(a) you’re an outlier. interesting. (b) i do the science necessary to write the law necessary to end the lies necessary to bring about the change necessary. (c) some are capable of religion, some want of reason, and some require science. (c) when all teach the same there are no longer lies.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 14:47:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627681290932682755
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627668350661795840
PROBLEM: ADAPTING TO THE UNIFICATION OF THE SCIENCES
(our resistance to the formalization of the behavioral sciences)
FWIW: One of the problems we (all) face is that people don’t expect to understand the physical sciences but oddly enough, expect to understand the behavioral, ethical, and moral sciences of cooperation and dispute resolution. Why? It’s more tangible to us. Why? It’s the means we use to pretend our negotiating position (justification) of our biases is moral rather than within the limits of what is moral without prosecution and retaliation. 😉
So, just as we have paid the high cost to transition populations to scientific understanding in the physical world – and the profound returns – we will now have to pay the high cost of transitioning populations to the scientific understanding of the behavioral and evolutionary world – to obtain the even greater profound returns.
So, in that sense, I expect even greater resistance than Socrates, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, because the progress of science is moving from producing decidability in that which is abstract to the individual, to that which is tangible to his beliefs, to that which is tangible to his display word and deed – and eliminates one’s ability to engage in magical thinking as a means of sedation.
So I expect far greater resistance to my work than we saw even to Darwin’s. In fact, the post-war ideological warfare consists almost entirely of a counter-enlightenment against the Darwinian explanation for nearly all of existence. So we are still in the throws of denial of Darwin 170 years later. I would expect the same people on the right and left who resist the Darwinian revolution to resist this completion of the unification of the sciences – and for the same reasons.
Institutions lag. Humans change only when the people who have malinvested in a previous set of errors, die off, and give opportunities to those who invest in something less erroneous. We can thank Kuhn for that uncomfortable truth.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 05:58:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627548243612561408
And you would be absolutely positively correct, as your professional achievement has demonstrated. 😉
FWIW: One of the problems we (all) face is that people don’t expect to understand the physical sciences but oddly enough, expect to understand the behavioral, ethical, and moral sciences of cooperation and dispute resolution. Why? It’s more tangible to them. Why? It’s the means they use to pretend their negotiating position (justification) of their biases is moral rather than within the limits of what is moral without prosecution and retaliation. 😉
So, just as we have paid the high cost to transition populations to scientific understanding in the physical world – and the profound returns – we will now have to pay the high cost of transitioning populations to the scientific understanding of the behavioral and evolutionary world – to obtain the even greater profound returns.
So, in that sense, I expect greater resistance than Socrates, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin, because the progress of science is moving from producing decidability in that which is abstract to the individual, to that which is tangible to his beliefs, to that which is tangible to his display word and deed.
So I expect far greater resistance to my work than we saw even to Darwin’s. In fact, the post-war ideological warfare consists almost entirely of a counter-enlightenment against the Darwinian explanation for nearly all of existence. So we are still in the throws of denial of Darwin 170 years later. I would expect the same people on the right and left who resist the Darwinian revolution to resist this completion of the unification of the sciences -for the same reasons.
Institutions lag. Humans change only when the people who have malinvested in a previous set of errors, die off, and give opportunities to those who invest in something less erroneous. We can thank Kuhn for that uncomfortable truth.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 05:32:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627541751383617536
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627537986727583745
So do are you suggesting that every discipline that uses dedicated vocabulary and phrasing – all the sciences, including logic and law – don’t or shouldn’t use those terms? Given that the purpose of my work teaching the language necessary for unambiguous decidability in the behavioral sciences, why would I do anything else? This is what we do. If you saw math or programming then you’d expect an inaccessible language for most. While it may not appear so we’re using ordinal mathematics, in what is a via negativa programming language to write formulae in the behavioral sciences – uniting the sciences.
Since that’s what I teach, that’s what I write in. And if you follow the team at the institute we ‘all talk the same’ so to speak.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 04:54:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627532046439530497
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627530474821410818
Good, strong, skeptical take.
Minimum Understanding:
1. the work (a) unifies the sciences in a single universally commensurable formal, operational, constructive logic of falsification (b) produces a formal logic of decidability (c) applied to law to create a formal and…
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 04:15:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627522187425984513
Reply addressees: @dannysmanifesto
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627518748402884608
Good, strong, skeptical take.
