Comments by "Cestarian Inhabitant" (@cestarianinhabitant5898) on "Mental Outlaw"
channel.
-
225
-
94
-
64
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@wai828 I am not really dissing the scientific method or scientists themselves, my point here really is about people who don't know those things. Properly and blindly believe everything that's said is sourced from science or scientists.
Although you are sorta wrong that there is no 'bible' equivalent for scientists, at least a lot of them, one example of something similar is constants. Constants are a concept many scientists latch onto as an anchor to make them feel like they understand something, quite similar to how religious people latch onto their gods.
But it doesn't take much logic to realize that constants can't be real, for example the speed of light, it's an impossibility for the speed of light to be constant, because light is a physical entity that is affected by outside forces (such as gravity) which naturally means it's velocity is subject to change just like any other moving object.
Constants are assumptions regarded as holy truths for a lot of scientists, at least from what I can see.
Either way, what you're talking about is science from the perspective of a scientist, it indeed becomes a lot less religion-like when you try to verify everything properly instead of just blindly believeing it as you say, but I'm referring to people who entirely fail to do this, and believe everything as long as the label "science" or "research" was tacked on to it somewhere.
I also never said that you had to be an atheist to be a proponent of science (I in fact very much like science myself, it's not like I have anything against it). I just said that a lot of atheists latch on to science as a replacement for the religions they have ditched, this is not a conscious decision either, it is entirely subconscious. Make no mistake, we're not really talking about science here, or the validity of research, but psychology.
The burden of proof for your believes is not on science, or atheism, or religion, it is always on you, is what I am trying to convey. People should not just believe what other people tell them to believe, they should figure out what to believe by themselves, using their own experiences as a guide.
We could argue about proving the existence of god and the validity of the scientific method to death (although I'm not actually disagreeing with the latter at all, I completely agree with you.)
But it's been done. Once people have decided what to believe, their views do not change unless they themselves wish it, and even for the most logical people among us, there comes a point where logic fails to sway even the sharpest of minds. And what some view as evidence others don't view the same. That's why basing your beliefs on what some other guy said; even if the source is a credible research paper, is a mistake.
I'm just saying, everything, absolutely everything should be taken with a grain of salt, is that view in any conflict with the scientific method?
I'm not saying science is bad, or a religion, just that some people behave as if it were a religion even if it was never supposed to be.
Research papers get used as forms of propaganda because the unwashed masses are so ready to believe, it's being treated more and more like the news we see, where people get exposed to research of which the results suit a narrative.
In the end, scientific data is almost as polluted as religious texts by this point, denying this just means it's something you find hard to accept, once again just proving my former points, that we fear to admit the unknown. Science may be our best way to explore said unknown, but like everything else, it is corruptible, and in modern society it has become quite corrupted (not that religions are any better by a long shot or anything, but the end result is the same, both get (ab)used to manipulate public opinion).
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, religion never went away, atheists typically 'worship' science, as in just believe anything stated on research papers or studies (despite the majority of them having dubious sources, e.g. sources that have motive to influence the outcome in their favor), and accepting anything accepted as a fact in the scientific community as a holy truth (even if we do not understand the universe half as well as we pretend to and everyone should know this...)
And as for those who didn't go this route, they, as the video claims, went an even worse route and started 'worshipping' politics, what politics? Well whatever sounds nice. What sounds nice? Well social justice sounds nice. As such, we go from one stupid religion like christianity, to another even stupider one like social justice or the modern western political left.
It seems to be very hard for people to acknowledge that they don't know things, that they don't know if god exists or not, that they don't know if what they heard in the news once was wrong or not, that they don't know what's best for everyone on this planet.
Once you start admitting the things you don't know to yourself, well it's a bottomless pit, you will realize you are surrounded by the unknown, and most people have an innate fear of the unknown making it quite hard to embrace it, so this is what we get instead.
It's also very hard to accept the reality that what or who you vote for never changes anything, that it's all a facade, that all democracies have a shadow government that runs things no matter who is 'publicly' running it, a puppeteer if you will, no matter what you vote, the puppeteer is always the same. It's all really just a song and dance of the puppeteer trying to influence the public to come around to the opinion that suits their goals at that time in history, and they now have the perfect tools to do so, media. News, movies, music, tv shows, it's all being used and it's blatantly obvious, yet people are falling for it as if they're paid to do it. It's herd mentality, don't wanna distance yourself from the group, no, must be a good little npc and agree with what's popular today.
