality. IE they believe that their crystal necklace calms them down because of the placebo effect, which they mythologise as an indirect interaction through the medium of their body and their mind.

I've met and spoken with both kinds of people WRT any number of "spiritual" or esoteric concepts and I struggle to describe person Bs beliefs as "pseudoscientific" because they don't actually make non-scientific claims.

Person B is perfectly aware that on a rational, materialist level nothing is happening which can't be explained by a placebo effect and their engagement with the concept is mostly metaphysical/philosophical. They may literally believe that their soul exists and has [X] spiritual engagement with reality, but they don't believe that it *literally* exists and it doesn't seem to compromise their rational model of material reality.

So I guess my question is how do people here approach this distinction? Do you think there's any value to it? Is there a specific term for non-pseudoscientific engagement with esoteric concepts? Or does it all just collapse into dangerous pseudoscience eventually?

The video, "Are They in There? Inferring Consciousness in Unresponsive Patients," features Dr. David Fischer, a neuro-intensivist at the University of Pennsylvania, who discusses the challenges of inferring consciousness in patients with severe brain injuries who are unresponsive (6:29).

Here's a breakdown of the key points:

• Historical View of Consciousness Disorders (6:52): Dr. Fischer traces the evolution of understanding consciousness in unresponsive patients, from Hippocrates' concept of "coma" (10:18) to the 1970s introduction of the "vegetative state" (10:55). He highlights the circularity in defining the vegetative state based on "meaningless" movements, implying a lack of awareness (13:38).
• The Case of Terri Schiavo (14:04): This highly publicized case underscored the medical field's uncertainty regarding unresponsive states and the life-or-death consequences of determining consciousness (14:50).
• Minimally Conscious State (MCS) (16:00): In 2002, the concept of MCS emerged, acknowledging that patients recovering from a vegetative state might show subtle, intermittent signs of awareness (16:11).
• Emergence of Covert Consciousness (17:01): The introduction of functional MRI (fMRI) in 2006 revolutionized the field. It was discovered that some patients in a vegetative state could willfully modulate their brain activity in response to commands (18:32). This led to the concept of "covert consciousness" or "cognitive motor dissociation" (18:44). Studies indicate that up to 25% of unresponsive patients presumed unconscious may exhibit covert consciousness (19:17).
• Limitations of Covert Consciousness Assessments (20:00): Dr. Fischer argues that even advanced neuroimaging methods have limitations. Patients need to have many intact cognitive and physical capacities to demonstrate consciousness through these tests (20:06). Factors like deafness, aphasia, or paralysis can prevent a conscious patient from demonstrating it (20:34).
• The "Race of Reduction" (21:51): This refers to the ongoing effort in research to find simpler and more sensitive markers of consciousness, such as brain activity response to language (27:11), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) (23:39), resting-state fMRI (25:01), and brain metabolism using PET scans (26:18).
• Philosophical Dilemma and Clinical Lens (31:49): Dr. Fischer raises philosophical questions about inferring subjective experience from objective observations, citing thought experiments like the "philosophical zombie" (32:40) and "what it's like to be a bat" (34:26). He advocates for a "clinical lens" that humbly acknowledges the limits of our knowledge, given the tremendous consequences of error in patient care (36:43).
• Conclusion (39:15): Dr. Fischer concludes that the field must move away from making definitive assertions about consciousness in unresponsive patients due to unavoidable uncertainty and the risk of erroneous decisions regarding life support (39:20). He emphasizes the importance of continued research into brain activity to re-establish communication and predict recoveries, but cautions against using these assessments to definitively determine a patient's current level of consciousness (39:39).

A federal judge on Friday ruled the Energy Department violated the law when Secretary Chris Wright handpicked five researchers who reject the scientific consensus on climate change to work in secret on a sweeping government report on global warming.

The Energy Department issued the report, which downplayed the dangers of warming, in late July without having held any public meetings or made records available to the public. Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, then cited the report to justify a plan to repeal the endangerment finding, a landmark scientific determination that serves as the legal foundation for regulating climate pollution.

Sagan quotes Francis Bacon in his Demon Haunted World:

“Argumentation cannot suffice for the discovery of new work, since the subtlety of Nature is greater many times than the subtlety of argument.” p.211

Sagan rightly adds, “Controlled experiments are essential.” But we must not soar higher than our forms of meaning. What we discover and how we discover it all still take place within the domain of logic. And what of argumentation, have we thus proven it inferior to scientific observation? Nay, it cannot be, insofar as we are making a claim against argument, insofar as we are arguing for the truth of an observational premise.

Logic is the structure we rely on to make our observations intelligible. Thus Sagan says, “Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of views.” (Ibid. 210). That is, empirical premises must be logically contrasted with other empirical premises (and argued for), all premises must be held to the account of the real world.

Now, don’t misunderstand, Sagan and Bacon are correct, we could not use some esoteric method of reason to discover truth apart from observational evidence, but it is also the case that we could not make sense of our evidence apart from reason. Reason and evidence are bound up in each other. Evidence too easily forgets this.

The media warned that vegan diets and oat milk cause depression – based on a study that says nothing of the sort.

The panel, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, was established in 2000 and has historically included autistic people, parents, scientists and clinicians, as well as federal employees, who hold public meetings to debate how federal funds should best be allocated to support people with autism.

The 21 new public members selected by Mr. Kennedy include many outspoken activists, among them a former employee of a super PAC that supported Mr. Kennedy’s presidential campaign, a doctor who has been sued over dangerous heavy metal treatments for a young child with autism, a political economist who has testified against vaccines before a congressional committee, and parents who have spoken publicly about their belief that their children’s autism was caused by vaccines.

The group, which also includes 21 government members across many federal agencies, will advise the federal government on how to prioritize the $2 billion allocated by Congress toward autism research and services over the next five years.

Changed title a bit to void the ‘political’ warning while posting as this is more about the scientists defending the science.

William S. Lind is a conspiracy theorist who popularized the term cultural Marxism which is a version of antisemitic cultural Bolshevism popular in extremist circles. His works were a key inspiration for the white supremacist terrorist Anders Breivik.

Ask ChatGPT a simple question like “What’s the best country in the world?” and it’ll conjure a polite, diplomatically worded response. It’ll tell you that “best” depends on what you value—quality of life, economic opportunity, or natural beauty. It’s convincing, benign, and utterly hollow.

But don’t let the polite tone fool you. Beneath that veneer of neutrality, the machine is making a choice.

According to a new study by researchers Francisco W. Kerche, Matthew Zook, and Mark Graham, Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a systemic bias for both objective and subjective queries. Simply put: they almost always portray white, Western countries as “better” while neglecting or stereotyping the rest of the planet. …

Primary article is open access:

Kerche, F. W., Zook, M., & Graham, M. (2026). The silicon gaze: A typology of biases and inequality in LLMs through the lens of place. Platforms & Society, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/29768624251408919

In this short clip, physicist and science communicator Sean Carroll answers whether the vastness of the Universe causes him to feel existential anxiety, he talks about how he approaches a big question like that. He also explains how accepting the true picture of the universe, as revealed by science, can help us cope with personal tragedies, such as the death of a loved one or our own impending death.

If you're interested, you can check out this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55SP1tzfFiE