I'm arguing my perspective when seemingly every comment shares the opposite opinion. You telling me I'm perpetuating an echo chamber is kinda ironic when I'm going against the grain don't you think? It's not like I'm demanding people to change their view to mine or for everyone to share the same view as you put it, but how would it make sense to argue if not to attempt to change people's minds or at least pry for answers on the situation? I reserve the right to judge their reasonings and decide for myself if I'm going to change my mind myself or if I should continue to hold my stance. That's all I can control. Where exactly did you figure I was asking people to share the same view?

If you feel like I missed the point when all you did was restate something very similar to what I was saying, I feel like you didn't really read or somehow understand my comment or maybe you are failing at expressing your viewpoint in an understandable way.

This subreddit is getting too jaded to see the point. Yes you might die, but for some people that is how to live life meaningfully and it's not like they or at least the reasonable people doing this don't know it's dangerous and that they will likely live a shorter life, but that is the point of the quote. Instead of living for 80 years unfulfilled, they'd rather live for 30 having a fulfilling experience. Every quote doesn't have to appeal to everyone. Most of the comments in this thread are disappointing.

I thought it more like this, in science, induction or single data points happen and then is part of the past and is analysed, and through getting an understanding of past events, you can start to try and predict future data points. History in this sense can be seen as instances of specific events that can be used to substantiate a claim or theory.

What can't what? Not sure what you're asking, but I'm disappointed people are down voting me. All I'm saying is conspiracy theorists usually has doubts of an epistemic nature to the point where they sometimes only rely on their sense data and other times rely on people they trust. So when this quote goes on to talk about sensory evidence, I realized that this quote for people who doubt the integrity and refuse to rely on institutions or research, in this instance, that quote can be used against you, since it would make sense for their side too.

As someone who deals with people who are conspiracy theorists, that quote could be used by both sides