It is, for the most part. The replication crisis supports that statement. [1] Quite a few results you may have read about in "Thinking: Fast and Slow" probably won't replicate. [2]
There are at least two factors at play: what they are studying is quite complex, and people who tend to study it aren't the smartest. Take two PhD students, one in the psychology department, and one in physics. Make them switch roles. Who do you think is going to be in more trouble? [3]
The point is that if we don't resist internet censorship here in the west, for which the pressure is building up, there won't be a free internet Iranians could connect to using a VPN.
> As I stared up into the heavens, I had this deeply profound realization that our planet is traveling through space like all the other planets.
I genuinely don't understand what would be sad about that. The possibility of the next generation being able to explore at least one of those planets is very real.
i'm not sure i would call it _completely_ sad. i would say the sad was mixed in with awe. in an instant i felt both incredibly small and incredibly important. it was very surreal.
Well, maybe he should have sponsored a loved one (or even just a random person) to go instead. Most people would probably be filled with wonder and joy.
also, what does it matter if its a publication mistake?
paypal decided to come up with this schema, and entire policies written out, produce announcements and such, and we are to accept "well we didnt quite mean to publish this" ?
no, they are hostile actors, and nobody should be doing any business with them.
First of all, the entire field of psychiatry is very dubious. It's nothing similar to a mature science. They aren't really doing objective evaluations. For example, very often, if you really want to take a medication, you almost certainly can find someone who'd write you a prescription for it. [1]
Also, why would someone's academic qualifications entitle them to essentially sentence a suicidal person to death?
Harmful and "false" content shouldn't be censored by tech platforms either. There's no API for truth.
There's some role for courts, through libel/defamation lawsuits. And even then, the general criteria is false factual statements (not merely opinions) causing demonstrable harm _intentionally_.
Will the author be willing to dispose of all the tokens of enslavement in their possession by moving them to my bank account? I will not charge them anything for that.
There are at least two factors at play: what they are studying is quite complex, and people who tend to study it aren't the smartest. Take two PhD students, one in the psychology department, and one in physics. Make them switch roles. Who do you think is going to be in more trouble? [3]
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
[2]: https://replicationindex.com/category/thinking-fast-and-slow...
[3]: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html