Theme: Science

  • You just engaged in conflationa and sophism in the Abrahamic (GSRRM, Pilpul, Cri

    You just engaged in conflationa and sophism in the Abrahamic (GSRRM, Pilpul, Critique). And it’s unlikely that the others you mentioned know the difference. Peterson practices science but relies on suggestion using wisdom lit rather than operationalism. Borderline theology.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:22:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167095115346784258

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.
    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.
    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544

  • There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE

    There is a demarcation between a philosopher and public intellectual, in the USE of that grammar of constant relations.
    My specialty is the disambiguation of science (operationalism), natural law, rational philosophy, justificationism, sophism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-29 15:18:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167094277010284544

    Reply addressees: @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1167093627732078592


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is, empirically, a demarcation between philosopher/philosophizing the demarcation is a) the internal consistency (grammar of constant relations) that the speaker relies upon for his arguments and b) the publication of a work of at least one novel idea in that grammar.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167093627732078592


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @slimshadyrap98 @StefanMolyneux @JakeWojtowicz There is, empirically, a demarcation between philosopher/philosophizing the demarcation is a) the internal consistency (grammar of constant relations) that the speaker relies upon for his arguments and b) the publication of a work of at least one novel idea in that grammar.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1167093627732078592

  • No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (or in favor of I

    No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (or in favor of ID) https://ift.tt/30wP8xz


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-25 17:03:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165670978724212736

  • No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (Core)

    (Core)Sorry All But, No. Mutation Rate != Evolutionary Rate

    (a) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. For example, 20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory. That number varies by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed), suppressing (turning off), or regulatory, and some percentage of the rest are expressive, and some cause profound variations between ourselves and the other apes. We just don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference between ancestors – it does not tell us difference in genetic expression over that ancestry.

    (b) Some changes are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (c) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (d) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So;

    (e) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (f) We make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (g) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics:

    While history has led us to the error that mathematics is justificationary – it is not. It is falsificationary, like all the logics. This is, in itself, the most significant insight of the 20th century experiment in both philosophy and the sciences – there are no via positiva methods of inquiry other than free association. All other logics, correspondences, operations are falsificationary: falsifying errors, confirming statements of possibility, not not providing truth (perfect parsimony).

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    You can’t average an average, and statistics must be operationally explicable or they’re meaningless. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    The reason you are (most are) misled by statistics is that they are not accompanied by operational constructions (proofs: demonstrations of operational possibility – which is what ‘proof’ means).

    Metaphysics, Psychology, the Social Sciences, and economics in particular are vehicles for that branch of pseudoscience dependent upon innumeracy.Innumeracy is a member of the set of sophisms including:

    1. sophism(verbal),
    2. innumeracy(numerical),
    3. pseudoscience(scientific and technological),
    4. magic-supernormalism(natural),
    5. mysticism-supernaturalism(supernatural).

    The Four Falsifications Against ID Are:

    1. God’s silence, 2. God’s inaction, 3. The lack of evidence, and 4. The universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure.

    Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. The Falsifiation Against God is:

    5. Information can only be stored in some memory or other. And  information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume fewer calories and less volume than the original matter plus its changes in state over time. That information cannot be stored except in the universe itself or across universes themselves. Yet if Christianity is but a set of parables (wisdom literature) then Scientifically (Logically, Rationally, Empirically, and Operationally ):

    6 – The five rules of Christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically), the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (incentives for trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christian working and lower classes are wealthier than competing cults. Christianity is the reason.

    The Five Rules Are:

    1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. (Forgiveness) 2) the extension of familial love to kith and kin. (Investment) 3) the eradication of impulses that burden the commons (Sacredness) 4) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, (Charity) 5) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. (Tolerance)

    We bear the costs of discipline, investment, forgiveness, tolerance because it is the optimum strategy for producing cooperation at scale.

    In Western (European) Civilization, these Christian (Literary) traditions, exist in competition with our Indo European legal (empirical) traditions:

    1. Truth before Face: Truth regardless of cost to the competence/dominance hierarchy (“Reporting”, or “Testimony”) 2. Heroism, Excellence and Duty (investment in the commons) 3. Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Accountability

    Together which make possible:

    4. Universal Adjudication of Differences by tests of demonstrated interests (investments) – what we call ‘Natural Law’. 5. Common Law of Tort, Judge Referee, Jury Decision, and Nullification

    And leave possible only one means of social organization:

    6. Voluntary Cooperation and Markets in All Aspects of Life:

    1. Association 2. Cooperation (production) 3. Production (goods, services, information) 4. Reproduction (mating, marriage, family) 5. Commons 6. Polities 7. War

    The consequence of which is the fastest possible means of adaptation, innovation, and evolution, that is possible for man – at the cost of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses that cannot compete in the markets for cooperation – the only empirical  (demonstrated) measure of the value of individuals, families, and groups, to others.

