True Left
Ideology => True Left vs False Left => Topic started by: 90sRetroFan on August 09, 2020, 04:18:02 am
-
OLD CONTENT
A common mistake is to believe that a civilization that values knowledge is the same thing as a civilization that values truth. Leftists who hold this mistaken belief often find it difficult to perceive the inferiority of Western civilization, since they see how Western civiliation has massively increased knowledge in the world and hence (wrongly) presume it serves the cause of truth. Only by highlighting the difference between truth and knowledge can this mistake be satisfactorily eliminated.
Truth is a qualitative concept. An informative statement is either true or false. The lower the % of false statements a civilization makes, the more truthful it is. A civilization that values truth is opposed to false statements. Under this value scheme, X which makes 20/20 true statements would be considered superior to Y which makes 30/60 true statements. Furthermore, Z which makes 60/60 true statements would be considered no better than X at best, and (explanation below) indeed possibly worse.
Knowledge is a quantitative concept. The larger the number of true statements a civilization possesses, the more knowledgeable it is. A civilization that values knowledge wants to accumulate the number of true statements it possesses. Under this value scheme, Y would be considered superior to X, and Z further superior to Y.
Western civilization fundamentally values knowledge, and values truth only on account of its utility in maximizing knowledge. It therefore considers itself superior to all other civilizations based on its demonstrably greater output (usually measuring from the Renaissance onwards) of allegedly true statements. The False Left has disagreed with this based almost entirely on (sometimes reasonable, sometimes contrived) scepticism towards the alleged Western output of true statements compared to non-Western output, thereby revealing if nothing else that its own value scheme remains Western at its core.
The True Left which genuinely values only truth (and not knowledge), in contrast, finds it easy to reject the claim of Western superiority, and indeed to confidently assert Western inferiority, via rejecting the Western value scheme itself. The key is to recognize the following:
Every statement made has a possibility of being false, therefore a civilization that makes more statements in total has greater potential to be an untruthful civilization than a civilization that makes fewer statements in total.
Thus a civilization that makes more statements than are necessary tends to be inferior. Rational statements can at least be logically proven to be true, and therefore are theoretically non-dangerous to truth (though in practice erroneous proofs may be accepted until the error is spotted). Empirical statements, on the other hand, cannot be proven to be true, thus structurally endanger truth just by existing (especially when they are assumed to be true). Moreover, in many subject areas, each additional statement made - even if itself true - enables derivative statements (which may or may not be true) to subsequently be made, thereby further increasing the potential for falsehood to slip in somewhere down the line. Overall, the cause of truth is best served by making no more statements than are necessary. Western civilization, of course, attempts to make as many statements (albeit, to be fair, statements which it would prefer to be true) as it can, in as wide a variety of subject areas as it can come up with. Thus Western civilization should be considered the most inferior civilization in the world by all who value truth. (Indeed it is trivially obvious by inspection that the complex society created by Western civilization offers vastly greater possibilities for deception in every aspect of life.)
So how much knowledge can be considered necessary for a civilization? We would answer: no more than is required for the correct functioning of the various practical aspects of the lifestyle of that civilization. The simpler its lifestyle, generally the less knowledge a civilization can afford to be dependent on, and hence the more superior it is in its loyalty to truth. We fundamentally view knowledge as a burden which should ideally be lightened as much as possible by simplification of lifestyle. This is part of asceticism, which underlies the True Left worldview.
Finally, when competing civilizations exist, knowledge is often power. As such, necessary knowledge must (sadly) also include (at least temporarily) as much knowledge is needed for the spontaneously simpler civilizations to successfully destroy the spontaneously more complex civilizations, which must occur before the former can safely return to simplicity. (In this case alone can Z be considered superior to X, if its extra knowledge pertains to defeating spontaneously more complex civilizations.) In other words, Western civilization must die.
---
“In this case alone can Z be considered superior to X, if its extra knowledge pertains to defeating spontaneously more complex civilizations.”
So basically Western civilization is only useful insofar as it can be used to destroy itself.
---
(With regard to the impact of the colonial era on empiricism, which is what it sounded like you wanted to discuss, individual advocates of empiricism did exist in non-Western civilizations prior to the colonial era, but it is definitely true that the prestige of empiricism in non-Western countries today is a consequence of deference more towards Western empiricism (introduced during the colonial era) than towards any of the non-Western empiricists. On the other hand, the False Left approach is to emphasize these non-Western empiricists as a way to show that non-Western civilizations are not inferior. This merely further reinforces the prestige of empiricism as a whole. The True Left must challenge empiricism itself.)
---
"On the other hand, the False Left approach is to emphasize these non-Western empiricists as a way to show that non-Western civilizations are not inferior."
Yes. The Carvakas are an example of this. Empiricists will often cite that "science" (i.e. empirical science) is not "Western" because it is merely the belief in the scientific method, but this can be disproved by showing how the scientific method itself originated in Aristotelean Greece and Enlightenment Era Europe. After this, the empiricists will bring up the non-Western empiricists. How do you propose we refute this? To show that belief in the superiority of empiricism* is ultimately a Western concept, and therefore Eurocentric?
*Also, I find it particularly irritating that empiricists tend to conflate Enlightenment empiricism with rationalism, referring to themselves as "rationalists", when in fact they are only empiricists.
---
"the empiricists will bring up the non-Western empiricists. How do you propose we refute this? To show that belief in the superiority of empiricism* is ultimately a Western concept, and therefore Eurocentric?"
While there certainly existed individual empiricists arising in non-Western countries, those countries did not adopt empiricism owing to their influence. Rather, those countries eventually adopted empiricism only after contact with Western civilization during the colonial era. In other words, empiricism on its own was not persuasive to them; instead it was the machines possessed by the colonial powers that convinced them that empiricism (which enabled such machines to be invented) equalled worldly might, and hence had to be incorporated as a matter of self-defence given that an empiricist civilization was currently colonizing them.
It was Westerners alone who adopted empiricism without being under attack from an existing empiricist civilization with more advanced machines.
"I find it particularly irritating that empiricists tend to conflate Enlightenment empiricism with rationalism, referring to themselves as "rationalists", when in fact they are only empiricists."
