Theme: Truth

  • What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important one

    What theories cannot produce prediction only explanation? (All the important ones). What theories that can only explain can be subject to error bias wishful-thinking and deceit? What theories that only explain, are subject to error bias wishful- thinking and deceit are commonly held by the population?

    The blank slate, nature vs nurture, capacity for learning and adapting, capacity for self regulation, agency, logic , differences in Sex, class, race, ethnicity, culture, civilization, equality, neoteny, genetic load, regression to the mean, necessity of natural selection, continuous growth, end of scarcity, end of status competition in furtherance of natural selection to prevent dysgenic regression.

    And that’s just the

    Reply addressees: @TheSumOfMonkeys @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 19:17:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843370014465830912

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843266519679295507

  • IMPOSSIBILITY OF CROSSING THE MASCULINE FEMININE DIVIDE a) Facts only Exist with

    IMPOSSIBILITY OF CROSSING THE MASCULINE FEMININE DIVIDE
    a) Facts only Exist within the Context of a Theory
    b) Feminine Left and Masculine Right hold different theories: the left to experience in time and the right to consequence over time.
    c) And as such the left treats approval… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1843075072661066134


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 16:23:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843326198044078461

  • “Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    –“Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    The opposite is true. Since it’s falsification that determines the truth content of a set of claims, and that justification like conflation determines the deceptive content of a set of claims, we can only falsify the set of alternatives sufficiently to leave a claim standing, which requires a breadth of supporting arguments necessary to do so.

    Since all but a fraction of humans have difficulty with other than single cause sequences, and no one below a certain threshold is capable of even one logical reversal, it means that without those of greater konwledge and ability assisting others in a descending hierarchy combined with those in the ascending hierarchy supplying ‘problems’ then the vast majority of people are incapable of significant thought other than mere imitation of what tactical influences that percolate through the commentariat.

    In other words (a) if we cannot agree on existence (b) if we cannot agree on scarcity, (c) if we cannot agree on teh good because of in-time experience vs over-time consequence, (d) if we cannot agree on demonstrated human behavior as self interested and acquisitional (e) if we cannot agree on neoteny, genetic load, natural selection, and its necessity then (f) we cannot possibly agree on anything else because those are the premises upon which all subsequent argument are dependent.

    This is the importance of shared understanding – a system of weights and measures reflecting the group evolutionary strategy of the population in response to others and the environment and the laws of nature – then we cannot seek compromises and trades (cooperation) and we are doomed to authoritarianism, civil war, or separation.

    My suggestion is that we emphasize separation (“Let a thousand nations bloom”) since there is no need to agree or compromise except in proximity within a polity. And as such like europe, the USA is too large to share social and political ambitions, and there is no strategic or economic utility in doing so. LIkewise europe is discovering this now and it’s producing the end of the attempt of the french to create a “USA out of Europe” using incrementalism of the EU, the currency, and policy.

    My job, which I openly state, is to provide those with the ability to engage in questions of such moment with the tools to do so, such that they can provide answers to those less able but just as willing – and so that together they can suppress the industrialization of false promise and deceit that has marked the public discourse of post 1914 western civilization, and the attempt at reproducing soviet authority to produce feminine > abrahamic > marxist > postmodern > feminist > woke uniformity – despite that it’s universally suicidal.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_ @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843314296669007872

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843308920942829996

  • (BTW: “Fancy Talk”, “Word Salad”, “Too many words” (reminiscent of “too many not

    (BTW: “Fancy Talk”, “Word Salad”, “Too many words” (reminiscent of “too many notes” by Emperor Joseph II to Mozart) are simply admissions of your intellectual and moral limitation and nothing more. Either you can construct an argument or you can’t. Your substitution of disapproval and rejection for falsehood and argument is just feminine incompetency in systemization. It’s genetic and you probably cannot overcome it. But you can at least develop a self awareness of it.)

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:07:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843307079982870528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413

  • My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so tha

    My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so that we may produce a general science of proscription against pretense of knowledge and reason while claiming want’s are truths. In fact in almost all cases, the tendency of the left, progressive, feminine instinct consists of the evasion of responsibilty for self, private, and common, and the claim of oppression, while stating wants are truths and disapprovals are falsehoods.

    If you can understand that you might be worth conversation. But in fact, only a small percentage of the population is capable of self reflective thought to that degree of agency.

    I use, and our organization uses, social media as a research vehicle.

    Hence even in this case it’s rather easy for you to claim knowledge you do not possess by claiming the it matters what people intend when they debate, and instead what they and the audience learn from the darwinian process of it – thus your avoidance of the argument altogether, and avoidance of the demonstration of competency to hold any given position whatsoever – other than animal instinct to justify your least cost of acquisition of resources (preferences).

    I am, we are, the only organization that has ‘scienced’ lying whether by intent or instinct. And it’s necessary in the present age where the industrialization and institutionalization of lying have replaced the mass production of testimonial truth consistent with demonstrated evidence of human behavior.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 14:50:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843302795950055424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413

  • RT @TheMcMullan: @CraigProudley This is why the natural law institute has done s

    RT @TheMcMullan: @CraigProudley This is why the natural law institute has done so much work to solve truth (testimonialism) and catalogue m…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 01:05:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843095300778622988

  • Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn. Or, here, let me google that for you: —- The sta

    Wittgenstein, Popper, and Kuhn.

    Or, here, let me google that for you:

    —-

    The statement “facts only exist within the context of a theory” is most closely associated with Thomas Kuhn. In *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions* (1962), Kuhn argued that what we consider to be facts are always interpreted through a particular paradigm or theoretical framework. He emphasized that scientific knowledge is not a straightforward accumulation of facts but is shaped and structured by the prevailing theories of the time.

    This idea is a development of earlier views in the philosophy of science, particularly from Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Popper suggested that scientific theories are frameworks for testing hypotheses, while Wittgenstein highlighted that the meaning of statements (including facts) is context-dependent. However, it was Kuhn who more explicitly argued that facts and theories are interdependent in the evolution of scientific understanding.

    —-

    Reply addressees: @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 23:45:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843075072551989248

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843066566642196519

  • Clearly you don’t have a basic knowledge of epistemology: all facts are only so,

    Clearly you don’t have a basic knowledge of epistemology: all facts are only so, within the context of a theory. If a theory is false the references are not facts but information.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 16:31:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842965955770798315

    Reply addressees: @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842965402592370691

  • It’s because your facts are false. 😉 I’ll debate you and win every time

    It’s because your facts are false. 😉

    I’ll debate you and win every time.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 13:40:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842922952763040021

    Reply addressees: @LittleMammith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842758353539473640

  • RT @NoahRevoy: “I’m not going to let you lie to me. And if you lie to me I will

    RT @NoahRevoy: “I’m not going to let you lie to me. And if you lie to me I will catch you. And if I catch you I will prosecute you. And if…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-04 18:20:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842268460719772010