All programmers are goth supermodels.

Well it depends on the definition of censor.

If you define censor as, “to suppress or delete as objectionable” (Webster) then it fits just fine.

Speaking as a freeform blob. Roundness? Yes, I have some ot that. Sharp pointy bits? Yep. Little tangles? Ya, a few of those too.

Yeah but it isn’t the key central focus of the deal anymore then. It’s just a convenient accessory.

We can still observe and discuss methods for making observations.

Yes. Hypotheses. Ideas.

But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.

Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.

There is also the assumption of the central importance of ideas, which is a rather deranged perspective when you think about it.

Don’t get me wrong, ideas have high utility, for memory and language and such, but still.

An idea is just a little thing, and any association between it and the rest of reality is purely contrived.

Firsthand experience is beyond words and super deep.

Convert to words. Consume words. Map words to your own experience.

It’s basically anime at that point.

Popular scifi, written to appeal to the majority, for tv and movies, is actually only one special kind of scifi. And the majority isn’t known for its depth or taste.

I’m not saying that there aren’t exceptions, but ya, that’s how it is.

There’s a whole world of written scifi where the point is basically to show you something strange. Ideas so weird that scifi is the only way to convey them.

Here’s some free, online scifi by good authors. Your mind will be blown.

https://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is-optimal

https://qntm.org/structure

https://library.gift/fiction/9F6810564C853BD3EA7223E4AB1FA575

Is science fiction enough for talking about politics?