Here’s a song about a bitch called hope:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kypNewsPAHA

While i agree that writing an essay on a philosophical topic, it’s useful to reference the big ideas and their historical proponents and their arguments, philosophy should also be emergent and creative and that People are taking the leap to actually do philosophy themselves i find commendable.

If you find the essay lacking that’s totally fair but you did actually not present an argument on why it was lacking - you just made a snide and elitist remark that did not further the discussion at all.

This is a very elitist and non-inclusive attitude - I’d argue the exact opposite. Philosophy should be open to all, esp. In an amateur forum such as this. If the barriers to entry is to have read all relevant philosophical works to date, it would disqualify 99.9% of posters.

Humans are already «hackable animals» as per futurist Yuval Noah Harari. That’s before you put a chip in anyones mind:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/world/2019/11/26/yuval-noah-harari-interview-anderson-vpx.cnn

This was a great read. Beeing bilingual, I have often been asked by my friends if I think in english or my native language. I allways found it an odd question, because my thoughts are definitely not happening in word-format inside my head - If I had to describe them, I would say they are more “visual” than verbal in nature, and therefore I often say I think more visually than verbally - but this is not a fully accurate description either.

Thoughts are a unique experience and part of your conscious existence and that is an experience infinitely richer than words can convey. Of course, the broader your vocabulary, the greater the chance that you will be able to “translate” your thoughts to words at high fidelity - but much is “lost in translation” when two people speak - even if they are both fluent in a language and competent speakers.

Lol, Your comments are just comedy gold! What are you, like 15? :)

Got it! Don’t mess with mah science or imma call you a big meanie! ;)

real crises in what we call « science» are for you «lame excuses»? Excuses for what? Here’s another one that will Get your juices flowing, publication bias: also a real problem and a huge threat to «science» as we know it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

The naive belief most People have in «science» borders on the absurd and betrays a profound lack of understanding of how the world actually works - i call this «scientism», it’s also akin to figuratively living in platos cave and actively denying that reality is more complex than the world of ideas. Reality is messy, and does not work like it says on the tin ;)

You didn’t take the time to Even look at the links. I think that says it all really. The real world does not work like your textbook sats it works. «Peer review» is not some silver bullet if the whole process is largely corrupt.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant «studies» as data itself is not «Peer reviewed»

Here is one example of how Peer review works in the real world:

https://www.nature.com/articles/515480a

You can also look into ghost writing, the replication crisis and regulatory capture as some keywords for how «science» works in this day and age. People are too naive and think the real world works like they read in some textbook instead of the complicated and profit-driven mess it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ghostwriter

Because the word itself has nothing to do with what you think it does:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly