Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • IMPROVING PARSIMONY OF THE CLAIM THAT ALL THEORIES ARE EVENTUALLY FALSIFIED Bett

    IMPROVING PARSIMONY OF THE CLAIM THAT ALL THEORIES ARE EVENTUALLY FALSIFIED

    Better way of saying it. There is one most parsimonious paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P’ or ‘testimony’).

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories.

    All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction.

    Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony:

    1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical)

    2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational)

    3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic)

    So we have deflationary grammars of

    1) Science, 2)Logic, and 3) Mathematics that all increase in parsimony.

    And we have inflationary grammars of 1) magic(physical), 2) idealism(verbal), and 3) the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony.

    Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-11 12:19:00 UTC

  • “I would suggest that we defeat entropy first, and by extension we defeat time.”

    —“I would suggest that we defeat entropy first, and by extension we defeat time.”—Ahmed Reda

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-10 21:32:00 UTC

  • Tom Radcliffe —“The claims about Hilbert, Brouwer, and Bridgeman are all bizar

    Tom Radcliffe

    —“The claims about Hilbert, Brouwer, and Bridgeman are all bizarre.”—

    They are only bizarre if you don’t understand the category of problems that western civilization was facing in the wake of cantorial sets, relativity and quantum theory, and the attempt by the analytic movement to find closure in the logics and raise it to a peerage with mathematics, the evolution of computational logic, economics made possible by fiat money, and the transformation of empirical to arbitrary law. All of these systems of reasoning changed from operational (or what we call classical) to arbitrary(descriptive or verbal), reversing descartes-newton-leibnitz restoration of mathematics to a foundation in geometry (classical), and the consequential effect it had on idealism and supernaturalism. We tend not to study various techniques of decidability – I do.

    —“Hilbert was a formalist, Brouwer the father of intuitionism, which is the most significant anti-formalist, constructivist, approach to mathematical truth in the 20th century. Brouwer and Hilbert were literally on opposite sides of one of the most fundamental mathematical questions: what does it mean for an existential claim in mathematics to be true?”–

    All of these men were frustrated with the re-platonization of mathematics by Cantor and Bohr in particular, and the affect on physics, as were Mises and Hayek in economics, and each took steps to restore mathematics to what we would call today classical foundations.

    But while mathematics retains rather absurd vocabulary, vapid mathematical platonism, nonsense terms like multiple infinities (rather than production of pairs at different rates), and while neither the quantum nor relativity have been unstuck from descriptive and returned to causal (the classical), and while, in my understanding even the framing of mathematics in pure mathematics is has diverged from causality to the point where the importance of symmetries and fields has been reduced to puzzles rather than problems of changes, and while we seem unable to develop the next generation of mathematics (although it seems a few like Wolfram understand it’s need), the fact of the matter is, that despite the abandonment of realism(classicalism) and restoration of platonism, and despite the fact that mathematical platonism is a contagion to all subsequent fields, the practical reality is that mathematics is practiced as an archaic craft with archaic prose, and operationalization is less important *within* the fields than it is by contagion outside the field.

    Even worse, economics follows the same theme by measuring the national equivalent of income statements while conveniently ignoring balance sheets (accounting for changes in genetic, institutional, cultural, normative, capital).

    Unfortunately, computer science arrived late (blame Babbage), and both mathematics and logic, and Popper and Kuhn and the others failed to complete the falsificationary process, and discover that the scientific method (which does exist it turns out) applies to producing evidence that one can testify to in output, not what actions one takes.

    And unfortunately, epistemologically, the means by which we obtain an idea(hypothesis) to test (falsify) is immaterial – whether deductive or freely associated tells us nothing.

    So while we end with Strawson and company the project was not completed. Had the project of the 20th been completed, we might have reformed all the fields completely, producing a universally commensurable grammar and vocabulary across all the sciences, both hard and soft.

    My particular contribution is this completing this deplatonization, and the contagion that follows upstream from it – especially to the economics, law, the social and psychological sciences. Where unlike mathematics, whose one categorical referent (positional name) is not open to undetectable error, there exist hundreds or thousands of referents (terms), in much more complex grammars (possible operations), that without commensurability across fields, and without deplatonization (or projection, or in the case of postmodernism – outright deceit), we cannot *produce a system of law that prohibits use of deceit in matters public*.

