Category: Epistemology and Method

  • All; What is the difference between rational philosophy, empirical argument, jud

    All;
    What is the difference between rational philosophy, empirical argument, judicial competition, and formal decidability?

    (Clue: what dimensions are permissible in each paradigm, and what criteria of decidability)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 12:42:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810293289603493888

  • WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”? One would only read continental philo

    WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
    One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 01:34:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322450301280

  • WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”? One would only read continental philo

    WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
    One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice (preference) was exhausted before the 20th, and has gone the way of theology as a footnote in the history of thought.

    If you invest in the frame provided by the French (Rousseau, Voltaire et al), Germans (Kant et all), or the Ashkenazi (Freud, boas, Marx, et al) then you create an impediment to knowledge, not knowledge.

    Every single one of those thinkers was trying to deny anglo empiricism and legalism, and to create a secular theology to replace the church – because most if not all people who are indoctrinated into the Abrahamic faiths are left vulnerable to lack of sufficient confidence and resulting mindfulness to bear the continuous struggle of continuous learning, reorganization, and adaptation that adversarial empiricism demands.

    Or said differently, continental philosophy serves as a pseudoscientific range from Russian, to German, to french, to Ashkenazi that seeks to avoid the responsibility of the restoration of Aristotelianism and classical thought.

    The weak west is addicted to the false promise of false explanations because we lack a narrative or mythos that provides mindfulness in the face of continuous adaptation to the discovery of, application of, and consequences of our increasing correspondence with the laws of the universe.

    This is why we require military training to compensate for Christian doctrine. And is why the Greeks invented tragedy so that we could tolerate it. And why Jesus of Nazareth discovered and taught the only means of getting over that tragedy for the bottom: the extension of kinship love to all in the polity.

    But the Paulians abused that message by wrapping it in false promise of freedom from those laws, rather than the use of love and compassion to tolerate them.

    In other words, preservation of continental philosophy is evation of responsibility for science adaptation and evolution, and yet another exercise in justifying western man’s Christian addiction to submission and cowardice as a pretense of conviction rather than a convenience of not taking responsibility for dragging one’s self, and one’s people out of superstition, ignorance, dysgenia, and decline.

    So the people who are weak seek pseudoscience and sophistry as sedation against the stress of the recognition of their unfitness to survive because they cannot or will not evolve along with the state of human knowledge in our long journey from beast, to man, to godhood ourselves.

    The reason the white disenfranchised are alienated, conquered, and defeated is their Christian cowardice masquerading as false pride and conviction – but nothing more than addicts to a frame of lies, and spending down a civilization built by better men.

    As far as I know philosophy is over and only the formal physical behavioral and evolutionary sciences remain.

    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 01:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322198691840

  • All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should an

    All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.

    The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
    (b) the decreasing requirements for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domains,
    and,
    (c) the requirement for consistency across domains.

    In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.

    I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.

    The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.

    This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809695211334819840

  • All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should an

    All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.

    The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domain,
    (b) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
    and,
    (c) the requirement for consistency across domains.

    In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.

    I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.

    The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.

    This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809689383211266050

  • KNOWLEDGE SPECTRUM: Awareness > Recognition > Understanding > Knowledge > Applie

    KNOWLEDGE SPECTRUM: Awareness > Recognition > Understanding > Knowledge > Applied Knowledge > Analysis Using Knowledge > Synthesis(recombination) > Evaluation > Insight > Wisdom.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-05 21:44:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809342722764902827

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809294755467260003

  • Well done. Minor improvement: A theory consists of (a) a narrative explanation o

    Well done.
    Minor improvement: A theory consists of (a) a narrative explanation of the causes of (b) a set of observable, measurable, behaviors (state and changes in state). I usually describe this as the two sides of the coin: positiva (narrative) vs negativa (measurements).


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-03 22:00:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808621849074442396

    Reply addressees: @FredSondheim @theseoblogger @meharmsen @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808603922552271278

  • You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming

    You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming the failure of philosophers to define science and the scientific method – by defining it and explaining it. I’ve never seen anyone both understand my work and disagree: science consists of the process of producing testimony that incrementally discovers first principles (causality).

    Some people ( and I understand them) are raised in a religious tradition, and maintain the moral intuitions they were indoctrinated into, while granting superiority to the evidence of causality (realism and naturalism) find no conflict between those moral rules and natural laws.

    Conversely, I can quite easily explain why you err in your obsessions. And why all those like you require a childish need for certainty that you can ascertain, instead of maturing into an adult need for actionability while maintaining both humility, skepticism, and optimism that one’s konwledge will improve.

    You demonstrate neigher humility, nor skepticism, nor optimism despite the evidence that the method of producing testimony that europeans developed in court in matters of dispute and extended to all experience outside of court – which we call ‘science’ – has reduced your supernatural lies to mere children’s parables.

    Reply addressees: @Schwall_ins_All @therealbaldtim @sbrandmusic @meharmsen @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-02 15:59:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808168563925979136

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808162806870458802

  • RT @WerrellBradley: @Gentilenewsnet At The Natural Law Institute, we talk about

    RT @WerrellBradley: @Gentilenewsnet At The Natural Law Institute, we talk about “Coherence” being the relationship of some signal to base r…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-01 19:27:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807858475953016972

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: Decidability, the neutral and judicial means of evaluating tr

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: Decidability, the neutral and judicial means of evaluating truth, offers the elusive foundation for cooperation that doe…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-06-30 18:09:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807476551250010429