RT @ContraFabianist: @curtdoolittle Objective in limits, Relative to scale.
Decidability by natural limits>action (possible)
Decidability…
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-06 21:54:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589375642382270465
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
RT @ContraFabianist: @curtdoolittle Objective in limits, Relative to scale. Deci
-
(Now, note that I granted you the same grace, but as an example: –“You would ne
(Now, note that I granted you the same grace, but as an example:
–“You would never be seriously, as an intellectual,…”–
That’s incoherent. I can still infer your meaning. But perhaps you might try not to throw stones in your glass house, so to speak. 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-06 00:15:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589048878380507136
Reply addressees: @DrBreck4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589046681005277185
-
Well you know, there are those of you who think in little things and those of us
Well you know, there are those of you who think in little things and those of us who think in big things, and never the two shall meet. I teach students to write as they speak. And worry about everything else later. I practice what I preach. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-06 00:13:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589048186421022720
Reply addressees: @DrBreck4
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1589046681005277185
-
If you were capable of such rational thought (you aren’t b/c you’re making accus
If you were capable of such rational thought (you aren’t b/c you’re making accusations, and emoting, in defense of pride) you’d demonstrate it by stating first principles and constructing an argument from them (you can’t). I know. No one of intellect would say anything you have.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-05 20:32:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588992602485161985
Reply addressees: @ImagingTerra @WalterIII @emmey_mcspeed @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588991871715790848
-
Rational thought by the way is only possible within (a) bounded rationality, and
Rational thought by the way is only possible within (a) bounded rationality, and (b) left rationalism seeks emotional consistency not (c) right realism, naturalism, consistency, correspondence independent of preference.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-05 20:29:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588991933963464705
Reply addressees: @ImagingTerra @toodarkmark @emmey_mcspeed @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588990064356626432
-
Quite the contrary, one of the tests of expertise consists of enumerating the ex
Quite the contrary, one of the tests of expertise consists of enumerating the experts in the field whose work provides disambiguation and value neutrality compared to intuition, common knowledge, or prior states of presumed knowledge.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-04 15:26:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588553210654228480
Reply addressees: @Lori21185089 @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588549650746773504
-
So then, why do words have meaning: meaning “Why are words systems of weights an
So then, why do words have meaning: meaning “Why are words systems of weights and measures?”
All langauge consists of references to subjectively testable measurements, that are either consistent, correspondent, and coherent, or conflated, inflated, fictionalized, as deceptions.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-04 01:09:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588337555912544257
Reply addressees: @jessie_jacks @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588330262760673282
-
How is ‘the destruction of institutions of cultural production’ performed? By “s
How is ‘the destruction of institutions of cultural production’ performed? By “social construction of falsehoods” by “destruction of the meaning of terms”, facilitating “the march through our institutions”, “erasure of traditions and history” and “destruction of nuclear family”.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-04 01:07:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588337199933980672
Reply addressees: @jessie_jacks @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588330262760673282
-
Of course not. But it’s test. And the evidence of that test is telling. And in t
Of course not. But it’s test. And the evidence of that test is telling. And in that telling, we see the problem. And because of that problem we see the manifestation of ignorance and a century of sedition in all public forums.
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-03 23:06:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588306628348039168
Reply addressees: @Will_of_Europa @dlynch_esq @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588303100536033280
-
What evidence do you have of the superiority of your thoughts words and deeds? C
What evidence do you have of the superiority of your thoughts words and deeds? Conversely, what evidence do you have as to the inferiority of your thoughts words and deeds?
Source date (UTC): 2022-11-03 18:43:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588240352590307328
Reply addressees: @ImagingTerra @TheRickWilson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588236845208379392