In the old days, telling someone you are a rationalist was understood to imply that you are not an empiricist.....
By the way, have you noticed how recent crime fiction has become increasingly empiricist, emphasizing forensic analysis and other material elements? This is in contrast with the more rationalist Counterculture era crime fiction which was mostly about spotting contradictions in testimonials, which of course is much more entertaining for the viewer! Empiricism ruins art!
---
For sure!
Are you aware of the "Encyclopedia Brown" book series? I used to read them when I was a kid:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Brown
The books specifically focused on detecting anomalies in crime stories, which, incidentally, was what led me to further investigate things such as 9/11.
Nowadays, I rarely pay attention to whatever new crime drama is airing on television. It seems as though the predominance of material analysis is specifically tailored to cater to the sensibilities of Westerners, who seek sensory stimulation at every end.
---
I have probably seen it around the library, but I did not follow the series. There were many similar series during the Counterculture era, mostly with children as the detectives. Some even tried to show children being better detectives than adults precisely because they had less knowledge and/or experience of the world and thus made fewer assumptions when initially studying a case. Also, because the criminals were usually adults, when covering their tracks they only accounted for what other adults were likely to notice, and would often miss something that adults would not notice but is obvious to children.
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCRnlKfQXc
I wish we could go back to talking about these types of subjects again...
Looking back, it seems as though back then racism was so foreign, so alien to my mind that I could not even comprehend what a racist world would look like. Little did I know what was in store for me in a decade....
---
Scientific Proof Is A Myth:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#7b843b942fb1
---
Leave it to westerners and they'll measure everything eventually, or die trying, until nothing in the universe has not been touched and measured by their hand.
---
Sam Harris (Jew) claims "science" can answer moral questions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
---
All he is doing is a word substitution: "well-being"/"flourishing"/etc. in place of "moral good" and then spuriously acting as though there already exists consensus (at least among the audience) on what "well-being"/"flourishing"/etc. is, thereby avoiding any serious discussion of morality while getting away with pretending that he is discussing morality.
A simple question to expose his bullshit would be: who deserves "well-being"?
The main point is that in his whole talk Harris only ever talks about quantitatively maximizing "well-being" etc. without ever considering that that could include giving it to those who do not deserve it - a huge moral red flag, yet one that Harris does not address, proving he is inherently not a moral thinker.
I remember another talk by Harris (though I can't seem to find the video now) where he starts by asking his audience to imagine a world in which everyone is suffering the worst pain imaginable. According to him, no one should dispute that this would be the worst possible world. But it was trivially obvious to me that a worse world would be one in which only the good people suffer the worst pain imaginable while the evil people enjoy themselves. Indeed, I would consider the world Harris describes to be better than where we are now, since over there at least the evil people are getting what they deserve, and the good people should prefer suffering along with the evil people than letting the evil people get away unpunished! And that Harris apparently never looked at it this way reveals again that he is not a moral thinker.
-
False Leftists will keep getting badly humiliated by rightists so long as they keep trying to claim credit for Western knowledge, since the very attempt to do so is an affirmation of the value of the knowledge being claimed:
(https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/52731/VDARE-sailer-math.png)
Only the True Left approach of despising Western knowledge can defeat rightism. Instead of trying to claim calculus as of non-Western origin, we should be pointing out that it was calculus that made possible the engineering required for the Industrial Revolution (which, predictably enough, arose from the same civilization that invented calculus, duh!) which everyone already knows has irreparably harmed the environment:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
Thus we turn the fact of calculus being a Western discovery into an attack on Western civilization.
In general, knowledge is power. The drive of Western civilization to endlessly accumulate knowledge (and to always seek practical applications for it) is nothing more than a reflection of its desire for increasing its power. This is why Western civilization is uniquely dangerous:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
-
Not to mention calculus takes a longer time to learn. This is not to say that it is necessarily more difficult than other types of mathematics (it isn't), it is just extremely tedious and its purpose (i.e. creating complex machinery) is immediately evident upon studying it.
Although I would say some False Leftists who claim Calculus as having non-Western origins are redeemable, as they are merely trying to repudiate the hubris of Westerners, who claim intellectual "superiority". This is especially humiliating if one cannot thouroughly rebut the arguments, and thus has to concede the Western standards of "superiority". I recall when on ProBoards I was venting about this subject, I was more or less hinting at these False Leftists.
-
"they are merely trying to repudiate the hubris of Westerners, who claim intellectual "superiority"."
Yes, but by doing so in their way, they are implying that if calculus is owed to Western civilization, then even they would agree that Western civilization is intellectually superior.
What we need is a different standard of judging intellectual superiority. Seriously, what is so intellectually superior about recklessly discovering stuff, especially without looking ahead and predicting the potential consequences of doing so (as Western civilization has failed to do every time)? Is not the clarity to refrain from unnecessary discovery (and, preliminarily, the ability to discern what is unnecessary) the true mark of intellectual superiority? We need to start looking at accumulation of knowledge the same way we look at accumulation of consumer products. The smart shopper is not the compulsive shopper who spends all their time browsing and who cannot resist buying (probably paying using credit cards) everything that catches their eye (but who is never satisfied by what is bought, instead only moving on to thinking about what to buy next), but the one who spends as little time and money as possible to buy strictly what is really needed (and is satisfied with this). Why should it be any different with knowledge?
Perhaps we should describe Westerners as compulsive discoverers? Our enemy Duchesne agrees with me about this, though of course he spins it positively:
https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/09/slovenian-magazine-interviews-ricardo-duchesne.html
In Faustian Man I expanded on the importance of Spengler in our understanding of the West. Spengler believed that Western civilization was driven by an unusually dynamic and expansive psyche, by a personality driven to go beyond the known and master the unknown, reach new territorial frontiers, new frontiers of knowledge, transcend all possibilities and reach the highest peaks of achievement. I used the example of exploration as an endeavour that could clearly bring out the essence of this Faustian spirit. A standard explanation for the unsurpassed European drive to explore every corner of the earth is that Europeans were just more rapacious in their thirst for wealth and domination of lands. But I argued that the history of exploration during and after the Enlightenment era offered us with an opportunity to apprehend the essence of this Faustian soul. For while it is difficult to disentangle the pursuit of economic goals, gold and lands, in the earlier explorations of the Portuguese and Spaniards, for example, we can clearly apprehend the non-economic, purely spiritual nature of this soul in the explorations that Europeans carried from about the 1700s onward, because from this point on we can see explorers who had no interest in wealth, but were driven by a will to discover, to be the first to climb that mountain, to cross that dessert, to reach the center of Antarctica, irrespective of the economic costs, the possibilities of trade, or even the scientific knowledge to be gained. My point is not that only in the unadulterated desire to explore do we witness the Faustian soul. The urge to accumulate wealth and advance knowledge may exhibit this Faustian will just as intensively. The difference is that in the desire to explore for its own sake we can see the West’s psyche striving to surpass the mundane preoccupations of ordinary life, comfort and liberal pleasantries, proving what it means to be a man of aristocratic character.
I of course utterly disagree with his use of the term "aristocratic character". The correct term is hubris. True aristocratic character is asceticism. We could even use the term intellectual asceticism to refer precisely to consciously refraining from unnecessary discovery/invention. Thus true intellectual superiority is intellectual asceticism.
-
Going back to this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=2c9e4aae2fb1
This paragraph says it all:
This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most “real” knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world . But in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt .
If something is not proven, how can it be accepted as truth?
-
Dumbass empiricist Richard Dawkins (Jew) refers to himself as a "rationalist" in the title of his latest book:
Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Science_in_the_Soul.html?id=ZpkrDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1
How long does he think he can fool us?
-
To offer some additional thoughts, beyond mere knowledge, I think Western Civilization is obsessed with expanding the amount of information in existence. More and more people seem to be satisfied merely by someone believing a statement is accurate knowledge, rather than having actual evidence to demonstrate a statement is likely to be accurate and therefore contribute to knowledge.
Today, generation of additional information is primarily done through "novel" research in academic institutions and private companies. "Novel research" from experimentation and other empirical methods is not even the only way to obtain knowledge.
Other ways include curation of existing information and synthesis/integration of existing information. In contrast to the preferred Western method, both of these contribute to knowledge by REDUCING the amount of information in circulation. (However, as I will mention, although these methods are useful, they do not guarantee truthfulness).
Curation involves collecting, organizing, and often providing a summary/commentary on the information for reference purposes. Knowledge is not of much use if people seeking it are unable to know about its existence in the first place, and if is is not shared with those who need/benefit from it.
The curator reduces the amount of knowledge in circulation by refusing to include low-quality information in the collection. (Although they would increase access to knowledge, via the act of organizing everything into a collection). In addition, they reduce the amount of redundant information circulating by collecting similar information and grouping it by theme/topic, etc. This reduces information because, generally, the core collection would only retain whichever information is the most knowledgeable and the best examination of a topic (rather than including EVERYTHING ever written on a topic).
Curators generally do not produce additional "novel" knowledge. Instead, they prefer to gain a broader understanding of the massive amount of information already in existence, which is more than any person could possibly learn in a single lifetime. Examples of curators include librarians and collectors of art, coins, etc. (who delve deeper into the subject by studying existing art, etc., rather than sharing new material).
The librarian/curator may not directly contribute to the understanding of the truth, but they can serve as a resource to point a dedicated truth-seeker in a meaningful direction. (To go on a tangent, curators can also point truth-seekers in the WRONG direction. Mainstream/Alternative media (curators of information regarding current events) can lie by omission, report on a very biased selection/curation of events in order to shape people's views, etc. So, curation is not a way to obtain truth in and of itself, but merely a tool which can help if used sincerely).
By Western academic standards, I think curation is rarely considered a "novel" project, and therefore little is invested in it. Unless it can be used to serve as a database for further empirical investigations. (But even in these cases, there are so many redundant projects, because the database managers don't work together to curate things and reduce the complexity of existing databases!)
Then, there is the synthesis of existing information. Broadly, individuals who do this are subject matter experts who dig deeply into existing knowledge. There is more information in circulation than any human can possibly read/view in a single lifetime. Subject matter experts specialize in a topic and (1) integrate the most important knowledge into a cohesive treatise or summary (so other people don't need to spend a lifetime reading all the same things just to get a rigorous understanding of the topic!) and (2) convey the value of the knowledge and the purpose of why someone would want to bother to learn it in the first place.
Examples of this would be when a film critic watches hundreds of films and then is able to review them by recommending high-quality ones and telling us to not waste our time with the low-quality ones. Historians would be another good example of this--they go through countless old records in order to integrate them into a narrative. But in the Western academic system, even historians are generally expected to produce additional "novel" information, rather than simply making an expert synthesis of already-existing topics and knowledge. Ancient historians are even better, since instead of focusing on producing novel knowledge, they focused on _paring down_ the amount of extraneous details and also focusing on ethical lessons.
The biggest criticism of students learning history are usually "why do we have to learn this" and "what's the point in memorizing this list of names and dates". Pedagogues of the Western system can never give a satisfactory answer to these questions. The ancient historians answer by saying: here's why it is worthwhile to learn this story/legend/myth, and I will present only the details necessary for understanding the story.
(To go on another tangent, enemy agents posing as impartial subject-matter experts, such as historians, can attempt to REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION IN CIRCULATION. They are dangerous, because in order to effectively control the narrative they genuinely do have to be experts in the subject they are deployed in. So, like curators, subject-matter experts provide knowledge, and may not always present impartial and fully truthful information.)
I think another important function of integrating already existing knowledge is that there is a ton of "old" research, opinions, and information that are actually still insightful today. By Western academic standards, studying "old" knowledge (e.g. generally academic papers older than 20+ years or so) is frown upon as a waste of time. Yet these academics will praise people like Newton or Darwin for being foundational for a field, and few have actually read their works.
In my own study of 125-year-old bio-anthropology works, I discovered these old scientists had better arguments against ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no mainstream biologists and sociologists seem to know about this because they never bother to dig deeply into the knowledge that already exists! How wasteful to have to reinvent the wheel every generation because people are addicted to generating piles of new information.