    Which is the Secret of Western Civilization: Via Positiva Hard Markets and Via Negativa Soft Eugenics. And Finally;

    7 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single dram of evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to – “Report on”: I can only testify to that which is:

    1. categorically consistent 2. logically consistent 3. empirically(observably) consistent 4. operationally consistent 5. rationally consistent 6. reciprocally consistent where;

    7. the causality is parsimonious 8. scope is consistent 9. and fully accounted 10. within stated limits and where;

    11. due diligence has been demonstrated, in the above ten dimensions. and where;

    – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. therefore;

    I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism, 4. Rational Choice, 5. Reciprocity (Voluntary Exchange), 6. My Due Diligence Performed, 7. My capacity to perform restitution if I have engaged in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking or deceit.Nor can anyone else. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • No, Mutation Rate Is Not An Argument Against Natural Selection (Core)

    (Core)Sorry All But, No. Mutation Rate != Evolutionary Rate

    (a) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. For example, 20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory. That number varies by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed), suppressing (turning off), or regulatory, and some percentage of the rest are expressive, and some cause profound variations between ourselves and the other apes. We just don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference between ancestors – it does not tell us difference in genetic expression over that ancestry.

    (b) Some changes are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (c) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (d) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences. So;

    (e) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (f) We make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (g) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria). – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.) – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet) – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits) – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation) – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc ) – conflicts in integration (male and female genes) – random mutations. – combinations of all of the above. On statistics:

    While history has led us to the error that mathematics is justificationary – it is not. It is falsificationary, like all the logics. This is, in itself, the most significant insight of the 20th century experiment in both philosophy and the sciences – there are no via positiva methods of inquiry other than free association. All other logics, correspondences, operations are falsificationary: falsifying errors, confirming statements of possibility, not not providing truth (perfect parsimony).

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    You can’t average an average, and statistics must be operationally explicable or they’re meaningless. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    The reason you are (most are) misled by statistics is that they are not accompanied by operational constructions (proofs: demonstrations of operational possibility – which is what ‘proof’ means).

    Metaphysics, Psychology, the Social Sciences, and economics in particular are vehicles for that branch of pseudoscience dependent upon innumeracy.Innumeracy is a member of the set of sophisms including:

    1. sophism(verbal),
    2. innumeracy(numerical),
    3. pseudoscience(scientific and technological),
    4. magic-supernormalism(natural),
    5. mysticism-supernaturalism(supernatural).

    The Four Falsifications Against ID Are:

    1. God’s silence, 2. God’s inaction, 3. The lack of evidence, and 4. The universe looks exactly like a godless universe would, and not at all like a Christian universe would, even down to its very structure.

    Of course this is true if you think gods are material beings. If instead you think gods are software distributed in the minds of all of their worshippers, producing synchronicities because of the software, then that’s quite different. The Falsifiation Against God is:

    5. Information can only be stored in some memory or other. And  information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume fewer calories and less volume than the original matter plus its changes in state over time. That information cannot be stored except in the universe itself or across universes themselves. Yet if Christianity is but a set of parables (wisdom literature) then Scientifically (Logically, Rationally, Empirically, and Operationally ):

    6 – The five rules of Christianity are, logically, rationally(incentives), scientifically(empirically), the optimum prisoner’s dilemma (incentives for trust building) strategy, and I cannot falsify either or their relation. There is a reason christian working and lower classes are wealthier than competing cults. Christianity is the reason.

    The Five Rules Are:

    1) the eradication of hatred from the human heart. (Forgiveness) 2) the extension of familial love to kith and kin. (Investment) 3) the eradication of impulses that burden the commons (Sacredness) 4) the demand for personal acts of charity and personal cost, (Charity) 5) the extension of exhaustive forgiveness before punishment, enserfment, enslavement, death, or war. (Tolerance)

    We bear the costs of discipline, investment, forgiveness, tolerance because it is the optimum strategy for producing cooperation at scale.

