If you have a debate issue of merit that is decidable then state it.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-08 03:11:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843489303818879140
Reply addressees: @MattDoyleSmit @russianbotulism @LittleMammith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843488911915659432
The jury determines the outcome one of a debate – not the participants
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-08 03:05:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843487906285125839
Reply addressees: @MattDoyleSmit @russianbotulism @LittleMammith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843487337000644638
What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important ones). What theories that can only explain can be subject to error bias wishful-thinking and deceit? What theories that only explain, are subject to error bias wishful- thinking and deceit are commonly held by the population?
The blank slate, nature vs nurture, capacity for learning and adapting, capacity for self regulation, agency, logic , differences in Sex, class, race, ethnicity, culture, civilization, equality, neoteny, genetic load, regression to the mean, necessity of natural selection, continuous growth, end of scarcity, end of status competition in furtherance of natural selection to prevent dysgenic regression.
And that’s just the
Reply addressees: @TheSumOfMonkeys @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 19:17:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843370014465830912
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843266519679295507
–“Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–
The opposite is true. Since it’s falsification that determines the truth content of a set of claims, and that justification like conflation determines the deceptive content of a set of claims, we can only falsify the set of alternatives sufficiently to leave a claim standing, which requires a breadth of supporting arguments necessary to do so.
Since all but a fraction of humans have difficulty with other than single cause sequences, and no one below a certain threshold is capable of even one logical reversal, it means that without those of greater konwledge and ability assisting others in a descending hierarchy combined with those in the ascending hierarchy supplying ‘problems’ then the vast majority of people are incapable of significant thought other than mere imitation of what tactical influences that percolate through the commentariat.
In other words (a) if we cannot agree on existence (b) if we cannot agree on scarcity, (c) if we cannot agree on teh good because of in-time experience vs over-time consequence, (d) if we cannot agree on demonstrated human behavior as self interested and acquisitional (e) if we cannot agree on neoteny, genetic load, natural selection, and its necessity then (f) we cannot possibly agree on anything else because those are the premises upon which all subsequent argument are dependent.
This is the importance of shared understanding – a system of weights and measures reflecting the group evolutionary strategy of the population in response to others and the environment and the laws of nature – then we cannot seek compromises and trades (cooperation) and we are doomed to authoritarianism, civil war, or separation.
My suggestion is that we emphasize separation (“Let a thousand nations bloom”) since there is no need to agree or compromise except in proximity within a polity. And as such like europe, the USA is too large to share social and political ambitions, and there is no strategic or economic utility in doing so. LIkewise europe is discovering this now and it’s producing the end of the attempt of the french to create a “USA out of Europe” using incrementalism of the EU, the currency, and policy.
My job, which I openly state, is to provide those with the ability to engage in questions of such moment with the tools to do so, such that they can provide answers to those less able but just as willing – and so that together they can suppress the industrialization of false promise and deceit that has marked the public discourse of post 1914 western civilization, and the attempt at reproducing soviet authority to produce feminine > abrahamic > marxist > postmodern > feminist > woke uniformity – despite that it’s universally suicidal.
Affections
CD
Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_ @geekprofessor @LittleMammith
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:35:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843314296669007872
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843308920942829996
My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so that we may produce a general science of proscription against pretense of knowledge and reason while claiming want’s are truths. In fact in almost all cases, the tendency of the left, progressive, feminine instinct consists of the evasion of responsibilty for self, private, and common, and the claim of oppression, while stating wants are truths and disapprovals are falsehoods.
If you can understand that you might be worth conversation. But in fact, only a small percentage of the population is capable of self reflective thought to that degree of agency.
I use, and our organization uses, social media as a research vehicle.
Hence even in this case it’s rather easy for you to claim knowledge you do not possess by claiming the it matters what people intend when they debate, and instead what they and the audience learn from the darwinian process of it – thus your avoidance of the argument altogether, and avoidance of the demonstration of competency to hold any given position whatsoever – other than animal instinct to justify your least cost of acquisition of resources (preferences).
I am, we are, the only organization that has ‘scienced’ lying whether by intent or instinct. And it’s necessary in the present age where the industrialization and institutionalization of lying have replaced the mass production of testimonial truth consistent with demonstrated evidence of human behavior.
Cheers
Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 14:50:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843302795950055424
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413
1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consuming in-time, masculine right capitalizing over time;
2. –“Okay but what makes your “theory” more factual than this persons”–
I answered your use of postmodern sophistry of relativism by stating a fact requires a theory – a hierarchy of theories.
I provided the foundations of the theory of political differences as largely genetic, or like religion, by indoctrination.
I suspect the depth of those two statements might be non obvious to you and require explanation.
3. –“… use ad homin attacks and appeal to intellect …”–
Because you begin with false premises of wants and your opposition begins with the masculine premise of demonstrated behavior, both of you think the other is lacking in intelligence, while you think them oppressive and they think you thieves (parasites). (BTW: no criticism, but it’s ad hominem, oft shortened to ad hom.)
In summary its easy to call one another stupid when ones premises about the universe and mankind are polar opposites.
However conservatives are demonstrably correct in human behavior, the four sets of laws of the universe, economics, and Law. Progressives are only correct about ambitions and feelings. Why? masculine systematizing over time vs feminine empathizing in time.
ie: genetics.
Reply addressees: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:50:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843212168285548545
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843205340352938170
Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn.
Or, here, let me google that for you:
—-
The statement “facts only exist within the context of a theory” is most closely associated with Thomas Kuhn. In *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962), Kuhn argued that what we consider to be facts are always interpreted through a particular paradigm or theoretical framework. He emphasized that scientific knowledge is not a straightforward accumulation of facts but is shaped and structured by the prevailing theories of the time.
This idea is a development of earlier views in the philosophy of science, particularly from Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Popper suggested that scientific theories are frameworks for testing hypotheses, while Wittgenstein highlighted that the meaning of statements (including facts) is context-dependent. However, it was Kuhn who more explicitly argued that facts and theories are interdependent in the evolution of scientific understanding.
—-
Reply addressees: @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 23:45:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843075072551989248
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843066566642196519
It was a response by a genius stating an empirical measurement.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 16:32:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842966145449775420
Reply addressees: @HoustonDVM @russianbotulism @LittleMammith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842965820114432255
Clearly you don’t have a basic knowledge of epistemology: all facts are only so, within the context of a theory. If a theory is false the references are not facts but information.
Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 16:31:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842965955770798315
Reply addressees: @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842965402592370691
THE ASYMMETRIC ECONOMICS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT
@elonmusk , All
1. Falsehoods are cheaper easier and faster to produce than truths. “Adding Clay is easier to sculpt than Removing Stone.”
2. Desirable falsehoods are cheaper to and faster to distribute than truths.
3. The economics of falsehood, false promise, wishful thinking, magical thinking, externalization of costs, evading responsibility, and outright lying is such that a small portion of the population must work diligently to suppress that mass production of those falsehoods generated by the funding of non-academic courses in universities, then distributed by media, entertainment, and the state.
4. The left has institutionalized and industrialized lying while the right merely fails to produce quality arguments because while the left is pseudo-intellectual, the right is anti-intellectual, and classical liberal libertarians – once the intellectual vanguard of the right – were captured by the Rothbardian Libertine Libertarians and were vaporized by events by 2010.
We have no intellectual competitors on the right. And that’s not a good thing.
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
https://t.co/mnjST7WOgM
Reply addressees: @elonmusk
Source date (UTC): 2024-09-28 00:43:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839828363093196800
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839199325408129340