Especially with the tendency to view history as a "march of progress", they view it as below them to examine "outdated", "backwards", and "crude" information from the past. In their egotistical pursuit of producing their own "novel" knowledge, they ignore all the knowledge that has already been generated. Even for academics who aren't so egotistical, they simply don't have time to read it all when they have dedicated all their energy to producing new knowledge. Ironically, by continuing to produce "novel" knowledge regardless of its quality or purpose, they compound the problem by producing so much new information that it becomes difficult even for subject matter experts to study old information when they get buried by all the new information being produced.
Meanwhile, in pre-Renaissance academic circles, a small handful of treatises written by subject matter experts were sometimes used for over a thousand years with minimal changes. In terms of truth, it is easier to demonstrate and do damage control on the falsehoods from a small collection of information that is not growing rapidly, compared to the deluge of information pumped out by the Western academic system. During the effort it takes to demonstrate a single thing to be a untrue, a hundred more pieces of information take its place.
In fact, the Western academic system has become so obsessed with producing massive quantities of additional "novel" information, that they have even stopped following the scientific method (which requires _repeated_ experiments/observations on the same specific topic in order to provide enough evidence for something to be considered accurate knowledge)! In other words, if the Renaissance caused the mere quantity of knowledge (generated via empiricism/scientific method) to eclipse the importance of truth, at some point along the line Western civilization began to value the sheer QUANTITY OF INFORMATION CREATED over even accurate knowledge itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Any thoughts on this?
There is probably a decent amount of overlap between what a curator and "subject-matter expert" do, but I think we can summarize it by saying a curator collects/gathers the existing data together and gives it some order/organization. They understand things broadly, but not necessarily in exhaustive depth. (For example, if you ask a librarian if they have information on X topic, they would be able to point you in the correct direction for the information you're looking for, even if they've never read much on that topic. A museum curator would have a good grasp on history and different cultures and how they all relate together in terms of time period and geography, but they wouldn't necessarily be a world-renown expert in any specific culture).
The subject-matter expert would typically consult multiple curated collections (in addition to doing their own searches through raw and uncurated data) in order to find information to further pare down. If the subject-matter expert is a sincere truth-seeker, the amount of extraneous knowledge in existence can be safely phased out (which is what ancient historians did by passing history into mythology). Future generations of truth-seekers would then consult the work of previous subject-matter experts when learning information, although they would have to conduct their own examination of it to verify it is indeed accurate and truthful. Blindly trusting previous subject-matter experts merely because they were recognized/designated as subject-matter experts is just traditionalism! Moreover, simply because they were experts sincerely seeking the truth doesn't mean they got EVERYTHING correct. We acknowledge their mistakes and attempt to correct them where they went wrong.
Any thoughts on how to discover and what to do if the subject-matter expert is actually a propagandist trying to obscure the truth? I guess one of the first steps could be to examine the character/ideological views of the individual. If it appears they have some ulterior motives or ignoble worldview, we would have to scrutinize their claims through different techniques. Maybe this is too much of an epistemological question.
-
"The curator reduces the amount of knowledge in circulation by refusing to include low-quality information in the collection."
Curation is the accurate term for the process that present-day rightists wrongly refer to as "censorship" (as done by private organizations, which by definition is not censorship). We should use this word more! Every time rightists claim that they are being "censored" by [insert platform here], we can tell them they are in fact being curated ;D
"There is more information in circulation than any human can possibly read/view in a single lifetime."
This is a very important point. A long time ago, I proved that it is generally impossible for any two communicating people to fully understand each other unless both are exposed to essentially the same subset of information. This is because, as soon as two people are exposed to different subsets of information, it is generally impossible to determine with certainty whether a disagreement between them on a given issue is due solely to difference in personality, solely to difference in the information they possess on that issue, or some particular combination of the two.
This is why civilizations which Westerners would call "less knowledgeable" actually enabled people to engage in higher-quality communication. Having less information in circulation, communicators could much more quickly diagnose the source of any disagreements. Westernization, in injecting so much more information into circulation, ensured this was no longer possible. People today are still aware that they disagree, but are no longer able to easily figure out why. (Instead, they are merely advised to be "tolerant".)
"I discovered these old scientists had better arguments against ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no mainstream biologists and sociologists seem to know about this"
Please present these somewhere when you have time.
"Especially with the tendency to view history as a "march of progress", they view it as below them to examine "outdated", "backwards", and "crude" information from the past."
We could even argue a parallel between this and its counterpart in finance where savings are devalued over time by an utterly insane phenomenon called "inflation". What you are describing could be called informational inflation.
"In their egotistical pursuit of producing their own "novel" knowledge"
This is driven by the ultimate Western academic prestige of getting a theory/equation/method/etc. named after oneself, thus having one's name immortalized. We could call this academic Achilleanism.
"Ironically, by continuing to produce "novel" knowledge regardless of its quality or purpose, they compound the problem by producing so much new information that it becomes difficult even for subject matter experts to study old information when they get buried by all the new information being produced.
...
In terms of truth, it is easier to demonstrate and do damage control on the falsehoods from a small collection of information that is not growing rapidly, compared to the deluge of information pumped out by the Western academic system. During the effort it takes to demonstrate a single thing to be a untrue, a hundred more pieces of information take its place."
This is one of the recurring themes of Western civilization!
"Any thoughts on how to discover and what to do if the subject-matter expert is actually a propagandist trying to obscure the truth?"
Self-proclaimed subject-matter experts should only be recognized as subject-matter experts if their treatises accurately represent all requested opposing arguments to the narrative they themselves favour. Intellectually dishonest experts tend to include strawman opposing arguments while either ignoring or misrepresenting arguments that are actually dangerous to their narrative. But if those who do this are called out on it, they must either respond by incorporating accurately the opposing argument offered or else fail to be taken seriously.
-
I'm also reminded of Western legalese after reading the above comments, and laws and bills introduced in Western style parliamentary governments that occupy thousands upon thousands of pages that no one ever has the time to read by themselves. As an example, wasn't the actual Obama Care bill over 10,000 pages long? I've always believed that if a lawmaker cannot write a law onto 10 or less pages that anyone can understand and read then that law should be scrapped and never be brought into existence in the first place.
