Ancient (primitive) peoples could not afford to perform experiments that tested the theories (promises, testimony) of the priesthoods. And some of those theories were untestable. We have run those tests today. Even though we could not afford them. And the result was the dark ages, and the continental enlightenment/marxist/postmodernist attempt to return to them. Apr 18, 2018 12:26pm
Theme: Science
-
Verisimilitude and Convergence on The Truth
If you conduct your research with the scientific method, then you will simply attempt to falsify everything until no matter what you do you start producing increasingly similar answers. When you cannot find a way to come to a dissimilar answer then you have either converged on the truth, or some approximation of it given the knowledge, logic, and tools available to us at the time
-
Verisimilitude and Convergence on The Truth
If you conduct your research with the scientific method, then you will simply attempt to falsify everything until no matter what you do you start producing increasingly similar answers. When you cannot find a way to come to a dissimilar answer then you have either converged on the truth, or some approximation of it given the knowledge, logic, and tools available to us at the time
-
Asymmetry in Our Confidence of Scientific Discovery
The principle success in the physical sciences is the publication of many findings that eventually converge (possibility) or diverge (falsehood). We know we cannot intuit the first principles of the universe – although IMHO we are getting close to returning to ‘ether’ lol. But when in matters of biology, sentience, and cooperation, we cannot STOP ourselves from intuiting answers, and as such we attempt to propose conclusions too early. Worse, we cannot even compose tests that do not in and of themselves produce desired answers. We simply do not know how to. So in both the imperceptible physical world, the imperceptible sentient world, and the imperceptible cooperative (social/political/economic) worlds, we are equally blind. The problem is we think we are unequally blind. Anything you intuit that conflicts with the least-cost algorithm of nature is wrong. Nature can’t choose. She does what is cheapest, and what is cheapest is the first available transformation. Apr 18, 2018 1:02pm
-
Asymmetry in Our Confidence of Scientific Discovery
The principle success in the physical sciences is the publication of many findings that eventually converge (possibility) or diverge (falsehood). We know we cannot intuit the first principles of the universe – although IMHO we are getting close to returning to ‘ether’ lol. But when in matters of biology, sentience, and cooperation, we cannot STOP ourselves from intuiting answers, and as such we attempt to propose conclusions too early. Worse, we cannot even compose tests that do not in and of themselves produce desired answers. We simply do not know how to. So in both the imperceptible physical world, the imperceptible sentient world, and the imperceptible cooperative (social/political/economic) worlds, we are equally blind. The problem is we think we are unequally blind. Anything you intuit that conflicts with the least-cost algorithm of nature is wrong. Nature can’t choose. She does what is cheapest, and what is cheapest is the first available transformation. Apr 18, 2018 1:02pm
-
ASYMMETRY IN OUR CONFIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY The principle success in the
ASYMMETRY IN OUR CONFIDENCE OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
The principle success in the physical sciences is the publication of many findings that eventually converge (possibility) or diverge (falsehood).
We know we cannot intuit the first principles of the universe – although IMHO we are getting close to returning to ‘ether’ lol.
But when in matters of biology, sentience, and cooperation, we cannot STOP ourselves from intuiting answers, and as such we attempt to propose conclusions too early.
Worse, we cannot even compose tests that do not in and of themselves produce desired answers. We simply do not know how to.
So in both the imperceptible physical world, the imperceptible sentient world, and the imperceptible cooperative (social/political/economic) worlds, we are equally blind.
The problem is we think we are unequally blind.
Anything you intuit that conflicts with the least-cost algorithm of nature is wrong.
Nature can’t choose. She does what is cheapest, and what is cheapest is the first available transformation.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 13:02:00 UTC
-
VERISIMILITUDE AND CONVERGENCE ON THE TRUTH If you conduct your research with th
VERISIMILITUDE AND CONVERGENCE ON THE TRUTH
If you conduct your research with the scientific method, then you will simply attempt to falsify everything until no matter what you do you start producing increasingly similar answers. When you cannot find a way to come to a dissimilar answer then you have either converged on the truth, or some approximation of it given the knowledge, logic, and tools available to us at the time
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 12:57:00 UTC
-
Simon Ström: so wait. wait. Why does it look like the shared dna between late ic
Simon Ström: so wait. wait. Why does it look like the shared dna between late ice european neolithic hunter gatherers moves from the balkans/greece into the eastern med rather than the other way around?
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-18 09:37:00 UTC
-
We Get What We Measure – Particularly In Economics
We get what we measure. When we start over in economics by measuring the full suite of capital instead of how fast we burn it down, then economics will be a science rather than an excuse by which to substitute consumption for morality in the production of policy. 😉
-
We Get What We Measure – Particularly In Economics
We get what we measure. When we start over in economics by measuring the full suite of capital instead of how fast we burn it down, then economics will be a science rather than an excuse by which to substitute consumption for morality in the production of policy. 😉