Theme: Science

  • Unfortunately you might reconsider that such a statement is not an argument. As

    Unfortunately you might reconsider that such a statement is not an argument. As a matter of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason science and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:50:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035570418176933890

    Reply addressees: @Roo12883907

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569787164917760


    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/1035569787164917760

  • THE SIMPLE ANSWER: Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism), Philosophy:

    THE SIMPLE ANSWER:

    Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism),
    Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism),
    -vs-
    Science: What we can’t get away with (warranty).
    Law: What you can’t get away with (liability).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:11:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035560610707075072

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288981125032118&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:33:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035521025423888385

  • Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”— Well, yes, of course. As i

    —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288973361699561&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:05:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035513840979587072

  • As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law do

    As a test of agency (man) vs the lack of it (animal) reason, science, and law does demarcate those of us who are fully human from those of us who are still principally animal. We are not equal. Speech does not qualify one as human no matter how sophisticated the parrot.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:50:00 UTC

  • THE SIMPLE ANSWER: Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism), Philosophy:

    THE SIMPLE ANSWER:

    Religion: what we can get away with? (mysticism),

    Philosophy: what I can get away with? (sophism),

    -vs-

    Science: What we can’t get away with (warranty).

    Law: What you can’t get away with (liability).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 12:10:00 UTC

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain.

    Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony.

    Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism).

    In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying).

    The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:33:00 UTC

  • Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”— Well, yes, of course. As i

    —Can you empirically state that gods to not exist?”—

    Well, yes, of course. As in all things, evidence of externality is evidence of internality. This is how we defeat the fallacy that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Instead, evidence of externality is evidence of existence. In fact, all empirical science above and below observable scale is conducted by this method.

    Empirically means ‘observably and therefore measurably’. The purpose of empiricism is to suppress one’s ability to substitute imagination (non existence) for description (existence). The purpose of empirical (observation and measurement) is to ensure that you’re not adding something that isn’t there, not to insure that what you say is there is there. Ok? Justificationism dies hard in people. We have been trained by sophists both theological and philosophical and science defeats both of them slowly and with a great deal of effort.

    Can anyone testify to the existence of any supernatural entity at all, anywhere, at any point in time? We have had millions of people trying to find even one example, one instance, one event that cannot be explained as other than an attempted FRAUD by the person or persons making the claim.

    Can we however testify to the many crimes of priests, monotheistic religion, and the rapid increase in the quality of life before and after the existence of such fictions? We can identify the incentives why people lie to themselves, each other, and demonstrate the need for self induced chemical suppression of fear and uncertainty.

    Can we testify to the chemical reward of submission response being equal to the chemical rewards obtained when under the process of suggestion during narration?

    In other words, there is no evidence that such supernatural beings or forces exist. There is every evidence for intentional habituation of a submission response that produces a natural drug addiction. There is every evidence of universal acts of fraud when making claims of supernatural forces or beings. There is historical record of the incremental fabrication of religious falsehoods by the cumulative addition of greater and greater lies (religion is a ‘fish story’). There were political reasons for, and a historical record of, forcing these religions upon people who did not want them.

    Claims of the supernatural are inconsistent, non correspondent, operationally impossible, provide individual malincentives, provide interpersonal malincentives, evidence of overwhelmingly negative externalities, and are non testifiable, and non demonstrable.

    So we have incentives to lie, a record of the development of the lies, a record of the predations c

    Drug addicts have no agency and cannot help but defend their addictions. The fact that we are suggestiable, and open to such addiction through repetition is simply a biological fact. The fact that people exploit this vulnerability to create frauds and profit from them is simply a matter of the historical record.

    Religion, drugs, alcohol, escapism, idealism, snake oil. Occultism. They are all the same: frauds. Entertaining frauds. Entertaining frauds open to easy addiction through intentional repetition.

    A failure to develop emotional fitness. And a failure to develop intellectual fitness. And as a consequence a failure to develop physical and genetic fitness.

    Ergo, prosecuting theologians (Occultists), psedurodratioalists (sophists), pseudoscientists (frauds), drug dealers, fraudsters, libelers and slanderers is simply empirically beneficial in order to reduce the harmful externalities that accumulate due to addiction to their use.

    Evidence of externality is how we measure phenomenon. And the externality of sophism, occultism, and pseudoscience is measureable.

    Justificationary philosophy is just an attempt to justify lies.

    Just as pilpul is an attempt to justify lies.

    The the biology that creates demand for lies (false chemical rewards), the incentive to lie to the self, the incentive to lie to others, the results of their lying, are evidence of non existence of gods, and existence of deceit.

    There are many devices that allow us to create mindfulness, with exercise, ritual, and feast being the most effective means of providing our ‘reason’ a ‘vacation’.

    There are many that induce the ‘vacation’ of reason as well. The problem is these ‘vacations’ are addictive by artificial means, and produce externalities because of the extraordinary drive by addicts to preserve their means of obtaining vacations from reason (cognition).


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:05:00 UTC

  • “Does the government really keep us 80 years behind in terms of technology?”—

    —“Does the government really keep us 80 years behind in terms of technology?”—

    In the sense that they misallocate research funds to pseudosciencies, particularly diet, ‘health’,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288795195050711&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 01:10:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035334018370347010

  • “Does the government really keep us 80 years behind in terms of technology?”—

    —“Does the government really keep us 80 years behind in terms of technology?”—

    In the sense that they misallocate research funds to pseudosciencies, particularly diet, ‘health’, anthropology, sociology and psychology, then yes.

    In the sense that they prohibit research into eugenics such as stem cell research and human genome improvement, then yes.

    In the sense that they deny races, the harm of diversity, and the near universal importance of Intelligence and industriousness, then yes.

    In the sense that they leave technological investment to the private sector instead of partnering on high capital investment technologies, then yes.

    In the sense that they underfund NASA, and the high cost of non-mathematical research into the physical universe, then yes.

    in the sense that they underfund the PRODUCTION of military hardware that works and practice incremental improvement including the supply chain, rather than fund experimental military hardware that is of very limited value, then yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 21:10:00 UTC