    In other words, we cannot apply the same rigor that we use in physical science publication to speech, legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, and thereby repair the industrialization of lying by pseudoscience and sophism made possible in the twentieth century – equal in damage to the industrialization of lying by monotheism in the ancient world.

    …. (more)

    (more) …

    —“It would be very weird if anyone praised both of them for reforming their fields, when they were doing so from diametrically opposed viewpoints. “—

    Of course they were coming from different viewpoints. Just as physicists today are frustrated by the relativity vs quantum conflict (both descriptive not causal). Yet we have physicists trying to solve the problem from many different angles. And at least we can give name to the problem.

    Of these different men, only Bridgman was successful in affecting the writing of publications in the physical science.

    —“Nor was Hilbert more than one of many influences on mathematical physics, although his book with Courant was important. But in no sense did he reform the field or criticise its set basis. He mostly bitched about how damned sloppy we are with those precious formalisms, because his grasp of physics was that of an outsider who was trying to solve a different problem than the ones physicists care about.

    —“Bridgeman is a footnote in the history of 20th century physics. His codification of the work of Eddington, Einstein, and others had far more influence in the social sciences than in physics,”—

    And it is the social sciences that are the least reformed. So where the reformation was most important – and it has still failed.

    —“where pure operationalism is needlessly restrictive, although it is a useful and powerful tool when things get hairy. “—

    This is because again, operationalism is falsificationary.

    —“And what is the “Bohr-Einstein and Copenhagen consensus”? It can’t be related to the Copenhagen Interpretation, for obvious reasons.”—

    It’s that einstein and bohr produced descriptions not causalities and justified them, without providing the classical (constructive) definition. See hilbert’s criticism of Einstein upon publication.

    —“I’m genuinely at a loss as to what it might be referring to. If anything is “reforming” physics today it is the Bayesian revolution, and if anyone “completed” Descarte’s algebraization of geometry it was Clifford. “—

    Yes on the bayesian revolution. That doesn’t change the original question of why all these people saw similar problems in similar fields.

    For example, why don’t we teach mathematics in operational prose – it would lose most of the frication in learning it.

    —-“So all these claims read like they were written by someone who knows nothing about the history of modern science, but is both desperate to impose their own agenda on it, and hopeful that if they throw enough big names around they will impress the ignorant sufficiently to get by. Which I guess works. Maybe I should do more of it.”—

    These claims read like someone who worked on solving the problem in social science – first in economics, then in law, then in psychology and sociology.

    Which is a far harder problem than you would imagine, or someone would have done it before I did.

    Although, in hindsight you can see that had Babbage not gotten lost in his gears, and a Turing come earlier, then Hayek would have solved the problem (I think). Chomsky was channeling Turing, and cognitive science (if it still exists in that form) has reduced our understanding to Turings.

    So you are welcome to dance with me on these subjects if you wish but it’s extremely unlikely that I err.

    And the reason for these chit chats is like practicing any sport, and that is to continuously improve my technique in communicating the great intellectual failure of the twentieth century that terminate Germany’s second scientific revolution, and as a consequence, resulted in a twentieth that advanced rapidly in technology, and slowly in physical science because of that technology, but that failed to progress much beyond the 1930’s, and failed entirely in the social sciences – reversing the gains of the century before.

    All because of a single error: re-platonization.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-10 10:26:00 UTC

  • Yeah. You know between rothbard, hoppe, and me, in three generations we pretty m

    Yeah. You know between rothbard, hoppe, and me, in three generations we pretty much solved the logic of social science. And that was how I wanted to present it. But there is so much abrahamic bullsh-t in the libertarian circles that you can’t disentangle the good from the bad.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-09 20:00:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226596711579160577

    Reply addressees: @reddog_aus

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226596083180003328

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226596083180003328

  • “What is your opinion on anarcho-capitalism?”