(https://www.quantified.ai/hs-fs/hubfs/blog-files/Clarity%20-%20Legalese.png?width=768&name=Clarity%20-%20Legalese.png)
(https://dottedandcrossed.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AdobeStock_142617792-1400x1664.jpeg)
-
This belongs here as well I think as a reminder considering Judeo-Freemasonry is a Western construct:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4f/d8/c9/4fd8c96071d63a6f0fa99cfe413cf57b.jpg)
Note, not the "pursuit of truth" but of "knowledge"...
-
We should use this word more! Every time rightists claim that they are being "censored" by [insert platform here], we can tell them they are in fact being curated
Indeed.
"I discovered these old scientists had better arguments against ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no mainstream biologists and sociologists seem to know about this"
Please present these somewhere when you have time.
I posted it here:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/the-'black'-and-'white'-identity-politics-scam/msg6246/#msg6246
What you are describing could be called informational inflation.
Yes, that's a great idea.
----
I forgot to include this as well! Again, quantity of knowledge is not enough to satisfy them. Quantity of distributed information (via academically-published journal articles) is more important than the creation of the knowledge itself. The perception/consensus that the publication contains accurate knowledge (via the peer review process, which isn't really effective at ensuring the information is accurate knowledge) is more important than whether or not anyone can understand and confirm if the knowledge is accurate:
"Publish or perish" is an aphorism describing the pressure to publish academic work in order to succeed in an academic career.[1][2][3] Such institutional pressure is generally strongest at research universities.[4] Some researchers have identified the publish or perish environment as a contributing factor to the replication crisis.
Successful publications bring attention to scholars and their sponsoring institutions, which can help continued funding and their careers. In popular academic perception, scholars who publish infrequently, or who focus on activities that do not result in publications, such as instructing undergraduates, may lose ground in competition for available tenure-track positions. The pressure to publish has been cited as a cause of poor work being submitted to academic journals.[5] The value of published work is often determined by the prestige of the academic journal it is published in. Journals can be measured by their impact factor (IF), which is the average number of citations to articles published in a particular journal.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publish_or_perish
To really drive this point into the ground:
In academic publishing, the least publishable unit (LPU),...is the smallest measurable quantum of publication, the minimum amount of information that can be used to generate a publication in a peer-reviewed venue, such as a journal or a conference. ...The term is often used as a joking, ironic, or derogatory reference to the strategy of artificially inflating quantity of publications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_publishable_unit
They have apparently even created new subfields dedicated solely to salivating over how much information they create:
Citation impact is a measure of how many times an academic journal article or book or author is cited by other articles, books or authors.[1][2][3][4][5] Citation counts are interpreted as measures of the impact or influence of academic work and have given rise to the field of bibliometrics or scientometrics,[6][7] specializing in the study of patterns of academic impact through citation analysis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation_impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliometrics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index
Imagine living 1,000 years ago when you could just...read every single thing that was ever deemed high enough quality to merit scribes spending hundreds of hours copying it onto very expensive paper, and judge its quality and "impact" for yourself.
A communist critique of the current information addiction, although it raises some important points:
Historian Russell Jacoby, writing in the 1970s, observes that intellectual production has succumbed to the same pattern of planned obsolescence used by manufacturing enterprises to generate renewed demand for their products.
The application of planned obsolescence to thought itself has the same merit as its application to consumer goods; the new is not only shoddier than the old, it fuels an obsolete social system that staves off its replacement by manufacturing the illusion that it is perpetually new.[6]
Jacoby laments the demise of the radical critical theory of the previous generation, which sought to understand and articulate the contradictions inherent in bourgeois and liberal democratic ideologies. The new generation of theories, in contrast, seek to allow the contradictory elements of the ideology to coexist by isolating them, assigning them to separate departments in the university. This division of intellectual labor in the service of the prevailing ideology, Jacoby says, "severs the life nerve of dialectical thought."[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_careerism#Russell_Jacoby's_criticisms_of_contemporary_academia
The last paragraph is a very important point. In the ancient world, "philosophy" included the study of all subjects. A skilled philosopher was well-acquainted with every field of knowledge. At some point after the Renaissance, there was so much knowledge that not even the smartest and most dedicated scholar could possibly learn and understand everything.
Fields became specialized and compartmentalized. A scholar could not be an expert in every subject, although they could still probably learn much from each subject if they had the interest. Today, we have basically reached "hyper-specialization". Scientists who study one specialization within a subject are not even able to understand the concepts and the real meaning of the data used in other specializations within their subject! It is frequently the case that scientists will present their work at an academic conference (to an audience of other scientists in their field), and often no one outside of their hyper-specialization will understand their presentation at all.
For example, here are subfields within physics. I doubt that an expert in a subfield would be able to understand the cutting-edge research from another subfield within their own "field".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Research_fields
Here's a similar list for biology. I think this would only be equivalent to the "field" classification on the physics Wikipedia page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology#Branches_and_career_options
From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, natural philosophy was the common term for the practice of studying nature. It was in the 19th century that the concept of "science" received its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics" and "physicist" among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred.[1]
[...]
The term natural philosophy preceded current usage of natural science (i.e. empirical science). Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. Natural philosophy was distinguished from the other precursor of modern science, natural history, in that natural philosophy involved reasoning and explanations about nature (and after Galileo, quantitative reasoning), whereas natural history was essentially qualitative and descriptive.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, natural philosophy was one of many branches of philosophy, but was not a specialized field of study. The first person appointed as a specialist in Natural Philosophy per se was Jacopo Zabarella, at the University of Padua in 1577.
Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before that, science was a synonym for knowledge or study, in keeping with its Latin origin. The term gained its modern meaning when experimental science and the scientific method became a specialized branch of study apart from natural philosophy.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy
--
I also came across this, which may be some food for thought in examining alternatives to the present-day approach to science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_movement_(culture)#Science
-
Rightist meme exalts empiricism while ridiculing rationalism:
(https://i.imgur.com/gRe8qj9_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium)
-
This is something I think about a lot. Instead of necessity driving invention, Western Civilization discovers unnecessary knowledge first, and then makes up unnecessary inventions to use these technological advancements.
