Theme: Truth

  • How many people quote philosophers or philosophical principles when the question

    How many people quote philosophers or philosophical principles when the question is one of disambiguation (identity), empirical evidence (correspondence) and scientific discovery of its cause (causality)?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 15:56:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810342143656853966

    Reply addressees: @RolandBasilides

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810338978014417386

  • Understood. I am trying to address the general population’s search for meaning i

    Understood. I am trying to address the general population’s search for meaning in philosophy because it’s a literary construction rather than an empirical or scientific one, and lamenting that too many people become lost in Anchoring Effects that justify some psychological, moral, or political bias they have.

    In other words, philosophy can justify an ideology that justifies a bias which in turn justifies a self image or assumed status that is otherwise unsupported by one’s demonstrated behavior.

    And in particular I’m saddened that say, my work on the grammars (the spectrum of these frameworks) isn’t yet general knowledge, such that it performed a cognitive prophylactic against such anchoring.

    Reply addressees: @RolandBasilides


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 15:36:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810337154951950336

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810335403024490681

  • Is the question of ‘why’ a question of truth and causality or good and preferenc

    Is the question of ‘why’ a question of truth and causality or good and preference? 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 12:49:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810295190222938354

    Reply addressees: @REllerman @drewmurrdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810137972831814057

  • Philosophy is necessary for choice. But it’s not only unnecessary but insufficie

    Philosophy is necessary for choice. But it’s not only unnecessary but insufficient for truth. Nor is truth sufficient for choice among the field of possibilities that are not false or harms.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 12:46:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810294447747334390

    Reply addressees: @orion_pulse

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810127527442030774

  • WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”? One would only read continental philo

    WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
    One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice (preference) was exhausted before the 20th, and has gone the way of theology as a footnote in the history of thought.

    If you invest in the frame provided by the French (Rousseau, Voltaire et al), Germans (Kant et all), or the Ashkenazi (Freud, boas, Marx, et al) then you create an impediment to knowledge, not knowledge.

    Every single one of those thinkers was trying to deny anglo empiricism and legalism, and to create a secular theology to replace the church – because most if not all people who are indoctrinated into the Abrahamic faiths are left vulnerable to lack of sufficient confidence and resulting mindfulness to bear the continuous struggle of continuous learning, reorganization, and adaptation that adversarial empiricism demands.

    Or said differently, continental philosophy serves as a pseudoscientific range from Russian, to German, to french, to Ashkenazi that seeks to avoid the responsibility of the restoration of Aristotelianism and classical thought.

    The weak west is addicted to the false promise of false explanations because we lack a narrative or mythos that provides mindfulness in the face of continuous adaptation to the discovery of, application of, and consequences of our increasing correspondence with the laws of the universe.

    This is why we require military training to compensate for Christian doctrine. And is why the Greeks invented tragedy so that we could tolerate it. And why Jesus of Nazareth discovered and taught the only means of getting over that tragedy for the bottom: the extension of kinship love to all in the polity.

    But the Paulians abused that message by wrapping it in false promise of freedom from those laws, rather than the use of love and compassion to tolerate them.

    In other words, preservation of continental philosophy is evation of responsibility for science adaptation and evolution, and yet another exercise in justifying western man’s Christian addiction to submission and cowardice as a pretense of conviction rather than a convenience of not taking responsibility for dragging one’s self, and one’s people out of superstition, ignorance, dysgenia, and decline.

    So the people who are weak seek pseudoscience and sophistry as sedation against the stress of the recognition of their unfitness to survive because they cannot or will not evolve along with the state of human knowledge in our long journey from beast, to man, to godhood ourselves.

    The reason the white disenfranchised are alienated, conquered, and defeated is their Christian cowardice masquerading as false pride and conviction – but nothing more than addicts to a frame of lies, and spending down a civilization built by better men.

    As far as I know philosophy is over and only the formal physical behavioral and evolutionary sciences remain.

    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 01:34:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322198691840

  • All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should an

    All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.

    The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
    (b) the decreasing requirements for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domains,
    and,
    (c) the requirement for consistency across domains.

    In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.

    I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.

    The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.

    This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809695211334819840

  • All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should an

    All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.

    The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domain,
    (b) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
    and,
    (c) the requirement for consistency across domains.

    In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.

    I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.

    The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.

    This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809689383211266050

  • KNOWLEDGE SPECTRUM: Awareness > Recognition > Understanding > Knowledge > Applie

    KNOWLEDGE SPECTRUM: Awareness > Recognition > Understanding > Knowledge > Applied Knowledge > Analysis Using Knowledge > Synthesis(recombination) > Evaluation > Insight > Wisdom.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-05 21:44:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809342722764902827

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809294755467260003

  • You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming

    You don’t know this, but as far as I know I’m the leading theorist in overcoming the failure of philosophers to define science and the scientific method – by defining it and explaining it. I’ve never seen anyone both understand my work and disagree: science consists of the process of producing testimony that incrementally discovers first principles (causality).

    Some people ( and I understand them) are raised in a religious tradition, and maintain the moral intuitions they were indoctrinated into, while granting superiority to the evidence of causality (realism and naturalism) find no conflict between those moral rules and natural laws.

    Conversely, I can quite easily explain why you err in your obsessions. And why all those like you require a childish need for certainty that you can ascertain, instead of maturing into an adult need for actionability while maintaining both humility, skepticism, and optimism that one’s konwledge will improve.

    You demonstrate neigher humility, nor skepticism, nor optimism despite the evidence that the method of producing testimony that europeans developed in court in matters of dispute and extended to all experience outside of court – which we call ‘science’ – has reduced your supernatural lies to mere children’s parables.

    Reply addressees: @Schwall_ins_All @therealbaldtim @sbrandmusic @meharmsen @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-02 15:59:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808168563925979136

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808162806870458802

  • “Many scientists hold religious beliefs or see ways for science and religion to

    “Many scientists hold religious beliefs or see ways for science and religion to coexist, challenging assumptions about widespread atheism in the scientific community.

    Scientists are generally less religious than the general public:
    A 2009 Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of scientists believe in some form of deity or higher power, compared to 95% of the American public.
    33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
    41% of scientists say they do not believe in God or a higher power, compared to only 4% of the general public.

    Religious affiliation among scientists:
    48% of scientists in the 2009 Pew survey said they have no religious affiliation, compared to 17% of the general public.
    21% of scientists identified as Protestant and 10% as Catholic, much lower than the general population.
    Only 4% of scientists identified as evangelical Protestant, compared to 28% of the general public.
    Jews made up a larger proportion of scientists (8%) compared to the general population (2%).

    There is variation in religiosity among scientists globally:
    More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious.
    In some places like Hong Kong and Taiwan, scientists were found to be more religious than the general population.

    Views on science-religion relationship:
    Only a minority of scientists in each country surveyed believed that science and religion are in conflict.
    Many scientists expressed nuanced views, seeing ways that religion and science can coexist or even complement each other.”

    Reply addressees: @meharmsen @RichardDawkins


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-02 14:58:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1808153162735304704

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807858219420901784


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @meharmsen @RichardDawkins Empirically false. The difference is practical, traditional, supernatural, and fundamentalist degrees of religiosity. There are plenty of (especially catholic) scientists. The difference is that their concept of religion is ‘wisdom literature’ and that god is a very abstract…

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1807858219420901784