Minimum Understanding:
1. the work (a) unifies the sciences in a single universally commensurable formal, operational, constructive logic of falsification (b) produces a formal logic of decidability (c) applied to law to create a formal and scientific logic of cooperation and consequently a formal scientific logic vocabulary and grammar of law.
2. This work applied to formalize empirical common law (negative) and empirically concurrent legislation (positive). then applied to the constitution, amendments, policy reforms. (listed elsewhere in some detail)
3. Net result is the extension of fraud and protections from commercial production of private goods, services, and information, to political production of commons whether in goods, services, and information. The immediate result is the suppression of the means of baiting into hazard by false promise (fraud) that by social or political construction we can violate the laws of the universe.
4. This completes the Wilsonian synthesis of the formal (logical), physical, behavioral, and evolutionary sciences, providing universal falsifiability and decidability, completing the natural law program from Aristotle to the present.
5. To complete this project requires (a) a moral license to demand change (b) a solution to the crisis in a set of morally justifiable demands for change (c) an organized plan of transition (c) demand for restitution, punishment, and prevention (d) an undeniable threat of force if thse moral demands aren’t met: in other words, a repetition of the magna carta, and the founders, by a common law suit against the state for the redress of grievances presented to the state.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-20 04:15:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627522187178528770
Causes and Evidence of Female “Magical Thinking”
THE SCIENCE:
1) Conflating what they wish for with what is and what is possible.
2) The general tendency of women to confuse what is Desirable/Undesirable with what is True/False. Or, more directly, stating their wants are truths of the world, rather than just wants of their own.
3) The universal tendency (demonstrated in this video) of women to engage in NAXALT/AXALT: Not all X are like that, All X are like that, or more precisely, to ignore a distribution to justify an outlier, or to use an outlier in order to falsify a distribution.
These –XALTs are both forms of denial. In other words (get ready) the woman’s cognition evolves to justify her feelings and NOT adapt to existential reality.
Why? They are exporting satisfaction of their emotional demands onto others: MEN. (Yes really).
This is the science, and it’s exasperating. Why? We no longer use older sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and aunts to cause women to self-regulate their magical thinking.
And their magical thinking evolved in order to generate demand from men to satisfy them …. in exchange for affection and sex. Sorry. 🙁
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 21:22:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627418484740161536
I would say that if we discover a law of nature that we can make use of it, and we can obey it, but we will pay the costs of disregarding it – and there are no exceptions that I know of.
I’d also say that the universe, the solar system, the geology, the climate, the flora, and fauna have done everything possible to kill us with disturbing regularity. In fact, the universe is a vast irradiated wasteland hostile to life, particularly ours.
The evidence would strongly suggest that not mother nature, nor gods, nor God care for our condition – only that we achieve their ambitions for us. And those ambitions consider us domesticated animals until at some point in the distant future we face extinction or transformation by evolution into gods ourselves.
Jesus told us the only way to tolerate the tragic conditions during our journey: the extension of kinship love to all until we determine it’s fruitless.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 03:53:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627154415714029568
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1626807406536839168
James, (all)
If you have the option of a religious, philosophical, or scientific explanation of these ‘origins’, then why do you choose the religious and not the scientific?
We can explain the same behavior (Gnosticism) in the method of the wisdom literature of every civilization. What’s so fascinating about the religious frame? (Same criticism I have of Peterson.)
We use what we understand, and we understand what we know. Is the religious frame the one you understand? Why wouldn’t you (or anyone) just explain the behavior using incentives – where the method (logic) of a culture’s wisdom literature is just a means of justifying those incentives and objectives?
The reason I ask is that you’re accusing (correctly) the opposition (and others who failed) of the anti-empirical enlightenment trap, but aren’t you just backdating the same problem to the religious? (yes)
I’m curious more so than anything else. Partly because there are limits to the frame you’re building just like there have been to the previous generations of thinkers for the same reasons you identify.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-19 03:16:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627145080040574982
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627129955405508609
RT @DrEliDavid: 97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them.
Source date (UTC): 2023-02-18 18:12:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1627008158798413828