(FB 1549159120 Timestamp) —“The two greatest iron mines in this parts of Asia are located (1) by the Van-lake, and (2) by the Azov-lake… A good a reason as any to inflict war and competition between the Asas and the Vans.”— azov=north of black sea in southern russia. van = south of black sea in e anatolia.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549138609 Timestamp) —“To take a Clausewitzian approach, let us consider eugenics the continuation of human domestication by scientific means.” — Rosenborg Predmetsky (via brandon hayes)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549132473 Timestamp) —“The first skill to learn is reloading. Even if you only reload for someone else who is more able-bodied, you have great value.”—Trey Lindsey
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549159308 Timestamp) —“calculating 40 years/generation would set a birth date for Odin to be around 100 – 150 AD.”— (Color me skeptical.) —“These indications adequately supports Snorris story of the Asas fleeing for the Roman forces to seek new land up in northern Europe – in Svitjod. But most importantly, the existence of a people called Asas living by the Black Sea around 100 BC – 100 AD can now be confirmed. It seems plausible that the Asas really could have emigrated from Azov/AsgÃ¥rd around 60 BC, and that a human named Odin could have existed in Scandinavia or northern Germany around 50 BC. But it certainly does not match the Anglo-Saxon genealogy, as we have seen. So, to answer the question whether this adds up to support the Asa-peoples emigration from the Black Sea is rather easy: The simple truth is, it does not… Thus it seems we have two different approaches for identification of a human being, named Odin, that span at least 200 years apart. It just do not match… How can this be solved?”—
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549335218 Timestamp) by Bill Joslin Scientism simply holds the notion that: 1) the scientific method can eventually explain anything and 2) any scientific explanation obtains certainty. No person seriously immersed in science has held these two positions since the logical positivists. 1) certainty remains a unicorn. The pedestrian understanding of knowledge distinguishes knowledge as dichotomous to belief because knowledge has the quality of certainty. It doesnt – knowledge remains a type of belief, a subset of belief in that knowledge exists as a belief which has enough warrant to suspend uncertainty to act without doubt…. (Certainty being the absence of uncertainty – it exists in the negative and remains impossible in the positive) (For some fun with this and to see how disingenuous Thaddeus Russel is, see his interview with Moly, where he says that he doesn’t “know that planes can fly (and nobody can claim they do)” but he chooses to “act as if” he does…. Or when Peterson is asked if he believes in god, he says “I act as though I do” Both use the definition of knowledge (which you better bet that they are aware of the definition), in place of the word SO THEY CAN AVOID BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOLDING THE BELIEF! – lying f#ckers!?) 2) science today no longer exists as a singular method, but rather as a criteria which can be achieved via many methods. This criteria, or considering the criteria separately from the methodologies reveals that it remains an epistemic innovation. Epistemology being the study of how we know what we know… Thus knowing anything requires meeting the criteria of what knowledge is, meeting this criteria. In other words, “the scientific method” can not explain all facets of that we can “know” but to be “knowledge” the notion must meet the criteria. Meeting the criteria doesn’t provide explanation (in the positive) but rather vets for that which IS NOT knowledge. It tests for knowledge candidates and thus can be applied to any claim of knowledge. So… Next time someone comes at you with the 60 year old, long dead accusation of “scientism” just say “you don’t know what knowledge is.”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549308489 Timestamp) MINDFULNESS OF THE TRUTHFUL KIND —“I think your method … it’s VERY effective at stripping down lies and at conflation And oddly enough, it provides a kind of emotional confidence…. E-Prime is probably good for the neural pathways.”— a Friend Yes, it provides a category of mindfulness because everything is explicable in ordinary language. It is good for neural pathways because our brains don’t like not understanding what’s going on around us.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549335218 Timestamp) by Bill Joslin Scientism simply holds the notion that: 1) the scientific method can eventually explain anything and 2) any scientific explanation obtains certainty. No person seriously immersed in science has held these two positions since the logical positivists. 1) certainty remains a unicorn. The pedestrian understanding of knowledge distinguishes knowledge as dichotomous to belief because knowledge has the quality of certainty. It doesnt – knowledge remains a type of belief, a subset of belief in that knowledge exists as a belief which has enough warrant to suspend uncertainty to act without doubt…. (Certainty being the absence of uncertainty – it exists in the negative and remains impossible in the positive) (For some fun with this and to see how disingenuous Thaddeus Russel is, see his interview with Moly, where he says that he doesn’t “know that planes can fly (and nobody can claim they do)” but he chooses to “act as if” he does…. Or when Peterson is asked if he believes in god, he says “I act as though I do” Both use the definition of knowledge (which you better bet that they are aware of the definition), in place of the word SO THEY CAN AVOID BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOLDING THE BELIEF! – lying f#ckers!?) 2) science today no longer exists as a singular method, but rather as a criteria which can be achieved via many methods. This criteria, or considering the criteria separately from the methodologies reveals that it remains an epistemic innovation. Epistemology being the study of how we know what we know… Thus knowing anything requires meeting the criteria of what knowledge is, meeting this criteria. In other words, “the scientific method” can not explain all facets of that we can “know” but to be “knowledge” the notion must meet the criteria. Meeting the criteria doesn’t provide explanation (in the positive) but rather vets for that which IS NOT knowledge. It tests for knowledge candidates and thus can be applied to any claim of knowledge. So… Next time someone comes at you with the 60 year old, long dead accusation of “scientism” just say “you don’t know what knowledge is.”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549308489 Timestamp) MINDFULNESS OF THE TRUTHFUL KIND —“I think your method … it’s VERY effective at stripping down lies and at conflation And oddly enough, it provides a kind of emotional confidence…. E-Prime is probably good for the neural pathways.”— a Friend Yes, it provides a category of mindfulness because everything is explicable in ordinary language. It is good for neural pathways because our brains don’t like not understanding what’s going on around us.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549400841 Timestamp) —“These guys donât recognize the civil rights movement as an example of 4GW. They are all picking up the wrong historical examples to argue the point that âwe canât win.â … They arenât seeing the new battle space, so they are getting it wrong. … A post comparing and contrasting examples of 4GW with earlier forms of conflict might be goods for a lot of us.”— Daniel Roland Anderson
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1549394541 Timestamp) DON’T WASTE OUR TIME by Eli Harman —“Countersignaling is just wasting our time. Our existence is not negotiable. Present conditions are not conducive to our existence. And conditions are not going to change (for the better) until we mass—– enough of the people responsible for creating them. Ergo…”— 😉