Is he usually worse? This is terrible writing and thinking on every level, full of self-contradictions:
> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).
very next line:
> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.
"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.
Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.
Yes, a lot of his speaking and writing is wrapped up in inside jokes and asides to himself that obfuscate his points to everyone not in on the joke. He usually appears to be arguing against some concept he believes to be widely held (e.g. "irrational"), which sometimes comes off as a straw man. Especially because he usually states these suppositions, explicitly or implied, rather than demonstrating them with evidence. And the points he makes don't seem fully self consistent.
That said, this style of speaking in asides and nonsequitors actually works well on vlogs on YouTube, since jumping around can keep people's attention better than something straightforward and boring. Plus, visual cues can help tie things together.
The point of the piece was to point out the issue with this way of thinking. Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.
o_____________o|3 years ago
> In nearly all circumstances, our intuition (crafted by millions of years of evolution) ... are much better guides to life than the scientific consensus, despite them being "irrational" (and sorry, religion is part of this too).
very next line:
> When someone guzzles down some newly fabricated energy drink or gallons of soda, they're nearly certainly damaging their bodies in ways science does not yet understand.
"millions of years of evolution" is what gave us the craving for sweetness, science is why we now know it's bad.
Intuition is not a reliable compass, and is built around local circumstance. For example, "gut feelings" like disgust are often how people justify acting on their morally corrupt behavior.
mushufasa|3 years ago
That said, this style of speaking in asides and nonsequitors actually works well on vlogs on YouTube, since jumping around can keep people's attention better than something straightforward and boring. Plus, visual cues can help tie things together.
JohnHaugeland|3 years ago
this is a collection of personal complaints at celebrities and the presumption that that is in some way related to science
too much finger pointing and not a single scrap of hard evidence
tdehnel|3 years ago
The point of the piece was to point out the issue with this way of thinking. Science exists to find flaws in a hypothesis, not find evidence to support it.