First, I'll try to give you the intuition of why it doesn't work like that:

Imagine you have one regular die 1-2-3-4-5-6, and another die with colours instead Blue-Red-Yellow-Green-Orange-Pink.

You roll the first die and obtain 6, that was a 16%.

You then roll the second die. What would that mean to "have a smaller chance to roll a 6 again"? Which colour is "6"? Is that Pink because it was the last of my list? That's completely arbitrary. It doesn't make sense that my first roll with change the probability of obtaining a colour or another, so there is also a 16% chance of obtaining each colour.

Now, if I write some numbers on top of the colours, does that magically change the probability of obtaining the "Pink 6" just because I obtained a 6 before? Surely not.

And if instead I rolled the first die a second time, why would that be any different? It's not like objects have some "magical memory" that remember how often it rolled 6.

Now, here is why you did think it worked like that in the first place:

If you roll the first die, don't look at its result, then roll the second die, then yes, the probability of getting two 6s is quite low: 1/36 = 3%

Similarly, if you roll the first die, don't look at its result, then roll the second die, and then I look at both and say 'I promise you that there is at least one 6', then the probability of a double 6 remains quite low: 1/11 = 9%. What's the difference? Well, I didn't tell you whether the first or the second was a 6, so you have less information than in your example (where you knew that it was the first who was a 6). Just a slight change in information and the probability is different.

And lastly, in nature, there is a lot of things that look random but aren't. For example, there is a 50/50 chance of being night or day, but after enough night the day eventually come, because that's not actually random in the same way a die works.

But in the situation you described:

• You have total knowledge about the first roll. It's a 100% chance of obtaining a 6 because you know the 6 happened. That's a fact that cannot be changed.
• You have zero knowledge about the second roll. It's a 16% chance of obtaining a 6 because the roll is fair and nothing is influencing it.

For connecting with others, yes and no.

Yes, peoples want to connect with others. But the scale at which modern media connect us is overkill, and peoples actually seek to be part of smaller bubbles.

For examples, instead of an individual customizing their own show, imagine a streamer/youtuber doing it. Or even, imagine of group of friends doing it together, they now have a shared experience that is "unique".

As for preserving the message, yes, I agree that this is a core reason why generated content will not fully replaced the initial content. However, in the same way peoples have fun replaying a videogame with absurd mods (like a randomisers that shuffle every character), there will be a place for generated variants of shows.

I'm sadly not working in the medical domain, so I don't know anything past my 5min internet search (which yield results such as https://americasfrontlinedoctors.org/library/pedia/effectiveness-of-lockdowns) it seems that the core issue was not one of diagnosis (they were right in determining that a severe reduction of contacts between humans would reduce the spread) but one of failure in policy-making (medical experts failed to consider that voluntary confinement would be enough to reduce the spread, and that government mandates would not significantly improve the situation while having some severe drawbacks on non-medical subjects). Which, all being said, is not surprising: most medical experts don't have ALSO an expertise in policy-making, and like most peoples, scientists tend to overestimate their skill in domain they're not expert in.

Though, even if they were experts in both, I'm even cautious about calling "following the experts" as being "following the scientific consensus", as one of the prerequisite for the scientific consensus to work as intended is time, which is lacking in urgent situations like a worldwide pandemic.

[And I won't comment on the effects of funding methods in science, as while I understand that the peoples spending money want to ensure that the money they invest is going to bring them even more money, it has many perverted effects on scientists' ethics.]

Yes, the scientific method often get "initialised" by non-scientific means. What I see in my domains is often issues about "aesthetics", like searching for a theory that is pleasing to the mind.

However, while it is widely accepted that while those biais are useful for innovation and finding research directions, as long as you don't manage to distance yourself from those biais you should not expect other scientists to believe you.

The high standard of "objectivity" is a standard about creating a scientific consensus. If a scientist believe that something is right while another believe that something is wrong, and all they have are subjective experiences, then you're in a deadlock and none of them will change their mind.

Additionally, given the very wild and numerous beliefs that many individuals (even scientists) have, you can't afford the time to have unfructuous debates with all of them.

That's why the scientific community agreed that it was a better use of everyone time to dismiss ideas that are only backed by subjective experiences from the scientific consensus, but that doesn't mean it is banning individual research groups from following them (they're called "conjectures"). It's just that only recognising them when they reach a point where objective data is obtained.

And I have plenty of examples on my community of researchers that have some bug conjectures that are "crazy", and those conjectures are dismissed by the community if you're talking about "scientific consensus", but still accepted if you're seeing them as a "research project that might or might not eventually give some major results".

It's just that from the outside, peoples only see the "scientific consensus". And obviously the scientific consensus will dismiss wild claims because that's not where wild claims belongs: they belong in "conjectures" and "research projects".

Here, the Bible is not used as a source for "real life events" but as a subject of study by itself.

The fact that the Bible's text evolved due to cherrypicking and modification is precisely why the "concept of forgery" is important.

History is kind of pointless when you look at something that is unchanged through time. What matters is which change happened when.

The goal is to retrace the history of what the biblical texts used to look like. And undetected forgeries undermine this work.

Yes, but that's kind of unavoidable. Regulations make things more expensive.

On the other hand, if those regulations are actually effective (which I don't have the expertise to judge) and, for example, manage to delay by a little bit some negative climate effects, then it can still be cost-effective.

Climate change and pollution are expensive to the society. From increased natural disasters to public health issues, or disruption to international diplomacy (hence military costs), we always pay for it one way or another.

(It's just that it's difficult to make the actual computations, since the pollution from a single public contract is quite negligible compared to total human pollution, but the increase in costs is also quite negligible compared to the total cost of climate change)