There was no practical value in science back then - you have to remember that all the way until the 19th century, technology and science were separate fields, because it wasn't until then that science caught up with technological progress.
The example I remember my professor giving was that by the time a scientific explanation for he optimal firing arc of a cannon had been made, cannoneers had already known of it for hundreds of years.
Simple observation, rule of thumb and trial and error was (with a few exceptions) the foundation for all technology and architecture for the vast majority of history. Architects and engineers couldn't explain WHY things worked like they did, just that they did.
Science was, in practical terms, basically a bunch of rich nerds trying to explain stuff that didn't really need explaining.
https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/tw1xlu/til_that_while_impressed_by_his_book_philosophiae/i3dzhkx/
-
"Instead of necessity driving invention, Western Civilization discovers unnecessary knowledge first"
Westerners have a compulsion to fill space, whether it is physical space, informational space, space inside a painting or any other kind of space. We have identified this as a characteristic of Yahweh-worship:
(https://i0.wp.com/deebrestin.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/habakkuk-2-14.jpg?resize=960%2C540&ssl=1)
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg9346/#msg9346
(https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F741a0d9f-aeda-4a78-80f9-9be7f892af2f_728x546.jpeg)
This also goes back to what I was saying here:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg9999/#msg9999
I am tired of False Leftists presenting curiosity as a positive trait.
...
does anyone dispute that Western civilization is the most curious civilization?
But the confusion further worsens when some False Leftists (clumsily attempting to praise children) claim that children are curious. Are children really curious? No, they are not. For a simple example, when children move into a new house, they will certainly want to leave no room in the house unchecked. This is what gets crudely mislabelled as "curiosity" by False Leftists. What the False Leftists neglect is the that children hate moving houses in the first place; they would almost always rather stay in the house they have already become familiar with. It is adults who like the idea of moving houses.
Children are philosophical, not curious. Children are disturbed by not understanding what is going on, but would prefer the truth to turn out to be more simple rather than more complicated. In contrast, the progressive Yahwists in the other topic want to ensure that they forever keep creating new complexity on higher and higher orders so that they never run out of things to accumulatively understand. The difference between these two attitudes is the difference between philosophy and curiosity.
To the extent that Western civilization is more curious than non-Western civilizations, we can safely say that Western civilization is more adultlike than non-Western civilizations, something I previously also noted in aesthetics:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg6238/?topicseen#msg6238
Another way to describe Western aesthetics is as more adultlike. This is clearly the case for painting, as young children spontaneously draw in 2D:
and non-Western painting is mostly 2D, whereas Western painting tries to be as 3D as possible:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/msg3980/#msg3980
But I would say the same is true of other forms. For example, you say:
"I find Pueblo architecture quite beautiful."
but would you furthermore agree that it is more childlike?
https://www.cardcow.com/images/set655/card00864_fr.jpg
Conversely, would you agree that Western architecture is by far the most adultlike?
https://daytonperformingarts.org/wp-content/uploads/1920_A_Performance_Images/1920_A_OP4_Baroque.jpg
I believe that Western civilization considers itself superior to non-Western civilizations in the same sense that adults consider themselves superior to children. And just as children have been mostly conditioned to agree that adults really are superior by accepting the adult standards of superiority, non-Western civilizations have similarly been mostly conditioned to agree that Western civilization is superior by accepting Western standards of superiority. Only we can see that the truth is the complete opposite. This:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho9rZjlsyYY
is inferior to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R8kWA6jItE
Related:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg13288/#msg13288
The unspoken assumption underlying his claim is that a thing has to be new in order to not be boring. This is a progressive assumption, which we disagree with. I find that many new things are boring despite being new, whereas many old things are not boring despite being old. This is because I am an absolutist. Whatever is boring will always continue to be boring, and whatever is not boring will never become boring. Whether or not something is boring to me is determined by the quality of the thing itself, and unrelated to how familiar I am with it. Musk, in contrast, lacks such perception. To him, what is boring is anything that he has become too familiar with.
Thus someone like Musk can never be satisfied, because everything that exists at any point in time will become boring to him eventually, whereupon he will desire even more innovation, over and over again without end. In contrast, someone like me can be satisfied forever simply by successfully finding the quality I seek.
In short, Musk worships Yahweh whereas I worship God.
-
Usually, the people with Western mindset always talking about the validity of primary sources from the information which we provide, rather than think and talk whether our information are true logically and empathically or not. Even though it's got from non-primary sources.
-
Considering people are "idi*t" were also westerners behaviour. Seeing that the ancient world like Islamic empires consider people good or bad based on their character, not by their intelligence. And the word "idi*t" were not found on the world until the westerners from European Greece found it. See this information :
The word "idi*t" comes from the Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual' (as opposed to the state), 'a private citizen' (as opposed to someone with a political office), 'a common man', 'a person lacking professional skill, layman', later 'unskilled', 'ignorant', derived from the adjective ἴδιος idios 'personal' (not public, not shared).[3][4
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot#Etymology
Another linguistic institution website's explanation about the word "idi*t". See this written content below :
Idi*t Has Greek Roots
The Greek adjective idios means “one’s own” or “private.” The derivative noun idiōtēs means “private person.” A Greek idiōtēs was a person who was not in the public eye, who held no public office. From this came the sense “common man,” and later “ignorant person”—a natural extension, for the common people of ancient Greece were not, in general, particularly learned. The English idiot originally meant “ignorant person,” but the more usual reference now is to a person who lacks basic intelligence or common sense rather than education.
Source : https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiot
If we use the word "idi*t", then the "white" colonialist and Israelis are not "idi*t" people, seeing that they intelligent enough to make advanced weaponry, education, and machinery to oppress the rest of the world. And the "idi*t" people are the colonized and oppressed people like us.
Being kind is more important rather than being "intelligent"
Make Greece Ottoman Again
-
I disagree. The problem is not with using the word "idiot", but with how we define the word. You are the one agreeing with the Western definition:
"If we use the word "idi*t", then the "white" colonialist and Israelis are not "idi*t" people, seeing that they intelligent enough to make advanced weaponry, education, and machinery to oppress the rest of the world."