Atheism was supposed to represent thinking for yourself, but atheism was always a lie, an atheist does not think for themselves, an atheist just leaps from one religion to another less metaphysical but no less damaging religion instead. If you really think for yourself, what you'll find yourself as is agnostic, e.g. you don't believe in god because you have not witnessed enough evidence for god's existence, but you do not deny god's existence because you cannot disprove it either, even if the bible is easy to disprove, the existence of gods and devils is another matter (and it is actually much easier to prove, if you lower the demands for the criteria of what a god is, e.g. if a god is not required to be "all-mighty" or even a physical entity at all, it goes back to acknowledging what we don't know, for instance that we don't know if what we can see, hear and smell and taste is everything there is, in fact we already know that this is not everything, and as we know this is not everything, is it really so hard to figure out that there's a lot of stuff that exists in reality that we have no means to measure? It's not. And what if spiritual entities such as so called gods and demons are actually one of these things? At the very least it's easy to see that it's not entirely impossible, hence, doubt but do not deny what cannot be disproven. And believe, but do not believe blindly, even in things you believe to have been proven without a shadow of a doubt, we're very good at deceiving ourselves, at missing key observations that could turn our perspectives on their heads (even when they're directly pointed out to us!) so always doubt everything, or you are guaranteed to get mislead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pamac, not Pacmac. Manjaro is great, it's rolling release so you can always access the latest versions of everything unlike most distros (which will feel familiar to windows users), AUR massively simplifies installing obscure software (like a community driver for that off brand gaming keyboard or something, need something like that, it can be a massive pain on most distros, but on Arch/Manjaro it is a breeze)
The installation is really easy and effective, with some of the best out of the box hardware support among all distros, and also a key point is that it allows you to install it out of the box with proprietary video card drivers (especially useful for nvidia users). Also unlike other distros, you don't have to reinstall the entire OS everytime there's a major update, it just keeps on rolling.
Perhaps best of all though, is that it's user friendly enough for a beginner to get comfortable with it quite easily, but it's also advanced enough to allow you to dive into the deepest depths of linux customization and administrations (just shy of Gentoo maybe... you don't wanna go that deep anyways...) if you want to, so it's a great distro for someone to transition from a beginner to advanced linux user.
However, I am an advanced linux user, I used gentoo once, got tired of compile times so I went to arch, got tired of everything breaking every few updates if I didn't keep track of the arch linux news so I went to manjaro, which provides me all the benefits of arch with none of the bullshit, I haven't looked back for 2-3 years.
And with these years of experience I finally managed to pinpoint the biggest downsides for a beginner on Manjaro in the long term, which is Kernel and video card driver updates!
Manjaro has this special way of installing the kernel and the video card drivers (MHWD it's called) and the GUI for it is kinda meh, when a major new kernel is released (e.g. from kernel 4.x to 5.x) if you want to switch to it it must be done manually. And while switching between kernels through the GUI works great (you have to be careful what you pick though, e.g. picking the right kernel actually requires a bit of understanding on the subject, usually it's safe to just pick the latest LTS kernel though), the problem is that doing so can break certain things (especially gpu drivers, which are also installed through MHWD).
Updating or reinstalling the GPU drivers through the MHWD GUI is a pain in the ass, it doesn't really work that well, and if you updated your kernel you're somewhat likely to find yourself rebooting to a TTY. And that's a bit of a bummer, usually the solution is reinstalling the GPU drivers so that MHWD can install the appropriate driver for the new kernel version; but that requires some very specific commands (usually you have to first uninstall, then reinstall the gpu drivers and MHWD is not a utility you will use very frequently so it's unlikely you'll remember or even know about this stuff if you're caught in this kind of situation!)
So in a nutshell, as long as you don't decide to update your kernel on manjaro, you're gonna be fine, but updating your GPU driver may actually require a bit of fiffing around in the MHWD GUI and will not happen automatically with a systemwide update, unlike say arch which auto updates both the kernel and the gpu driver if there are updates available to either during any systemwide update.
That is a possible eventual point of confusion, but it only really applies to proprietary driver users, for others it's most likely not gonna be an issue, but gamers are people too!
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know, you're right, that for maybe 80% or so of users, linux would do the trick just fine.
But for the remaining 20% which includes professionals, gamers or any kind of more advanced user that may have a more complex setup than the laptops most people use...
The "It's free if you don't value your time" starts becoming a lot more accurate. Multi-monitor support is absolutely atrocious for instance, as is printer support. There are literally monitor setups that WILL NOT WORK on linux no matter what you do, they will not work on any Xorg or Wayland based environment. If I recall correctly for instance there is no environment that supports different DPI scalings for different monitors, so if you have say a HiDPI monitor and another monitor with a lower resolution, you're screwed. Also if you have 1 'gaming' monitor with something like 144hz and another regular 60hz monitor, you're gonna have some serious problems.
I have a friend that literally couldn't use linux because of multi-monitor issues where he had a 4K@60 TV and a 1080p@144 screen for aforementioned reasons. I tried just about every desktop environment and window manager out there, nothing would freaking work, I almost couldn't believe it really, that after al lthese years multi monitor support is still universally broken on linux... (I'm not some casual user of linux either, I've had my experiences with gentoo and arch, years on each distro; and this was a problem I could not solve.)
There's also more common use cases which linux may be harder to set up for.
For instance video players, some users like being able to download say a 720p video file, then play it with high quality upscaling, they might also want features like smooth motion and other nice things, for years Linux just did not have an option for this, now it has MPV, but MPV has no real GUI and can only be configured through settings files which are poorly documented; There is still in my opinion no proper front-end for MPV either, there are times when new great front-ends are made for it but they quickly fall into obsolesence as their developers stop maintaining them and mpv adds in new features which the unmaintained frontend now doesn't support.
I guess it's good that we now have Office Online and Valve's Proton (and also lutris) to largely solve the issues with gaming on linux, I mean it's pretty great for gaming right now, sometimes better than windows even, but there are still games that can't be played, and games where you have to do some tweaking in order to make them work, and that is too complicated for the majority of gamers who don't want to spend their precious 5 minutes learning how to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1