Theme: Science

  • Well, it is a physics equation we just call it a market production, with the dif

    Well, it is a physics equation we just call it a market production, with the difference between the two terms just an illusion that we have the consciousness and agency to do otherwise.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-15 14:13:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029732907278061573

    Reply addressees: @gibberingghoul @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029724410129928194


    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/1029724410129928194

  • WHAT YOU WILL LEARN (repost) Once I’m done teaching you, you’ll understand that

    WHAT YOU WILL LEARN

    (repost)

    Once I’m done teaching you, you’ll understand that aryan reason and science produced a series of deflationary grammars by which we iteratively increase our truth tests, while semitic pilpul took that invention and inverted it creating a series of conflationary and inflationary grammars of fictionalism, by which to produce deceptions.

    Armed with this understanding you will have the basis of white sharia: natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-15 13:53:00 UTC

  • The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, a

    The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, and arguably has done far more harm than good, while science has been a profound success. Why? Because the… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=277389942857903&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-15 02:18:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029552909497843712

  • Philosophy Has Been a Catastrophic Failure

    The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, and arguably has done far more harm than good, while science has been a profound success. Why? Because the difference between philosophizing and theorizing, is that science includes a process for conducting due diligence against error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism) and deceit, and philosophy provides means of justifying error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism and deceit. Philosophy appears in practice to consist largely of sophisms and justifications that like numerology and astrology (or Pilpul and Critique), can construct fallacious arguments in favor of anything imaginable. In this sense philosophy in retrospect appears as little more that either the literature of moral fiction, or the literature of upper middle class appeal for changes to the status quo. In other words, the only difference between religion and philosophy is the same as the difference between numerology and astrology: the justification for an arbitrary means of decidability completely discontiguous with reality. As an economist and theorist in testimony (truthful speech) a non-cursory review of history leads one to the rather obvious conclusion that most philosophers were engaged in acts of fraud. Socrates (or Marxist Critique) and Plato (or Rabbinical Pilpul), against Aristotle (evidence), Machiavelli (evidence), Bacon (empiricism), Darwin and Maxwell (science). One is far better off studying the evolution of the disciplines rather than the secular theology of philosophers — particularly the germans, who, Kant having supplied an artifice of nonsense by which to excuse Rousseau’s nonsense, send the entire germanic world into nothing but secular version of christianity.

  • Philosophy Has Been a Catastrophic Failure

    The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, and arguably has done far more harm than good, while science has been a profound success. Why? Because the difference between philosophizing and theorizing, is that science includes a process for conducting due diligence against error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism) and deceit, and philosophy provides means of justifying error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism and deceit. Philosophy appears in practice to consist largely of sophisms and justifications that like numerology and astrology (or Pilpul and Critique), can construct fallacious arguments in favor of anything imaginable. In this sense philosophy in retrospect appears as little more that either the literature of moral fiction, or the literature of upper middle class appeal for changes to the status quo. In other words, the only difference between religion and philosophy is the same as the difference between numerology and astrology: the justification for an arbitrary means of decidability completely discontiguous with reality. As an economist and theorist in testimony (truthful speech) a non-cursory review of history leads one to the rather obvious conclusion that most philosophers were engaged in acts of fraud. Socrates (or Marxist Critique) and Plato (or Rabbinical Pilpul), against Aristotle (evidence), Machiavelli (evidence), Bacon (empiricism), Darwin and Maxwell (science). One is far better off studying the evolution of the disciplines rather than the secular theology of philosophers — particularly the germans, who, Kant having supplied an artifice of nonsense by which to excuse Rousseau’s nonsense, send the entire germanic world into nothing but secular version of christianity.

  • The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, a

    The problem is, that by and large, philosophy has been a catastrophic failure, and arguably has done far more harm than good, while science has been a profound success. Why? Because the difference between philosophizing and theorizing, is that science includes a process for conducting due diligence against error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism) and deceit, and philosophy provides means of justifying error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism and deceit. Philosophy appears in practice to consist largely of sophisms and justifications that like numerology and astrology (or Pilpul and Critique), can construct fallacious arguments in favor of anything imaginable. In this sense philosophy in retrospect appears as little more that either the literature of moral fiction, or the literature of upper middle class appeal for changes to the status quo. In other words, the only difference between religion and philosophy is the same as the difference between numerology and astrology: the justification for an arbitrary means of decidability completely discontiguous with reality. As an economist and theorist in testimony (truthful speech) a non-cursory review of history leads one to the rather obvious conclusion that most philosophers were engaged in acts of fraud. Socrates (or Marxist Critique) and Plato (or Rabbinical Pilpul), against Aristotle (evidence), Machiavelli (evidence), Bacon (empiricism), Darwin and Maxwell (science). One is far better off studying the evolution of the disciplines rather than the secular theology of philosophers — particularly the germans, who, Kant having supplied an artifice of nonsense by which to excuse Rousseau’s nonsense, send the entire germanic world into nothing but secular version of christianity.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 22:18:00 UTC

