Theme: Truth

  • (Science) and Lies (Supernatural) —“the battle between us and the West is an i

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/illinois-muslim-leader-says-everything-we-represent-goes-in-total-contradiction-to-what-the-west-representshttps://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/illinois-muslim-leader-says-everything-we-represent-goes-in-total-contradiction-to-what-the-west-representsTruth (Science) and Lies (Supernatural)

    —“the battle between us and the West is an ideological battle. It’s an ideological battle. Everything we represent goes in total contradiction to what the West represents, because all of Islam is in opposition to secularism. They know this, and it is time that we did too.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-19 19:12:00 UTC

  • (Science) and Lies (Supernatural) —“the battle between us and the West is an i

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/illinois-muslim-leader-says-everything-we-represent-goes-in-total-contradiction-to-what-the-west-representsTruth (Science) and Lies (Supernatural)

    —“the battle between us and the West is an ideological battle. It’s an ideological battle. Everything we represent goes in total contradiction to what the West represents, because all of Islam is in opposition to secularism. They know this, and it is time that we did too.”—Updated Aug 19, 2018, 7:12 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-19 19:12:00 UTC

  • Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentione

    Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentioned fools of otherwise good character, refuge in the familiar but self destructive.

    (repost)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-18 17:21:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1030867201321062402

  • Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentione

    Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentioned fools of otherwise good character, refuge in the familiar but self destructive.

    (repost)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-18 13:21:00 UTC

  • Political Argument: The Correct Answer (and a Painful Truth)

    (dysgenia requires theft and deceit) —-“How can you present facts in a political conversation without sounding biased? (https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-present-facts-in-a-political-conversation-without-sounding-biased)?”—- By **explaining both sides **and demonstrating that your argument remains superior in some way or other, or explaining that the other’s argument relies upon **falsehood or theft **…. which is what you should always do anyway. **Truth** is a bias, it is just a decidable bias instead of a preferential one. **Theft** (involuntary transfer) and moralizing (using guilt as means of forcing involuntary transfer) is decidable, and not a bias. Demonstrate that an argument is either **false** or causes i**nvoluntary transfer** (imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others) and you have covered the two decision criteria that are not open to opinion. The sophist will attempt to argue for a good. A **preference** or a **good** is subjective. Anything that is not false or involuntary (directly or indirectly) is a candidate good. That something is a candidate good does not mean one can engage in **falsehood, ridicule, shaming, rallying, and involuntary transfer** in order to achieve that candidate good. It is very difficult to argue against **Truth and Voluntary Exchange**, using advocacy of **Falsehood, Shaming, and Thef**t. Explaining to people they are engaged in falsehood, coercion, and attempted theft produces humiliation. But it wins the argument. It just so happens that the **majority of arguments **in favor of preferences and candidate goods are made by falsehoods, shaming and theft, rather than truths and voluntary exchanges. **All political differences **are determined reducible to preferences for **dysgenic** (irresponsible reproduction) that forces the costs of one’s decisions on the polity, and **eugenic** (responsible reproduction) that forces one to bear the costs of one’s decisions. The reason being that the female and underclass incentive is dysgenic (The Equalitarian Herd), and the male and middle and upper class incentive is eugenic (The Meritocratic Packs). With the general outcome being the military and entrepreneurial class aligning with the working, middle, and upper middle classes, while the priestly, academic, and political classes aligning with the underclasses. In other words, **the immoral top and bottom against the moral middle.** Since **dysgenia depends upon theft**, it is usually argued falsely, which is why **marxism** (pseudoscience) and **postmodernism** (pseudo-rationalism), and **feminism** (pseudo-moralism) were invented to circumvent Darwin (biological evolution), Spencer (social evolution), and Nietzsche (moral evolution). **Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism: They needed an elaborate set of lies.**

  • Political Argument: The Correct Answer (and a Painful Truth)

    (dysgenia requires theft and deceit) —-“How can you present facts in a political conversation without sounding biased? (https://www.quora.com/How-can-you-present-facts-in-a-political-conversation-without-sounding-biased)?”—- By **explaining both sides **and demonstrating that your argument remains superior in some way or other, or explaining that the other’s argument relies upon **falsehood or theft **…. which is what you should always do anyway. **Truth** is a bias, it is just a decidable bias instead of a preferential one. **Theft** (involuntary transfer) and moralizing (using guilt as means of forcing involuntary transfer) is decidable, and not a bias. Demonstrate that an argument is either **false** or causes i**nvoluntary transfer** (imposition of costs upon the demonstrated investments of others) and you have covered the two decision criteria that are not open to opinion. The sophist will attempt to argue for a good. A **preference** or a **good** is subjective. Anything that is not false or involuntary (directly or indirectly) is a candidate good. That something is a candidate good does not mean one can engage in **falsehood, ridicule, shaming, rallying, and involuntary transfer** in order to achieve that candidate good. It is very difficult to argue against **Truth and Voluntary Exchange**, using advocacy of **Falsehood, Shaming, and Thef**t. Explaining to people they are engaged in falsehood, coercion, and attempted theft produces humiliation. But it wins the argument. It just so happens that the **majority of arguments **in favor of preferences and candidate goods are made by falsehoods, shaming and theft, rather than truths and voluntary exchanges. **All political differences **are determined reducible to preferences for **dysgenic** (irresponsible reproduction) that forces the costs of one’s decisions on the polity, and **eugenic** (responsible reproduction) that forces one to bear the costs of one’s decisions. The reason being that the female and underclass incentive is dysgenic (The Equalitarian Herd), and the male and middle and upper class incentive is eugenic (The Meritocratic Packs). With the general outcome being the military and entrepreneurial class aligning with the working, middle, and upper middle classes, while the priestly, academic, and political classes aligning with the underclasses. In other words, **the immoral top and bottom against the moral middle.** Since **dysgenia depends upon theft**, it is usually argued falsely, which is why **marxism** (pseudoscience) and **postmodernism** (pseudo-rationalism), and **feminism** (pseudo-moralism) were invented to circumvent Darwin (biological evolution), Spencer (social evolution), and Nietzsche (moral evolution). **Marxism, Postmodernism, Feminism: They needed an elaborate set of lies.**

  • Fact vs Objective Truth?

