Conservatism is not an intellectual movement. It is a pre rational, sentimental and traditional one. AND I WILL CHANGE THAT FOREVER. The logic, science, and history of our people in rational prose.
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 14:06:00 UTC
1) hypothesis > theory > law vs law > legislation > regulation > command.
2) ideology is a means of inspiring political action. ideologies need not be and rarely are rational nor consistent nor coherent. See Andrew Heywood’s book Ideologies.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 06:12:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094479141179715584
Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094462805028139008
IN REPLY TO:
@PoisonAero
@curtdoolittle @frattinicaue @JFGariepy Law is a system of rules that people make up to govern their societies. “Ideology” is a vague term, but I would define it as a system of ideas that gives people a group identity. Ideology is used as the basis of a social movement or organization.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094462805028139008
I think you don’t know the difference between ideology, philosophy, law and science. search my site for the answer.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-10 04:19:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094450811432775680
Reply addressees: @PoisonAero @frattinicaue @JFGariepy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094440993800110080
IN REPLY TO:
@PoisonAero
@curtdoolittle @frattinicaue @JFGariepy Well, maybe to you it’s “the law”, but to everyone else it’s just another fringe ideology.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1094440993800110080
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-reads-faces/HOW THE BRAIN READS FACE – THE HOLY GRAIL
Solution will provide demarcation between dependent(by direct physical responsibility), specific (‘pre programmed’), and general(recruitable) neurons.
Vision is the hard problem. The rest I think I understand pretty clearly. I do not understand how we can be born to recognize, rather than imprint or simply find attraction (stimulation) in the most dense information (facial expressions). Encoding that in genes seems really really hard to me. And solving that problem is huge.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-brain-reads-faces/
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 15:18:00 UTC
Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe takes the lowest cost route – because it has no choice.
Um… mathematical elegance in physics is another way of saying the universe takes the lowest cost route – because it has no choice.
Um. I teach intolerance for sophism, idealism, pseudoscience and supernaturalism, and radical intolerance for GSRM, pilpul, critique. Why would you expect me to be tolerant of those forms of argument. I mean, of course I come of as intolerant and prosecutorial – it’s my fking JOB. lol… damn….
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-08 21:08:00 UTC
I mean, I’d have to spend an hour on his straw manning alone, his fed accusations, before I even got to the fact that you did notice he didn’t site any research any authors, any data any historical records of what happens when there is chaos in the states.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-08 01:34:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093684513958449153
Reply addressees: @scummygoldswine @realjoshneal @Thamster2 @JohnMarkSays @JFGariepy @NoWhiteGuiltNWG
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1093675876208779264
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/1093675876208779264
by Bill Joslin
Scientism simply holds the notion that:
1) the scientific method can eventually explain anything and
2) any scientific explanation obtains certainty.
No person seriously immersed in science has held these two positions since the logical positivists.
1) certainty remains a unicorn. The pedestrian understanding of knowledge distinguishes knowledge as dichotomous to belief because knowledge has the quality of certainty.
It doesnt – knowledge remains a type of belief, a subset of belief in that knowledge exists as a belief which has enough warrant to suspend uncertainty to act without doubt….
(Certainty being the absence of uncertainty – it exists in the negative and remains impossible in the positive)
(For some fun with this and to see how disingenuous Thaddeus Russel is, see his interview with Moly, where he says that he doesn’t “know that planes can fly (and nobody can claim they do)” but he chooses to “act as if” he does…. Or when Peterson is asked if he believes in god, he says “I act as though I do”
Both use the definition of knowledge (which you better bet that they are aware of the definition), in place of the word SO THEY CAN AVOID BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR HOLDING THE BELIEF! – lying f#ckers!?)
2) science today no longer exists as a singular method, but rather as a criteria which can be achieved via many methods.
This criteria, or considering the criteria separately from the methodologies reveals that it remains an epistemic innovation.
Epistemology being the study of how we know what we know… Thus knowing anything requires meeting the criteria of what knowledge is, meeting this criteria.
In other words, “the scientific method” can not explain all facets of that we can “know” but to be “knowledge” the notion must meet the criteria.
Meeting the criteria doesn’t provide explanation (in the positive) but rather vets for that which IS NOT knowledge. It tests for knowledge candidates and thus can be applied to any claim of knowledge.
So… Next time someone comes at you with the 60 year old, long dead accusation of “scientism” just say “you don’t know what knowledge is.”
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-04 21:53:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/50940760_10156963607492264_6070707540117684224_o_10156963607467264.jpg USA POWER STATIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_United_StatesAdrian EPYou guys are going to get yourselves monitored by some kind of authority who may eventually pull the trigger on apprehension. Openly talking about this kind of stuff on a platform as unsecured as Facebook.Feb 4, 2019, 6:53 PMTyler SeguinMaybe we just enjoy the pretty colours?Feb 4, 2019, 7:01 PMCurt DoolittleI never, ever, ever cross the line. I just inform. I have more than trivial understanding of what they look for and this isn’t it.Feb 4, 2019, 7:02 PMNicholas ManousosYou’re funny, but you’ve inspired me to buy a portable generator. :DFeb 4, 2019, 7:07 PMSéamus Pádraig Mac MicheálPretty dots!Feb 4, 2019, 7:19 PMJanderson Rexnah
I’m on some commie fb pages. This isn’t even closeFeb 4, 2019, 7:34 PMAdrian EPJanderson Rex lolFeb 4, 2019, 7:35 PMMatt EvansJanderson Rex >implying that commie activity is policed at allFeb 4, 2019, 7:57 PMDan WarrenThats it he’s a viral markerter for Honda, we cracked the code!Feb 4, 2019, 8:00 PMAdrian EPThat’s true, they’re the defacto street thugs of the establishment.Feb 4, 2019, 8:07 PMPaul MulquineyThe eye of Sauron will find us, but so what, that day is inevitable.Feb 5, 2019, 11:16 AMMarcus WrightMake sure you keep it shielded, or store the friable parts in a shielded container. A fried generator is useless.Feb 5, 2019, 7:29 PMUSA POWER STATIONS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations_in_the_United_States
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-04 18:37:00 UTC