Did you do something useful today?

[removed]

Like being able to control your anger. Like boom emotions flood wanting you to kill someone by punching etc , but you don't do it.

Like managing anxiety?

I think if you are in a position of public admiration and respect, you have a greater burden of responsibility for the messages you put out into the world. Rodgers branding himself a critical thinker in this case is further reinforcement for others who have drawn the same conclusions from thinking in the same way, and even worse, those who may have been on the fence. It’s not a great source of harm for Joe Shmoe to suffer from Dunning-Kruger, it’s another matter entirely for someone with a platform, who others look up to.

My guess is higher mammals are capable. Like primates, dolphins, and others. Even dogs if trained.

Us especially.

We act based on the chemicals but if we stop the effect of what was caused by the chemicals, that's your will and not automatic.

[removed]

[deleted]

I interpreted the rest of your comments as excusing his behavior, regardless of saying he deserved major shit for lying.

Are you saying that some animals have free will? You mean us?

My guess is it would be the ability to exercise free will. It's something that not all animals exercise. Or it's the one thing that sets us apart.

And I mean this by the idea that when you think of doing something - think it thru- then not do it.

The system or template may be involuntary. But the nuance, humans can exert their will. To not do a command, to defy a wrong order, to correct and rise to better the system or devolve into a worse one. Ants and bees don't do that. It's all for the proliferation of their kind.

The Spirit of God, i guess, but we really don't know what cognitive features should be considered "the soul".

Don't ants and bees have complex society structures, divisions of work and a monarchy government type? If they act instinctively, then the creation of a government Is a completely involuntary process.

Do you have a guess for what this unknown feature is?

If humans were created by God and not a product of evolution, then we must have an unknown feature that makes us different from animals.

[removed]

That's a completely different statement.

In your first statement, you compared experts to omniscience. Your argument can be interpreted as "experts are not always correct, therefore we shouldn't value their opinion"

The rebuttal was that instead of comparing experts to omniscience, the more appropriate comparison is to the alternative: non-experts. Neither is always correct, but those are the options, and the experts are preferable.

You then mischaracterize this, "experts are correct more often than non-experts" as "experts are correct more often than they are incorrect". That's an entirely different statement. It is not the statement being made in the comment you're replying to.

Was that on purpose, or a mistake?

I don't disagree with that though, at least I don't think I do. If there is no evidence for a claim then it should be disregarded. But disregarding it is not the same thing as accepting the negation of it.

[removed]

I literally said he deserves major shit for lying to the media. Why did you choose to ignore that?

Is that a verifiable statement?

Thanks for the tip. I've referred to that as "epistemological awareness" before, but never got too in depth with it; I've just over time become increasingly frustrated when people make claims that they do not seem to recognize the complexity involved in verifying (if possible at all), as well as fully understanding the constructs and limitations of the types of knowledge they're wielding.

An obvious example off the top being "there are no gays in Russia". Like, obviously a ridiculous statement, but also absurd to claim to know, even if it was somehow true because how on Earth are you going to gather that kind of data with integrity? You need access to peoples' lives we simply do not have. Further, "gayness" can manifest in a myriad of ways, so you have to first define a set of acts that you can actually bear witness to, then go about doing it. But gayness cannot always be seen, so you have to go about defining gayness in such a way that you can notice it. At that point, you might as well retroactively define it as exclusive to Russians. "Sure, Russian men might suck each other off, but that's not gay because they can't be gay, they're Russian!" It's all just absurd.

On the other side, being conscious of this (empowered by my irritability of dealing with it in others) has really dialed in my own thinking.

No, we should be unhappy with him. He knew his public comments were extremely misleading.

Ok, that article was actually worth reading. Gives him a fair consideration but ultimately also gives the rational review of his choices and claims.