    In Western (European) Civilization, these Christian (Literary) traditions, exist in competition with our Indo European legal (empirical) traditions:

    1. Truth before Face: Truth regardless of cost to the competence/dominance hierarchy (“Reporting”, or “Testimony”) 2. Heroism, Excellence and Duty (investment in the commons) 3. Individual Sovereignty, Reciprocity and Accountability

    Together which make possible:

    4. Universal Adjudication of Differences by tests of demonstrated interests (investments) – what we call ‘Natural Law’. 5. Common Law of Tort, Judge Referee, Jury Decision, and Nullification

    And leave possible only one means of social organization:

    6. Voluntary Cooperation and Markets in All Aspects of Life:

    1. Association 2. Cooperation (production) 3. Production (goods, services, information) 4. Reproduction (mating, marriage, family) 5. Commons 6. Polities 7. War

    The consequence of which is the fastest possible means of adaptation, innovation, and evolution, that is possible for man – at the cost of suppression of reproduction of the underclasses that cannot compete in the markets for cooperation – the only empirical  (demonstrated) measure of the value of individuals, families, and groups, to others.

    Which is the Secret of Western Civilization: Via Positiva Hard Markets and Via Negativa Soft Eugenics. And Finally;

    7 – I cannot falsify evolution and every single dram of evidence from the fundamental structure of the universe to the imagination of man is a product of a very small number of possibilities in very great permutation, just as limited numbers of sounds, characters, and numbers can be arranged in infinitely complex permutations. Truthful speech can only consist of what I can testify to – “Report on”: I can only testify to that which is:

    1. categorically consistent 2. logically consistent 3. empirically(observably) consistent 4. operationally consistent 5. rationally consistent 6. reciprocally consistent where;

    7. the causality is parsimonious 8. scope is consistent 9. and fully accounted 10. within stated limits and where;

    11. due diligence has been demonstrated, in the above ten dimensions. and where;

    – one’s statements are warrantied by restitution if one errs. therefore;

    I cannot testify to anything other than. 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism, 4. Rational Choice, 5. Reciprocity (Voluntary Exchange), 6. My Due Diligence Performed, 7. My capacity to perform restitution if I have engaged in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking or deceit.Nor can anyone else. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutatio

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME.

    (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

    (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=454549698475259&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-25 16:33:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1165663615866851328

  • SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME. (a) mutatio

    SORRY ALL BUT, NO. RATE OF MUTATION TELLS US LITTLE OTHER THAN TIME.

    (a) mutation rate != yardage (or any other linear measure)

    (b) some mutations (cortical scale) are profoundly differentiating – just one gene. (20% of neurons in the cortex are regulatory That number increases by region. The same is true for genes. It certainly appears that the vast majority are either dead (not expressed) or regulatory. We don’t know what percent are expressed. So all mutation rate tells us is time difference it does not tell us difference in genetic expression.

    (c) some are profoundly consequential (delay in maturity : neoteny – just hormonal development is largely what varies between human races)

    (d) Genes do not produce linear effects (machine parts) but are causally dense (program code) with anything from zero consequence (noise, or regulatory), some of tiny consequence (rates of expression), and some profound.

    (e) One Single Additional Protein (molecular machine) may cause billions of consequences.

    So;

    (f) Of our evolutionary history, regardless of the RATE of migration, it could be only .001% of those mutations that cause 99.999% of competitive evolutionary variations.

    (g) we make a big deal out of 3% difference from chimpanzees but we have no idea the scale of difference provided by each of those variations. intelligence appears to be affected by hundreds if not thousands (a concert problem). Neoteny appears not to be (a small number of hormonal channels). Yet together the effect of these two sets is profound with just small changes.

    (h) As far as I know almost all evolutionary change is driven by:

    – demand for success in the local environment (ie: black resistance to malaria).

    – failure in the local environment (loss of height in southeast islands, loss of fire making, tool making, by austronesians.)

    – utility (white consumption of milk adding 40% more calories to the diet)

    – social animal sortition (variations in demand for competitive traits)

    – age of the carriers (rate of mutation or degradation)

    – errors in replication (genes – which happen all the time – cancer etc )

    – conflicts in integration (male and female genes)

    – random mutations.

    – combinations of all of the above.

    On statistics:

    There isn’t much evidence that we are capable of using statistics on any causally dense phenomenon with any greater precision than a single regression. Period.

