/lit/ - Literature

>>9414903
>Where do you do most of your reading?
Bed

>Paper or E-book?
Both

>Do you listen to something while reading(Music, whitenoise...)?
No

>Can you read with noise around you?
Nah

> What's your most autistic reading habit?
I did used to put the book right up to my eyes and it always caused me headaches. I still almost have my nose the paper when I'm writing.

Also, when I'm reading a sentence that began on the previous page, I have to flip back several times to confirm what was there.

>>9415151
>My main problem is I've never been able to find a comfortable position to read in that remains comfortable for more than like 5 minutes.

I know that feel.

How much can/should we trust science (in the popular sense of the word) that is not self-evident, for the sake of physical and mental well being but at the same time, in the negative sense, for the sake of keeping an open and creative mind as rational individuals?

Applied science, engineering of a bridge you are not afraid will collapse under you randomly, any non-paranoid ought to take for granted, at least for the sake of their own sanity. What about research findings like consumption of X being "bad" for you? Well there's statistics, 23% get superaids and we can rule out likely confounding variables x y z and it's likely that it's actually the consumption of X that happens to fuck up 23% of n. Something along those lines. Ok.

This is not a causal argument of course, but that's where I feel it gets dumb in real life. Statistics have seemed to replace actual, causal arguments in experimental findings. Ok, people don't say it but they act like it and their affect suggest that they think it.

You ask "why not variables a b c" or "why are 23% so prone while the rest arent" and the expert just smirks to himself (jewishly?) and tells you respectively "a b c would be ridiculous, we haven't seen it before" and in the latter case it's pretty much always speculation not any better than a layman's.

Well fuck vast majority of experts never saw a scientific breakthrough "before" and they happened at regular intervals anyways.

Where do I draw the line here? It's no wonder geniuses always tended to be weird, they had to be for the sort of creative thinking that coincides with possible natural laws (as opposed to the broader logical possibility of arts and so on, bigger chance of normies and smalltime eccentrics). Conversely, how can "pop-scientists" ever create anything new? Protip: They can't. Black scientist character is not my "nigga" and he shouldn't be yours either. Why aren't schools teaching Kant before the sciences anyways?

>>8440971
this might help you https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?pref=2&pli=1