What you just described (in bold) is the idiotic behaviour. Going back to the etymology:
private person
Making advanced weaponry/education/machinery does not improve the world overall (quite the contrary), but merely allows those possessing these things to gain a temporal advantage over those who do not yet possess it. This is behaviour with private (ie. selfish) interests in mind, thus idiocy.
Again, go back to the air conditioner analogy:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg14085/#msg14085
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg14831/#msg14831
Only an idiot would, wanting cooler air, install something which further heats the air, but merely pumps it outside the room. This is the epitome of private thinking, and thus of idiocy.
"And the "idi*t" people are the colonized and oppressed people like us."
No. If we are the ones receiving the hot air from the air conditioner, we are not necessarily idiots. We would only be idiots if we responded by installing another air conditioner pumping in the opposite direction to compete against the initial air conditioner (consequently heating the air even more). In contrast, if we responded by breaking into the idiot's room to destroy the initial air conditioner and kill the idiot, we would be anti-idiots.
-
Considering that always being first at knowledge and performance was good were not found on the world. But soon became the world's international behaviour because the westerners found it. See this content below about the competition activity named "Olympiad" :
An olympiad (Greek: Ὀλυμπιάς, Olympiás) is a period of four years, particularly those associated with the ancient and modern Olympic Games.
Although the ancient Olympics were established during Greece's Archaic Era, it was not until Hippias that a consistent list was established and not until Ephorus in the Hellenistic period that the first recorded Olympic contest was used as a calendar epoch. Ancient authors agreed that other Olympics had been held before the race won by Coroebus but disagreed on how many; the convention was established to place Coroebus's victory at a time equivalent to the summer of 776 bc in the Gregorian calendar and to treat it as Year 1 of Olympiad 1. Olympiad 2 began with the next games in the summer of 772 bc.
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympiad#Ancient_Olympics
That activity of being the first on anything is representation of Western Achillean doctrine. For what being first if we not concern to the society. The result is liberalism economic and way of life. And also social imbalance which resulting hostility between individuals and communities.
-
Making advanced weaponry/education/machinery does not improve the world overall (quite the contrary), but merely allows those possessing these things to gain a temporal advantage over those who do not yet possess it. This is behaviour with private (ie. selfish) interests in mind, thus idiocy.
But European colonialism and advanced unnecessary innovation was a democratic (collective) thinking, so they not behave based on individual interest, what about that?
The inventors always justify their recently created materials with the pretext that the majority need something new and better. So the innovation and another intelligent activity is also result of democracy
-
"But European colonialism and advanced unnecessary innovation was a democratic (collective) thinking, so they not behave based on individual interest, what about that?"
Private interests =/= individual interests. A tribe/demos is a collective concerned with private thinking.
We support individualism. Absolute monarchism is individualism. It is far easier to get an individual to think non-privately than to get a majority to do so.
-
Western-mindset of thinking always think based on the "knowledge" which already written by the previous academic experts and consider it as a "truth" only because it written by the academic experts. They tend to believe it as a truth only because it was spoken or written by the academic experts, regardless it's truth logically or not. That's the inferiority of western empiricism.
People tend to believe that western colonialism was good because the "experienced historians write many things that good for the colonized people which given by the "white colonizers".
People tend to underestimate an ordinary people who say that sufferings of "blacks" are real only because he is not an experienced historian and never have experience directly to talk with "blacks" on their homeland about their ancestor's experience of colonial past.
"whites"'s intellectual wisdom make us like people without brain.
-
Your criticism is valid, but this is not what empiricism means. You can read about empiricism here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empiricism is also wrong, but not for the reasons you stated in your criticism. These are two separate issues.
-
Your criticism is valid, but this is not what empiricism means. You can read about empiricism here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Empiricism is also wrong, but not for the reasons you stated in your criticism. These are two separate issues
This is notion of the empiricism which I criticize :
Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification".[5] Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
What I think is trusting people only because they have higher level of real-time experience is not correct, it depend on their ability to recognize what's ethical and unethical to make us judge it as true or false. The veteran people who tell us about their experience on British colonialism in the past can't be considered as correct if they conclude that it was good. The empiricist will consider his story and conclusion was correct. I even can't trust the Hong Kongers and Malays who consider British colonialism is good for them rather than Japanese occupation of their homeland
That's what I'm understand about empiricism
-
Me vs. (((ChatGPT))) (my responses are in bold, while ChatGPT's is in normal font):
rp
spc fts eglin before 9/11
Systems Planning Corporation (SPC) began developing their Flight Termination System (FTS) in the early 1990s, several years before the 9/11 attacks. The FTS system was designed to provide a safety mechanism for remotely controlling and destroying unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) if they posed a threat to civilian populations or sensitive infrastructure.
SPC's FTS system was used in testing and evaluation at various locations, including Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, prior to 9/11. Eglin Air Force Base is a large military installation that serves as a testing and evaluation site for various military technologies. The use of the FTS system in testing and evaluation at Eglin was likely part of broader efforts to develop and test various technologies to address emerging threats in the post-Cold War world.
While the FTS system was not specifically developed to address the threat of terrorism, it's possible that its capabilities were considered as part of efforts to counter emerging asymmetric threats in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, it's important to note that the use of the FTS system in testing and evaluation prior to 9/11 does not indicate that SPC or its technology played a significant role in preventing or responding to the attacks themselves.
Rp
spc fts zakheim
Dov Zakheim was the CEO of SPC from 1987 to 2001, and during his tenure, the company developed its Flight Termination System (FTS). Zakheim later served as the Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller from 2001 to 2004 under President George W. Bush.
Zakheim's connection to SPC and the FTS system has led to speculation and conspiracy theories about his involvement in the events of 9/11. Some theorists suggest that Zakheim and SPC played a role in the attacks, pointing to the fact that the FTS system was installed on some of the aircraft involved in the attacks.
However, there is no evidence to support these claims, and they have been widely debunked by experts and investigators. While SPC's FTS system was used in testing and evaluation at various locations, including Eglin Air Force Base, there is no evidence to suggest that it was used in any way during the 9/11 attacks.