    YOU CAN’T AVERAGE AN AVERAGE, and STATISTICS MUST BE OPERATIONALLY EXPLICABLE OR THEY’RE MEANINGLESS. (correlation is not causation, and operations produce correlations)

    You have to explain both to make a truth claim.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-25 12:33:00 UTC

  • Friend’s Rant on Creationists

    (Rant from a friend, I found humorous partly because of the obvious frustration) By @Septeus7

    I’m tired of this round of PR from the Creationist/IDist. The “new” tactic is borrow from SJWs by employing a univariant (fallacy) model of mutation and then claim Darwinian selection fails because the probably of functional mutation in a single domain. So dumb.

    Quote from  @curtdoolittle: —“Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time.”—

    This statement shows that you will get variation in any system that copies information of itself. Natural Selection is simply the 2nd Law applying to replication. All creationists deny the 2nd law. They fundamentally don’t understand it. All order flows from the 2nd. I have idiots asking stupid questions about mutation boundaries…like why doesn’t mutation kill entire populations? Because you can’t mutate if you are dead. The boundary system is differential reproduction i.e. NS. Creationist/IDist are dumbest f*kers on the planet. The stupidity of Creationists is greatest argument for why there is no Intelligent Designer because no Intelligent Designer would create a system of biology with a built in selection bias for the cognitive failures that are the low IQ ID believers. If you going to challenge a “theory of biology” then present a physical mechanism for the changes we observe. It’s not that hard. Explain how you pre-adopt changes to memory of a reproductive machine….go ahead do it. You can’t. Darwin didn’t defeat Creationism. Boltzmann did. Boltzmann was incredibly rigorous and eventually committed suicide out of guilt. What guilt? He rigorously systematically destroyed Plato, Kant, all every Metaphysician in all of philosophy and religion killing them forever and they are still butthurt about it.

  • Friend’s Rant on Creationists

    (Rant from a friend, I found humorous partly because of the obvious frustration) By @Septeus7

    I’m tired of this round of PR from the Creationist/IDist. The “new” tactic is borrow from SJWs by employing a univariant (fallacy) model of mutation and then claim Darwinian selection fails because the probably of functional mutation in a single domain. So dumb.

    Quote from  @curtdoolittle: —“Information can only be stored in some memory or other, information stored must be abstracted (generalized) in order to consume less calories and volume that the original matter and its changes in state over time.”—

    This statement shows that you will get variation in any system that copies information of itself. Natural Selection is simply the 2nd Law applying to replication. All creationists deny the 2nd law. They fundamentally don’t understand it. All order flows from the 2nd. I have idiots asking stupid questions about mutation boundaries…like why doesn’t mutation kill entire populations? Because you can’t mutate if you are dead. The boundary system is differential reproduction i.e. NS. Creationist/IDist are dumbest f*kers on the planet. The stupidity of Creationists is greatest argument for why there is no Intelligent Designer because no Intelligent Designer would create a system of biology with a built in selection bias for the cognitive failures that are the low IQ ID believers. If you going to challenge a “theory of biology” then present a physical mechanism for the changes we observe. It’s not that hard. Explain how you pre-adopt changes to memory of a reproductive machine….go ahead do it. You can’t. Darwin didn’t defeat Creationism. Boltzmann did. Boltzmann was incredibly rigorous and eventually committed suicide out of guilt. What guilt? He rigorously systematically destroyed Plato, Kant, all every Metaphysician in all of philosophy and religion killing them forever and they are still butthurt about it.

  • See The Following Walk Through History:

    Origins

    David Reich’s “Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”

    The First Dark Age

    ( Nothing Written Yet – The Late paleolithic collapse )

    The Indo European Expansion

    JP Mallory’s “In Search of the Indo-Europeans” David Anthony’s “The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World” Karen Armstrong’s “The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions”, “Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence”

    The Second Dark Age

    Eric Cline’s “1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed”

    The Third Enlightenment

    ( … )

    The Third Dark Age

    Arthur Herman’s “The Cave and the Light: Plato Versus Aristotle, and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization” Catherine Nixey’s “The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World” Charles Freeman’s “The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason”

    The Fourth Enlightenment

    ( … The Empirical Revolution … ) ( … The Scientific Revolution … ) ( … The technological  Revolution … )

    The Fourth Dark Age

    (Marx, freud, Derrida …. the third  revolt by eastern  mysticism against european reason)

    The History of Warfare

    Victor Davis Hanson’s “The Other Greeks”, “ The Western Way of War”, “The Soul of Battle”, “Carnage and Culture”, “The Father of Us All”, John Keegan’s “The History of Warfare”,  Martin Van Crevld’s “The Culture of War” William Lind’s “4th Generation Warfare Handbook” -Cheers