just because we discover first causes, doesn’t mean that there aren’t multitudinous applications that aren’t obvious.
Reply addressees: @Elbanna201 @JadeBai85455803 @arbutus_pointBC @AsaZernik @ashleyblair21 @InvisibleTL @littlebirdll
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
just because we discover first causes, doesn’t mean that there aren’t multitudin
-
just because we discover first causes, doesn’t mean that there aren’t multitudin
just because we discover first causes, doesn’t mean that there aren’t multitudinous applications that aren’t obvious.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-26 02:46:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276346108587933697
Reply addressees: @Elbanna201 @JadeBai85455803 @arbutus_pointBC @AsaZernik @ashleyblair21 @InvisibleTL @littlebirdll
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276345833387102209
-
Well the there are multiple oft conflated uses for the term rational: one for re
Well the there are multiple oft conflated uses for the term rational: one for reasonable, one for rational choice, one for the informal meaning of logical, and one for what is properly called calculation (not computation), meaning transformation of inputs into outputs. So yes. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-26 02:02:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276335049089191936
Reply addressees: @ashleyblair21 @InvisibleTL @AsaZernik @littlebirdll
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276317884323713024
-
Well the there are multiple oft conflated uses for the term rational: one for re
Well the there are multiple oft conflated uses for the term rational: one for reasonable, one for rational choice, one for the informal meaning of logical, and one for what is properly called calculation (not computation), meaning transformation of inputs into outputs. So yes. 😉
Reply addressees: @ashleyblair21 @InvisibleTL @AsaZernik @littlebirdll -
I have a particular method of doing social science that circumvents the inabilit
I have a particular method of doing social science that circumvents the inability of people to report, testify, survey truthfully. And this is it.
How many people have put forth an argument? None.
How many understand the argument? None.
Even christians and muslims do better.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-26 01:35:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276328122938462208
Reply addressees: @cia_swapmeet @koshersemite
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276327529666637825
-
I have a particular method of doing social science that circumvents the inabilit
I have a particular method of doing social science that circumvents the inability of people to report, testify, survey truthfully. And this is it.
How many people have put forth an argument? None.
How many understand the argument? None.
Even christians and muslims do better.
Reply addressees: @cia_swapmeet @koshersemite -
Though you are welcome to demonstrate how the method I’m using fails tests of id
Though you are welcome to demonstrate how the method I’m using fails tests of identity, internal consistency, actionability, observability, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, completeness and warrantability. (good luck. I’m the expert in the field.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-21 13:59:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274703456712998912
Reply addressees: @HenryMalcom4 @KSI_HEADHUNT3R @Nationalist7346
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274697601632268289
-
Though you are welcome to demonstrate how the method I’m using fails tests of id
Though you are welcome to demonstrate how the method I’m using fails tests of identity, internal consistency, actionability, observability, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, completeness and warrantability. (good luck. I’m the expert in the field.)
Reply addressees: @HenryMalcom4 @KSI_HEADHUNT3R @Nationalist7346 -
So define internal consistency (you see, you’re talking scripture and verbalism
So define internal consistency (you see, you’re talking scripture and verbalism (imaginary), not action(demonstrable).
That’s where abrahamism originated. lying to defend the omniscience of scripture.
That’s why law originated. because it’s demonstrated not words.
Reply addressees: @HenryMalcom4 @KSI_HEADHUNT3R @Nationalist7346 -
So define internal consistency (you see, you’re talking scripture and verbalism
So define internal consistency (you see, you’re talking scripture and verbalism (imaginary), not action(demonstrable).
That’s where abrahamism originated. lying to defend the omniscience of scripture.
That’s why law originated. because it’s demonstrated not words.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-21 13:57:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274703021772017666
Reply addressees: @HenryMalcom4 @KSI_HEADHUNT3R @Nationalist7346
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1274697601632268289