  • 3) As a replacement for supernatural religion, pseudoscientific religions, and i

    3) As a replacement for supernatural religion, pseudoscientific religions, and ideological cults, it circumvents our intuitionistic and ability barriers that science must – and often cannot – overcome; and isn’t it as vulnerable to pseudoscience pseudo-rationalism and propaganda.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 16:26:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029403947122020352

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029084788446113792


    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    I dislike Jordan Peterson’s counter-Enlightenment wooliness (Christianity, Nietzsche, Jung, lobsters), but Caitlyn Flanagan explains his appeal in an era when the cultural Left seems to be trying to out-stupid the Right (impossible, but they’re trying). https://t.co/0BA5yQM1kN

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029084788446113792

  • While the British and Scottish gave us the empirical revolution, it was the germ

    While the British and Scottish gave us the empirical revolution, it was the germans gave us the scientific revolution of the 1800’s that the rest of the world benefitted from postwar. They had the best universities, the best education, and the best system of government.(Still do)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 14:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029378931634393089

    Reply addressees: @Simonow_ @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029370461988241410


    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/1029370461988241410

  • From there we get the Aesthetic Restoration in Italy, Empirical Restoration in B

    From there we get the Aesthetic Restoration in Italy, Empirical Restoration in Britain, and the Scientific Revolution in Germany. This was resisted by the French (rousseau, the continuation of the errors of descartes) then the Jews (Boas, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Frankfurt) >


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-14 13:41:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029362336405090305

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @Simonow_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1029348733237030913


    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/1029348733237030913

  • PERVERT, PERVERSION – THESE ARE MORAL TERMS, NOT SCIENTIFIC. BUT…. These terms

    PERVERT, PERVERSION – THESE ARE MORAL TERMS, NOT SCIENTIFIC. BUT….

    These terms – “pervert and perversion” – are moral terms (shaming) used (evolved) in the pre-scientific eras, to inarticulately describe the normative, traditional, institutional and genetic costs of loss-inducing behavior and genetics.

    Those costs exist. The question is only whether or not we can afford them (temporally), and if we can afford them, what are the unseen costs of affording them(inter-temporally)? Diversity (normative, cultural, and religious) is disastrously costly over the long term. Tolerance turns out to be a terrible idea. The most intolerant group always wins.

    So the question isn’t the use of these moral terms (perversion, tolerance, diversity) it’s the scientific (economic) fully accounted costs that replace those moral (imprecise) terms with scientific (precise) terms. As far as I know the principle difference between the standards of living of people is cultural, and the reason for cultural differences is genetic, and the reason for genetic differences is in the scale of the underclasses. And the scale of the underclasses force the norms, traditions, culture, and institutions of the group by dragging them down to the median.

    It may be true that in the period of transition from subsistence farming to market economies in the industrial era, that we can afford many luxuries of tolerance, but it is increasingly obvious that once technological differences are equilibrated, that the standard of every group of people is determined by the size of their underclass in relation to their middle and upper classes.

    And worse, it’s increasingly apparent that this trend will continue and keep pace with the gains in reasoning ability that we obtained from the institution of aristotelianism (scientific thought).

    Meaning that the current employment concerns that can be solved by credit expansion will end shortly, and the only competitive advantage and therefore standard of living of any group will be determined by their genetic distribution relative to other genetic distributions, and the normative, traditional, cultural, and institutional means by which those different groups cooperate.

    Ergo, pretentious virtue signaling talk alluded to in the original post is nothing more than failing to account for costs both seen, unseen, temporal and intertemporal. There are no free rides. Only temporary gains and losses, the accumulation of which must in the end limit itself to that balance sheet we call the universe.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-12 12:05:00 UTC