Sam Harris would argue something along the lines of recognizing “religiousity” is a feature of being human, and at the same time a feature we must overcome and transcend into something better, or we are doomed.

We still don't have a handle on gravity.
Skip to the end of this video for the discussion between the two PhDs on how little it's actually understood.
https://youtu.be/QcUey-DVYjk

Jordan Peterson would argue religion is an essential part of the human experience, but some religions are better than others.

"There are approximately 1.2 million known species of animals ". But scientists don't know the exact number of living animals. They estimate there are millions more.
Let's go with the 1.2 million.
So, 1.2 million fit into Noah's Ark. It's a good thing there was no Corona virus back then.
Magic, baby!

Got too many tables to watch right now, but that's my point. We have a good enough handle for our current purposes, but we will be able to make more technological leaps once it improves. Ultimately though, it's the equations that matter, not the interpretation. Any GUT (grand unifying theory) will be mathematical first and foremost - the semantics of what it "means" is an interesting philosophical aside, but it's not a fundamental part of the theory.

Yeah, I guess I agree with this. There are a lot of "fundamental features of being human" that are not necessarily desirable characteristics in a member of modern society. Probably most of them, in fact

Like Eric Weinstein said, maybe the space-time 4D manifold is ultimately wrong, and it is just a model that hitherto has worked better than everything else. That isn't to say it hasn't been a lot more useful than the Bible in understanding and manipulating the physical world.

He would probably agree with you we dont have a good enough handle on gravity, and then he would go into a diatribe about how the Super Stringers have hijacked the field for the last 50 years with ideas that don't work, and they need to step down and let new physicists with new ideas come to the fore.

No I did just miss it-- and then missed it again when you bumped it and only found it doing the fool-proof "search for my name" method.
What I'm trying to argue though is that there isn't a dichotomy between science and religion which is what you and your Weinstein paraphrase allege. So it isn't: you have to choose one or the other. You can have both if you like or if you choose science, understand that you're not getting some settled thing as if the scientists have it all figured out. The science itself is crazy.
Article I always post: Minding matter:
The closer you look, the more the materialist position in physics appears to rest on shaky metaphysical ground

This is getting real ****ing dumb. Our belief in gravity is based on hundreds of years of observations, trials, and practice. It's accurate enough to have gotten us to the moon and our creations to several other bodies in our solar system. And our "belief" is not so unshakeable that we would not change it if better evidence came to light for an alternate theory.

It hurts your feelings so bad to see lagtight getting beaten up that it's gotten you both-sidesing "faith" and "observation", going off on this **** about "well thinking you know anything about anything is really just as crazy as believing in Sky Daddy mannnnn". Give it a rest, christ.

Seems like a total non-sequitor Goofy. Try watching the video. (Just the last few minutes really) It's from Wired not some conspiracy youtuber. Not even sure what you're accusing me of trying to say but when I saw the notification that you had responded to me here, I knew it would be something lol.

Questions though: 1) How well is gravity understood? 2) Why do we not have quantum gravity figured out? 3) What are the potential implications there?

You seem to be in denial about how science has been validated to the extent that it allows us to manipulate the physical world through technological improvement.

If scientific principles have allowed development of the entire modern world you have immersed yourself in, how are they on an equal plane with religious ideas which have facilitated no technological developments at all?

If Goofy and Kelhus are teaming up to misrepresent me then I must have struck a nerve.
Not sure what I've posted that has given any indication of me being in denial about the advances of modern technology and the science that makes it possible.

The video is a non-sequitur to my claim that you are both-sidesing faith and scientific observation and calling them equally crazy because your feels got a sad.

Lol ok. I'll probably just stick to interacting with Kelhus, Lagtight, and d2_e4 here if you don't mind.

Sure, we'll keep it a safe space for you

No. I just find you obnoxious that's all. No safe space needed.

Or maybe there is genuine confusion (on my part at least) what your argument is?

I don't think anyone is arguing through science we have discovered all the truth of the universe. We (not me personally obviously) have developed models that work to a certain extent, and are constantly working to make better models that work better, and will perhaps facilitate us to develop some new cool technology (eg. deep space travel).

How is this "as crazy" as religion?

Lol Luckbox, you must be the first person here to think I'm less of a prick than goofy.

I'll get back to the other stuff about gravity later, got 6 tables and that's basically the limit of my abilities to concentrate.

Weinstein doesn't know what he is talking about. There is no reason to think he could do the home work problems from something like Polchinski's String Theory text so his critiques of the fied are worthless.

Idk. I post a video from ****ing Wired magazine's youtube channel and Goofy goes on a rant like I just cited infowars and Breitbart. You can see why that might turn me off from dealing with him.

I think he was annoyed at your opening volley of "you science guys believe the same crazy **** as the religious guys" (which is pretty out of line, IMO) than any videos you posted. He just happened to make his point in response to that post.

BTW, if that video is the one from Wired where they talk about gravity at various levels from kid to PhD, I've seen it. Good video.

You've been both-sidesing "faith" and "scientific observation" into being "equally crazy" across this whole thread; refusing to even give an inch on "gravity" was what turned your crusade into being truly idiotic.

(edit: and yes, what d2 said, it's body of work ITT)

You have to take a stance on interpretations of quantum theory first-- that's where the craziness comes into play. It's also the best that "science" has given us for an understanding of reality. And I'm saying what it points to is crazy.

You might not be giving him enough credit. He recently did a podcast with Stephon Alexander, a physicist at Brown University, and although Stephon did not endorse all of Weinstein's ideas, he at least seem to acknowledge Weinstein understood the subject matter to an extent. In their conversation they even mentioned he let Weinstein do a lecture for his students.

Weinstein isn't arguing he knows superstring theory as well as David Gross. But he is arguing in his opinion David Gross needs to fade into the background and let new physicists with new ideas give it a shot.