    [T]he origins of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia – evasion of payment for the commons, and licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime), investing assets from criminal activity into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries – the same pattern we saw with other non-northern European immigrants in the states, this by this method the Jews by undermining and the Muslims by invasion and raiding seek to devolve the west into low trust tribalism, face before truth, ignorance, and poverty of the middle east. While Rothbardian ghetto ethics are positioned as in the favor of entrepreneurs this is false – it’s in the interest of rent-seekers (rent-seeking is an economic term referring to obtaining profits without contributing the production) – and this is against the interests of entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, clerical workers, craftsmen, laborers, mothers, children, the elderly, and the dependent due to defect or infirmary – all of whom benefit from the multipliers produced by commons over their ability to individually produce income – which s So Rothbardian Ghetto ethics, like Misesian Separatist exploitative economics, favor exploitation of the people through non violent means, including specialization of the technique of Baiting (seducing) into Hazard, where baiting into hazard consists in: “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” And Mises entire economic theory is designed for the sole purpose of preserving rights to voluntary usury on one hand and rights to monetary appreciation on the other – both of which violate the western requirement for productivity (production of a common) in exchange for profits. So while we praise ourselves for individualism and democracy, neither of these is good or true – they are sophistries (lies). Instead, the long tradition of western ethics and morality consists in the use of rule of law of tort (forbidding trespass) as a system of measurement for the production of commons: reciprocal gain. It is not individualistic other than individually demonstrated interest (expense) is a means of suppression of inter-personal, inter-social, inter-political parasitism. We restate this rule of law of reciprocity as a positive just as all civilizations state their laws as positive aspirations. But these positive aspirations are merely inversions on negative prohibitions to provide positive moral incentive rather than negative moral threat. The unique advantage of western civilization is the production of commons, by the requirement for reciprocity in display, word (truth), and deed (action). This produces markets in everything, maximizes the production of commons(for all parties) producing meritocracy at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses, and thereby ensuring continuous improvement from genetics to institutions to technology to arts. This western ethic requires the inverse of the Semitic (Jewish Muslim) ethic. Our western ethic is in individual sovereignty upon demonstration of contribution to the commons – by oath against lying, stealing, and cowardice, and demonstrated in military contribution (a militia). Sovereignty leaves only reciprocity as a possible means of survival – where reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, by externality, where demonstrated interests consist of cost born by action or inaction. But Rothbard’s Ghetto (separatist) ethics and Mises’ Usurious (separatist) economics are presented to westerners by suggestion using its half-truth as equal to western sovereignty and reciprocity – for whom baiting into hazard is prohibited so deeply in our languages, thoughts, norms traditions, and ethics, we are not even conscious of its existence. And as we see in Ukraine today under the ‘oligarchs’ and in Russia, prior to Putin’s seizure of assets from the oligarchs, the societies are run by a small number of large organized crime families and the people suffer in poverty corruption from an absentee political and justice system under the oligarch’s control. We tend to put moral weight behind capitalism and democracy, but the exceptionalism of the western world in the ancient and modern worlds and the reason we survived the Christian attempt to destroy our civilization, is due to our rule of law, the empiricism we must practice to adjudicate differences under our rule of law, the application of that empiricism by externality to all human knowledge, and the markets that result from the suppression of ignorance, error, bias, fraud, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, corruption, immigration, and conversion. The function of a Germanic-Christian Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, or a Germanic-Christian Republic under the European traditional rule of law of reciprocity that we know as property (tort, trespass), is to centralize rents seeking in the state as profits for producing property rights in our courts, in exchange for suppressing local transaction costs – and corruptions – of all kinds. This is how and why states produce economic velocity. Just as the Abrahamic religions used false promise of life after death to undermining the old world aristocracies, and through Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and Islam to conquer and destroy the ancient world, in the modern world we are faced with a mere transformation of the false promise of supernatural returns under deception by theological sophistry, to the false promise of supernormal returns under deception by pseudoscientific sophistry by marxism to undermine market cooperation between the classes, socialism to undermine market cooperation via the government, feminism to undermine market cooperation between the genders, and postmodernism to undermine truth and reciprocity as the means of resolving disputes and preventing parasitism in the market for Truth, knowledge, information, opportunity. Lies all lies. Nothing but lies.

  • “What is your opinion on anarcho-capitalism?”

