Theme: Deception

  • (brilliant) —“People deal with people they don’t trust because they’ve been ta

    (brilliant)

    —“People deal with people they don’t trust because they’ve been taught that rejecting the untrustworthy is a greater sin against society than being a liar”— Karl Brooks


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 02:27:00 UTC

  • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It's A CRAFT.

    [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.

  • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It's A CRAFT.

    [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.

  • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It’s A CRAFT.

    [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.

  • Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It’s A CRAFT.

    [T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.

  • ANCHORING, IDEOLOGY, DOGMA : NOT SCIENCE – IT’S A CRAFT The problem with special

    ANCHORING, IDEOLOGY, DOGMA : NOT SCIENCE – IT’S A CRAFT

    The problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests.

    Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 01:52:00 UTC

  • WHAT IF MOST SOCIAL THEORY AND CRITICISM IS JUST DECEPTION? Not disagreement. Bu

    WHAT IF MOST SOCIAL THEORY AND CRITICISM IS JUST DECEPTION?

    Not disagreement. But simple deception?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 12:41:00 UTC

  • IF ONLY MEN DID NOT LIE I see two constant themes of late when I try to discuss

    IF ONLY MEN DID NOT LIE

    I see two constant themes of late when I try to discuss truth:

    (a) conflation of testimony to one’s knowledge (Speaking Truthfully) and description of correspondence(Truth)

    (b) the false assumption that most people are not only justifying, but are in fact lying. It is one thing for the philosophy of science to correct errors, but I am not so interested in correcting errors as I am deceptions and thefts. CR does not address this issue. Construction does. Which is why scientists who are honest publish their methods and their data and those that are not honest do not.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 12:36:00 UTC

  • You know, the first academic who snowed me was Stephen J Gould. I mean, it turns

    You know, the first academic who snowed me was Stephen J Gould. I mean, it turns out, that the man was simply a liar.

    Krugman is the same creature: a liar. Chomsky is, well, a liar.

    These men turn out to be just plain artistic liars. I mean, they’re sophisticated liars. But in the end, they’re liars.

    Exasperating.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 10:13:00 UTC

  • If Only We Did Not Lie

    [I] see two constant themes of late when I try to discuss truth: (a) conflation of testimony to one’s knowledge (Speaking Truthfully) and description of correspondence(Truth) (b) the false assumption that most people are not only justifying, but are in fact lying. It is one thing for the philosophy of science to correct errors, but I am not so interested in correcting errors as I am deceptions and thefts. CR does not address this issue. Construction does. Which is why scientists who are honest publish their methods and their data and those that are not honest do not.