    —-”what Is the Difference Between a Fact and An Objective Truth?”—- A FACT consists of a promise of a theory of an observation. A TRUTH Proposition consists of a promise of a theory of an observable. **|Universal Epistemology| : Free Association**(survived minimum relations for cognizance) -> **Hypothesis** (survived rational falsification) -> **Theory** (survived empirical falsification) -> **Law** (survived applied falsification). |**Truth**| : A promise that the correspondence between the experience invoked in the audience by the statement and something observable: open to senses(physical), emotions(Intuitionistic), or mind(intellectual) – satisfies the demand for decidability (correspondence), given the consequences and demand for restitution upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit. In practice we use Fact for measurements or records of existentially observable reality, and objective truth is a ‘fuzzier term’ that attempts to include statements about language (verbalisms) and attribute to them the freedom of error, bias, and deceit of facts. In other words, these terms are specific (fact) and loose (Objective) assertions of the absence of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. We use the via positiva assertion “True”, meaning rather than the via negativa assertion “free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit” for brevity and habit, despite the fact that the term true can and only can mean ‘free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit given the scope of externalities of the question (harm)”. Because that is all it is possible to know. As far as I know that is the best definition of truth that exists – or can exist.

  • Fact vs Objective Truth?

    —-”what Is the Difference Between a Fact and An Objective Truth?”—- A FACT consists of a promise of a theory of an observation. A TRUTH Proposition consists of a promise of a theory of an observable. **|Universal Epistemology| : Free Association**(survived minimum relations for cognizance) -> **Hypothesis** (survived rational falsification) -> **Theory** (survived empirical falsification) -> **Law** (survived applied falsification). |**Truth**| : A promise that the correspondence between the experience invoked in the audience by the statement and something observable: open to senses(physical), emotions(Intuitionistic), or mind(intellectual) – satisfies the demand for decidability (correspondence), given the consequences and demand for restitution upon ignorance, error, bias, or deceit. In practice we use Fact for measurements or records of existentially observable reality, and objective truth is a ‘fuzzier term’ that attempts to include statements about language (verbalisms) and attribute to them the freedom of error, bias, and deceit of facts. In other words, these terms are specific (fact) and loose (Objective) assertions of the absence of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. We use the via positiva assertion “True”, meaning rather than the via negativa assertion “free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit” for brevity and habit, despite the fact that the term true can and only can mean ‘free of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit given the scope of externalities of the question (harm)”. Because that is all it is possible to know. As far as I know that is the best definition of truth that exists – or can exist.

  • What Is the Difference Between Continental and Analytic Philosophy?

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Continental-and-Analytic-philosophy/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=2b150015&srid=u4Qv
    Thanks for the Ask to Answer. THE CORRECT AND ANSWER: ITS SIMPLE. Anglo Empiricism evolved from Law; Science evolved from Empiricism; and Anglo Analytic philosophy evolved from Science. It’s continuously deflationary. Anglo analytic philosophy attempted to develop Decidability (Truth) Continental Philosophy evolved from Literature. It is conflationary. Seeking to provide Wisdom (Good) The only ‘enlightenment’ was the Anglo empirical. The rest of the continent (French, German, Jewish, and Russian) retaliated against the empirical enlightenment with literature that attempted to preserve the authority of church and state in secular prose, using the method of argument and values of the nation(culture) of the authors that produced them. French Maternal Authoritarianism, German Duty, Ashkenazi Separatism, and Russian Nihilism. Continental philosophy is best categorized as Wisdom Literature: Literary Moral Fictionalism. (Plato) Anglo analytic philosophy is best categorized as Law: Science of Testimony. (Aristotle)
  • What Is the Difference Between Continental and Analytic Philosophy?

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Continental-and-Analytic-philosophy/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=2b150015&srid=u4Qv
    Thanks for the Ask to Answer. THE CORRECT AND ANSWER: ITS SIMPLE. Anglo Empiricism evolved from Law; Science evolved from Empiricism; and Anglo Analytic philosophy evolved from Science. It’s continuously deflationary. Anglo analytic philosophy attempted to develop Decidability (Truth) Continental Philosophy evolved from Literature. It is conflationary. Seeking to provide Wisdom (Good) The only ‘enlightenment’ was the Anglo empirical. The rest of the continent (French, German, Jewish, and Russian) retaliated against the empirical enlightenment with literature that attempted to preserve the authority of church and state in secular prose, using the method of argument and values of the nation(culture) of the authors that produced them. French Maternal Authoritarianism, German Duty, Ashkenazi Separatism, and Russian Nihilism. Continental philosophy is best categorized as Wisdom Literature: Literary Moral Fictionalism. (Plato) Anglo analytic philosophy is best categorized as Law: Science of Testimony. (Aristotle)