    [T]he origins of Rothbard’s anarcho-capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia – evasion of payment for the commons, and licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime), investing assets from criminal activity into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries – the same pattern we saw with other non-northern European immigrants in the states, this by this method the Jews by undermining and the Muslims by invasion and raiding seek to devolve the west into low trust tribalism, face before truth, ignorance, and poverty of the middle east. While Rothbardian ghetto ethics are positioned as in the favor of entrepreneurs this is false – it’s in the interest of rent-seekers (rent-seeking is an economic term referring to obtaining profits without contributing the production) – and this is against the interests of entrepreneurs, professionals, managers, clerical workers, craftsmen, laborers, mothers, children, the elderly, and the dependent due to defect or infirmary – all of whom benefit from the multipliers produced by commons over their ability to individually produce income – which s So Rothbardian Ghetto ethics, like Misesian Separatist exploitative economics, favor exploitation of the people through non violent means, including specialization of the technique of Baiting (seducing) into Hazard, where baiting into hazard consists in: “Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.” And Mises entire economic theory is designed for the sole purpose of preserving rights to voluntary usury on one hand and rights to monetary appreciation on the other – both of which violate the western requirement for productivity (production of a common) in exchange for profits. So while we praise ourselves for individualism and democracy, neither of these is good or true – they are sophistries (lies). Instead, the long tradition of western ethics and morality consists in the use of rule of law of tort (forbidding trespass) as a system of measurement for the production of commons: reciprocal gain. It is not individualistic other than individually demonstrated interest (expense) is a means of suppression of inter-personal, inter-social, inter-political parasitism. We restate this rule of law of reciprocity as a positive just as all civilizations state their laws as positive aspirations. But these positive aspirations are merely inversions on negative prohibitions to provide positive moral incentive rather than negative moral threat. The unique advantage of western civilization is the production of commons, by the requirement for reciprocity in display, word (truth), and deed (action). This produces markets in everything, maximizes the production of commons(for all parties) producing meritocracy at the cost of limiting the reproduction of the unproductive underclasses, and thereby ensuring continuous improvement from genetics to institutions to technology to arts. This western ethic requires the inverse of the Semitic (Jewish Muslim) ethic. Our western ethic is in individual sovereignty upon demonstration of contribution to the commons – by oath against lying, stealing, and cowardice, and demonstrated in military contribution (a militia). Sovereignty leaves only reciprocity as a possible means of survival – where reciprocity consists of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others, by externality, where demonstrated interests consist of cost born by action or inaction. But Rothbard’s Ghetto (separatist) ethics and Mises’ Usurious (separatist) economics are presented to westerners by suggestion using its half-truth as equal to western sovereignty and reciprocity – for whom baiting into hazard is prohibited so deeply in our languages, thoughts, norms traditions, and ethics, we are not even conscious of its existence. And as we see in Ukraine today under the ‘oligarchs’ and in Russia, prior to Putin’s seizure of assets from the oligarchs, the societies are run by a small number of large organized crime families and the people suffer in poverty corruption from an absentee political and justice system under the oligarch’s control. We tend to put moral weight behind capitalism and democracy, but the exceptionalism of the western world in the ancient and modern worlds and the reason we survived the Christian attempt to destroy our civilization, is due to our rule of law, the empiricism we must practice to adjudicate differences under our rule of law, the application of that empiricism by externality to all human knowledge, and the markets that result from the suppression of ignorance, error, bias, fraud, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, corruption, immigration, and conversion. The function of a Germanic-Christian Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, or a Germanic-Christian Republic under the European traditional rule of law of reciprocity that we know as property (tort, trespass), is to centralize rents seeking in the state as profits for producing property rights in our courts, in exchange for suppressing local transaction costs – and corruptions – of all kinds. This is how and why states produce economic velocity. Just as the Abrahamic religions used false promise of life after death to undermining the old world aristocracies, and through Judaism to undermine, Christianity to weaken, and Islam to conquer and destroy the ancient world, in the modern world we are faced with a mere transformation of the false promise of supernatural returns under deception by theological sophistry, to the false promise of supernormal returns under deception by pseudoscientific sophistry by marxism to undermine market cooperation between the classes, socialism to undermine market cooperation via the government, feminism to undermine market cooperation between the genders, and postmodernism to undermine truth and reciprocity as the means of resolving disputes and preventing parasitism in the market for Truth, knowledge, information, opportunity. Lies all lies. Nothing but lies.

