–“Overfitting explains everything. Counter-signalling explains everything else.”— Via Caplan
Justification explains overfitting.Moral, religious, political, and legal justification explain justificationism.
Hence the Demand for Falsification.
So, the question is, *Who and what institutions, disciplines, and professions are perpetuating justificationism?*
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 10:49:00 UTC
SOCIAL MEDIA TRUISM
—“Exactly. My audience is much larger the more ignorant I become.”— Ronald Karinkanta
—“Dumb people say X. Educated people say Y. Really smart people say X.”—Steve Schneider
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 10:09:00 UTC
DEFINITION: RADICAL
rad·i·cal ( ˈradək(ə)l )
adjective
1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough.
“a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework”
synonyms: thoroughgoing, thorough, complete, total, comprehensive, exhaustive, sweeping, far-reaching, wide-ranging, extensive, across the board, profound, major, stringent, rigorous
“radical reform”
2.advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting an extreme or progressive section of a political party.
“a radical American activist”
synonyms: revolutionary, progressive, reformist, revisionist, progressivist; extreme, extremist, fanatical, militant, diehard, hard-core
“a radical political movement”
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 10:08:00 UTC
“Over my dead body.”
“Yes, I prefer that outcome actually.”
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 10:06:00 UTC
—“If the meaning of every word is up for debate with moral relativists, there is metaphysically zero reason to engage Noel Fritsch
Ergo, the only solution is violence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 09:08:00 UTC
WE AREN’T JUST AGREEING TO DISAGREE.
by Eli Harman
I don’t agree with your assumptions. I don’t agree with your reasoning. I don’t agree with your conclusions. I don’t agree with what you think you know. I don’t agree with how you think you know it. I don’t agree that what you say you think is even what you think. I don’t agree that reality is what you think it is. I don’t agree that the facts are what you say they are. I don’t agree that your theories explain the facts. I don’t agree with your values. I don’t agree with your principles. I don’t agree with your preferences. I don’t agree with your ideals. I don’t agree with your aims. I don’t agree with your means. I don’t agree with your aesthetics. I don’t agree with what you think is beautiful. I don’t agree with what you think is inspiring. I don’t agree with what you think is good. I don’t agree with what you think is true. We have no common ground to build upon, and no common ground to build towards. Everything you say is worthless to me, and everything you do is worthless to me, and everything you are is just as worthless to me.
–“Therefore I do not reason with you, but prosecute.”—Simon Ström
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 08:45:00 UTC
—“My opinion on most topics where I have an opinion, is very nuanced and sophisticated. But basically I usually agree with the dumb people.”— Eli Harman
It’s cuz dum peepul arunt cunning enuf to lie good.
(really. that’s why uneducated people often produce superior polling results.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 07:55:00 UTC
My opinion is, and has been, that Ayelam is the only person who fully understands my work *as i do*. He is very smart and was a PhD student in the philosophy of science that i rely upon. He has been a profound influence on me and my work and is the person I turn to in private when frustrated.
My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the science of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.
Where we differ is that I have the experience of writing artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as difficult to learn as mathematics and literacy, and that this is the scientific means of historical analysis.
I think my use of the terms aristocracy priesthood and burgher refer to specializations in three modes of coercion, and thus the upper classes in these groups are equally superior in their specializations, producing three competing hierarchies organized by different means. So my use of aristocracy is a narrow definition that i understand people misinterpret.
But his criticism of my position that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development, and that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation, is a *theory*.
It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But at present it is only a theory. So in those senses, I agree with his criticisms.
But understand that we both operate from motivated reasoning because of our differences in background and circumstance, which I believe are reducible to ownership and value of prior investment in domestication and its rewards. A difference which merely proves my points.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 06:58:00 UTC
The Priestly Question: On the Restoration of Aristocracy by Special Pleading
by James Augustus
An important insight made by the Reactionaries (literary ‘priestly’ right) that is often over-looked by the martial (upper) and soldiering (mid-to-low) right is the dynamic between power & propaganda, or more accurately, the (totality of existential) dynamics concerning the distribution of rents, discretion (influence) & information.
And we are often misguided by the fallacy of seeking agreement (through force of reasoned argument & genuine good will) amongst the lower-and-middle priestly classes under the false presumption that power follows propaganda, as opposed to propaganda as the industrial production of weaponized misinformation by priest against the aristocratic, commercial & the suggestible consumer classes.
And we can blame the priest & Abrahamist, but really it was the mere perusal of rational self-interest given the (incentives) opportunities produced by advent of mass communications & the failure of the aristocracy to adapt to consumer capitalism (a shift of in revenues from rents on feudal holdings to rents on human holdings in exchange for cost of domestication & the product of civilizational order (commons)).
Europe was just recovering from Abrahamic-monotheism via the Renaissance (rediscovery of Aristotelianism) & the introduction of Empiricism through the Anglo Enlightenment, when we fell to the next wave of deceits & conflations pseudo-science (Abrahamic), pseudo-rationalism (German), literary-moral-fictionalism (French), so we were never able to compete the scientific enlightenment (expand empiricism into the social sciences (law) through the falsification of ‘Man as inherently Moral’ instead of ‘Man as Rational’ (selfishly incentive-driven).
The purpose of pseudo-science was to resist/destroy empiricism, so that a misguided West could not rule its colonial holdings (84% of the globe) empirically—& we lost the world because of it.
And when the failures of the pseudo-scientific enlightenment began to accumulate, the response by the Priest was to attack the very notion of objectivity, and therefor measurement, accounting in political economy & scientific narrative.
So post-modernism is merely the latest iteration of the priestly assault against Aristocracy (markets in everything).
So to close that thought, we cannot restore the Aristocracy (markets), and by extension the West, by special pleading to the Priestly Class & its subordinates. We cannot restore the west by re-appropriation of the Church.
The Restoration can only be achieved by our ancient practice of sovereignty by militia, which is to say reintroducing violence into the political process.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 22:53:00 UTC
http://vidmax.com/video/160845-Brother-Slaps-Friend-And-Carries-Home-His-Drunk-Sister-After-A-Long-Night-Of-Drinking#.WYpn7yF7DDU.facebookThis is how things work there. It is how things work better.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-08 21:40:00 UTC