Theme: Science

  • RT @WerrellBradley: This points to the unification of the social sciences with t

    RT @WerrellBradley: This points to the unification of the social sciences with the natural sciences done by The Natural Law Institute.

    We…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-08 16:35:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843691757906882807

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @TheSumOfMonkeys @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith What theorie

    RT @curtdoolittle: @TheSumOfMonkeys @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the impo…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-08 05:04:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843517925657063940

  • What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important one

    What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important ones). What theories that can only explain can be subject to error bias wishful-thinking and deceit? What theories that only explain, are subject to error bias wishful- thinking and deceit are commonly held by the population?

    The blank slate, nature vs nurture, capacity for learning and adapting, capacity for self regulation, agency, logic , differences in Sex, class, race, ethnicity, culture, civilization, equality, neoteny, genetic load, regression to the mean, necessity of natural selection, continuous growth, end of scarcity, end of status competition in furtherance of natural selection to prevent dysgenic regression.

    And that’s just the

    Reply addressees: @TheSumOfMonkeys @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 19:17:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843370014465830912

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843266519679295507

  • My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so tha

    My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so that we may produce a general science of proscription against pretense of knowledge and reason while claiming want’s are truths. In fact in almost all cases, the tendency of the left, progressive, feminine instinct consists of the evasion of responsibilty for self, private, and common, and the claim of oppression, while stating wants are truths and disapprovals are falsehoods.

    If you can understand that you might be worth conversation. But in fact, only a small percentage of the population is capable of self reflective thought to that degree of agency.

    I use, and our organization uses, social media as a research vehicle.

    Hence even in this case it’s rather easy for you to claim knowledge you do not possess by claiming the it matters what people intend when they debate, and instead what they and the audience learn from the darwinian process of it – thus your avoidance of the argument altogether, and avoidance of the demonstration of competency to hold any given position whatsoever – other than animal instinct to justify your least cost of acquisition of resources (preferences).

    I am, we are, the only organization that has ‘scienced’ lying whether by intent or instinct. And it’s necessary in the present age where the industrialization and institutionalization of lying have replaced the mass production of testimonial truth consistent with demonstrated evidence of human behavior.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 14:50:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843302795950055424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413

  • 1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consumi

    1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consuming in-time, masculine right capitalizing over time;

    2. –“Okay but what makes your “theory” more factual than this persons”–
    I answered your use of postmodern sophistry of relativism by stating a fact requires a theory – a hierarchy of theories.
    I provided the foundations of the theory of political differences as largely genetic, or like religion, by indoctrination.
    I suspect the depth of those two statements might be non obvious to you and require explanation.

    3. –“… use ad homin attacks and appeal to intellect …”–
    Because you begin with false premises of wants and your opposition begins with the masculine premise of demonstrated behavior, both of you think the other is lacking in intelligence, while you think them oppressive and they think you thieves (parasites). (BTW: no criticism, but it’s ad hominem, oft shortened to ad hom.)

    In summary its easy to call one another stupid when ones premises about the universe and mankind are polar opposites.

    However conservatives are demonstrably correct in human behavior, the four sets of laws of the universe, economics, and Law. Progressives are only correct about ambitions and feelings. Why? masculine systematizing over time vs feminine empathizing in time.

    ie: genetics.

    Reply addressees: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:50:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843212168285548545

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843205340352938170

  • Natural Law in our work refers to the aristotelian thru present tradition that t

    Natural Law in our work refers to the aristotelian thru present tradition that there exists a science of cooperation and that laws can be constructed in concert with that science of cooperation.

    The constitution, the common law tradition, the germanic, roman, greek, and proto european tradition depend on natural, common, concurrent law of decidability by sovereignty reciprocity and duty to truth.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @0brien84 @partymember55 @bdaystan1 @OkBloomer7 @slutriarch


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:14:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843203248968118274

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843185434433909026

  • Natural Law in our work refers to the aristotelian thru present tradition that t

    Natural Law in our work refers to the aristotelian thru present tradition that there exists a science of cooperation and that laws can be constructed in concert with that science of cooperation.

    The constitution, the common law tradition, the germanic, roman, greek, and proto european tradition depend on natural, common, concurrent law of decidability by sovereignty reciprocity and duty to truth.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute

    Reply addressees: @0brien84 @partymember55 @bdaystan1 @OkBloomer7 @slutriarch


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:14:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843203219851255808

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843185434433909026

  • You are welcome to attempt to construct an argument against anything I say – if

    You are welcome to attempt to construct an argument against anything I say – if you can.

    In general the left’s arguments are predicated on pseudoscience in support of equality and claims of oppression and the right’s arguments are predicated on centuries of accumulated wisdom… https://t.co/QzWeGtcPp8


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:05:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843201056936722880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843140993752965134

  • Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn. Or, here, let me google that for you: —- The sta

    Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn.

    Or, here, let me google that for you:

    —-

    The statement “facts only exist within the context of a theory” is most closely associated with Thomas Kuhn. In *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962), Kuhn argued that what we consider to be facts are always interpreted through a particular paradigm or theoretical framework. He emphasized that scientific knowledge is not a straightforward accumulation of facts but is shaped and structured by the prevailing theories of the time.

    This idea is a development of earlier views in the philosophy of science, particularly from Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Popper suggested that scientific theories are frameworks for testing hypotheses, while Wittgenstein highlighted that the meaning of statements (including facts) is context-dependent. However, it was Kuhn who more explicitly argued that facts and theories are interdependent in the evolution of scientific understanding.

    —-

    Reply addressees: @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 23:45:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843075072551989248

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843066566642196519

  • Worth Repeating The problem is, we moved from a supernatural religion to a pseud

    Worth Repeating
    The problem is, we moved from a supernatural religion to a pseudoscientific one, and for some reason been unable to successfully label the pseudoscientific one a religion or cult: the cult of human equality, endless growth, and endless progress. https://t.co/Me545VEhCq


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-26 17:34:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839358016677974267