  • AGAINST ANARCHO CAPITALISM (LIBERTARIANISM) The origins of Rothbard’s anarcho ca

    AGAINST ANARCHO CAPITALISM (LIBERTARIANISM)

    The origins of Rothbard’s anarcho capitalism (a sophism) and Mises’ wing of Austrian economics( praxeology as a pseudoscience), are in the ethics Jews of the Pale and Russia:

    (a) evasion of payment for the commons, and

    (b) licensing of profit from baiting into hazard (usury, alcohol, prostitution, slave trading, gambling, organized crime),

    (c) specializing in use of the state against the people (tax collection, money changing), and

    (d) investing assets from these criminal activities into rent-seeking (non productive parasitic returns) and

    (e) slowly migrating into mixed criminal, black market, grey market, and open market industries

    (f) undermining the state, the law, their knowledge, their traditions, their culture, their institutions, and their norms in order to convert the state from suppression of local rents to maximization of rents.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-09 10:47:00 UTC

  • God, if there is a god, evidence of his hand, and his language, has been decoded

    God, if there is a god, evidence of his hand, and his language, has been decoded by scientists. He writes in the language of the physical laws of the natural universe, and the natural law of man, in a very small set of equations(sentences) that like all languages consists of nouns (states) verbs (changes), in a grammar of the subatomic, atomic, chemical, biochemical, biological, cognitive, behavioral economic, political, and military sciences. It’s only our failure to interpret all the sciences physical, biological, and cognitive as a language with only a few elements (sounds), combined into an increasingly rich vocabulary(words), according to rules (grammar) of sensibility (semantics) that remain consistent across all scales. And while mathematics at present gives us most of the language of the very small and the very large, as ridiculous as it seems, P gives us that language at human scale, in human time frames, for human purposes, of achieving godhood ourselves.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-08 13:15:00 UTC

  • It’s because science has made anything other than deism impossible for rational

    It’s because science has made anything other than deism impossible for rational people, the bible and church dogma unbelievable, and the narratives that attempt to teach lessons irrelevant, absurd, or quaint – precisely because there is only one lesson. That’s before we get to the clergy being unworthy of respect, and the catholic clergy forever tainted by child abuse.

    People behave well because of the experience of safety in the burial, church, temple, military, marriage, feast sport,, festival experiences. This forms an addiction, just as safety in mother forms an addiction, just as friendship forms an addiction, just as sex forms an addiction – the reason we are open to addiction is because evolution’s way of keeping us invested in one another.

    We vary in the masculinity and femininity of brain structure which translates to a more empathic, social, and emotional or a more analytic, political, and action-oriented need. And the value of church (organized religion) dependent upon demand for inclusion. So thee church is evolving into satisfying only those people with the emotional and social needs that cannot be fulfilled by other means. Hence the uneducated, female, homosexual, dysfunctional, laboring class lower middle class shift in church demographics – and with it the economic collapse of church finances. So as usual, I go with the data. And the data isn’t pretty.

    Our religion like most, arose in concert with the agrarian age, and it has failed to transform for the industrial age. It satisfied demand for harmony in that age. And so given that people need a binding mythos and the rituals to reinforce it for social and political reasons, and at least half the population needs mindfulness for psychological reasons, how do we restore the utility of our old religion’s market for heroic figures under the same ethical and moral strategy, while preserving the christian moral and ethical strategy? The church hadn’t suppressed the saints, the path would be easier, since we could rotate archetypes as civilization changed, just as they did before monopoly (authoritarian) monotheistic abrahamic religions. So, we can’t do it and I think that is what is killing christianity as other than the religion of the world’s underclasses (Africa, South America).

    Religion teaches strategy for harmony and argument to persist it, but morality is something we know scientifically as reciprocity. But reciprocity tells us only to do no harm – to pay the cost of doing no harm.. Jesus teaches us to ignore our internal instincts and pay the cost of exhaustive forgiveness of ourselves and others. This tells us that we must pay the cost of harmony by bearing costs. And charity tells us that we must pay the cost of doing good.

    So while Aryanism, our ancient (market) religion, tells us to pay costs of excellence in all things and to be leaders in all things. Christianity, our medieval (monopoly) religion, tells us to pay costs of bringing people along with us. And our oldest religion of the hearth (nature, green man, elves, etc), tells us that nature is animal, childlike, and mischievous not evil, and we must be diligent against her mischief.

    These three religions were and remain in competition with another.

    Then the jews brought about marxism, socialism, feminism, and postmodernism, to destroy us as they brought christianity to destroy our reason, stoicism, epicureanism, and excellences in the ancient world.

    How do I, or we, help our people from not having another semitic dark age – even if our people, like addicts, desire it?

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-08 09:05:00 UTC

  • If we outlawed all estrogen related products touching anything edible would that

    If we outlawed all estrogen related products touching anything edible would that make any difference at all?

    What about Salts of Glutamate (MSG etc).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 20:12:00 UTC