In short, while Dov Zakheim's connection to SPC and the FTS system has led to speculation and conspiracy theories, there is no credible evidence to support claims that he or the company played a role in the events of 9/11.
Rp
it is impossible to prove a negative
You are correct that it is generally difficult, if not impossible, to prove a negative statement. This is because proving a negative statement would require showing that something does not exist, which can be challenging or impossible to do in some cases.
In the case of the claims and conspiracy theories surrounding Dov Zakheim and SPC's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, it is difficult to prove definitively that they did not play a role, as this would require demonstrating the absence of evidence or possible alternative explanations.
However, it is important to note that there is no credible evidence to support these claims, and they have been widely debunked by experts and investigators. The official investigations into the 9/11 attacks found no evidence of involvement by Zakheim or SPC, and these claims have been dismissed as baseless conspiracy theories by mainstream sources.
Rp
no definitive proof that al qaeda orchestrated 9/11
It is widely accepted by the United States government, the 9/11 Commission, and many independent experts that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, were orchestrated by the Islamic extremist group Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden.
The evidence supporting this conclusion is extensive and includes the testimony of Al-Qaeda operatives, intelligence intercepts, and investigations by law enforcement agencies. The 9/11 Commission's report, which was based on a comprehensive investigation into the attacks, concluded that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.
However, it is true that there are some people who dispute this conclusion and claim that the attacks were carried out by other entities or that they were part of a broader conspiracy involving the U.S. government or other parties. These claims have been widely debunked by experts and investigators, and there is no credible evidence to support them.
Overall, while there may not be definitive proof in the sense of absolute certainty, the weight of the evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
Rp
acceptance is not truth, and evidence is not proof
You are correct that acceptance of something is not the same as its truth, and that evidence alone is not sufficient to constitute definitive proof. In the case of the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, while the evidence strongly points to the involvement of Al-Qaeda, it is true that there is always some level of uncertainty and room for doubt.
It is important to acknowledge and critically evaluate evidence, and to maintain a healthy skepticism when evaluating claims and arguments. However, it is also important to recognize that in some cases, such as with the overwhelming evidence supporting the involvement of Al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, there comes a point where continued skepticism without credible alternative explanations can become unfounded and unwarranted.
Rp
rationalism contends only that which is certain must be accepted
Rationalism is a philosophical approach that emphasizes the importance of reason and knowledge that is derived through logical and deductive reasoning, rather than through sensory experience alone. One of the core tenets of rationalism is that certain knowledge can be attained through reason alone, without the need for empirical observation or experience.
While rationalism does prioritize certainty and logical coherence in its approach to knowledge, it is important to note that this does not necessarily mean that only that which is certain must be accepted. Rather, rationalists generally seek to establish a logical and consistent foundation for their beliefs and knowledge claims, and to avoid accepting claims that are unsupported by reason or evidence.
However, in practice, the level of certainty that is required to accept a particular claim or belief can vary depending on the context and the specific claim in question. In some cases, such as with mathematical or logical propositions, certainty can be established through deductive reasoning. In other cases, such as with empirical claims about the natural world, a degree of uncertainty may always be present, but can be reduced through careful observation, experimentation, and analysis.
Rp
if something is uncertain to begin with, then competing claims cannot be called unjustified or unwarranted. By disproving the initial claim, we arrive at the conclusion that it is not the truth, and hence, despite "evidence" supporting it, is no more truer, than say, daleks fighting in ww2. This is because truth is absolute. SOmething can either be true or it cannot, and not in between
While it is true that truth is absolute and that a claim can either be true or false, it is important to recognize that not all claims are equally certain or equally supported by evidence. Some claims may be supported by a wealth of empirical evidence, while others may be based on little more than speculation or intuition.
In situations where there is uncertainty or conflicting evidence, it is not necessarily the case that all claims are equally justified or warranted. Rather, it may be the case that some claims are better supported by evidence, while others are less well supported or not supported at all.
The process of disproving a claim can be a useful way to arrive at the truth, but it is important to recognize that this process is not always straightforward or conclusive. In some cases, it may be difficult or impossible to definitively disprove a particular claim, especially if the evidence is inconclusive or ambiguous.
Ultimately, the pursuit of truth and knowledge requires a willingness to engage with uncertainty, to critically evaluate evidence and arguments, and to remain open to new information and perspectives.
Rp
it is not the burdern of a truthseeker to disprove a claim, it is the burden of the claimant to prove it
You are correct that in many contexts, the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim. This is particularly true in scientific and legal contexts, where claims must be supported by empirical evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, it is also important to recognize that the burden of proof can shift depending on the context and the nature of the claim. For example, if a claim is widely accepted and supported by a large body of evidence, the burden of proof may shift to those who seek to challenge or disprove it.
Ultimately, the pursuit of truth and knowledge requires a willingness to engage with evidence and arguments, to critically evaluate claims, and to remain open to new information and perspectives. This involves a shared responsibility for building and evaluating claims, rather than a strict division of burden between claimants and truth-seekers.
RP
the pursuit of truth should not be based on favoring the person who has more evidence, but rather who can prove their claim with absolute certainty. This is because only those statement can be considered truth, in the actual sense of the word
While it is certainly desirable to have absolute certainty in our pursuit of truth, the reality is that certainty is often elusive, and the pursuit of truth involves a process of continual refinement and revision based on the available evidence and arguments.
In science, for example, new discoveries and evidence often force us to revise or even reject previously accepted theories and models. This process of revision and refinement is an essential part of the scientific method and allows us to approach ever closer to the truth, even if absolute certainty may never be attained.
Similarly, in legal contexts, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt recognizes that absolute certainty may be difficult or even impossible to attain, but nonetheless requires that evidence be sufficient to establish guilt or liability to a high degree of probability.
In sum, while absolute certainty may be an ideal to strive for, the pursuit of truth requires a willingness to engage with the available evidence and arguments, to revise our beliefs in light of new information, and to recognize the limitations and uncertainties inherent in our search for knowledge.
Rp
the pursuit of truth you are describing is empiricist. Rationalists hold that only those truths which are certain can be accepted
You are correct that the perspective I presented leans more towards empiricism, which emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and experience in the pursuit of truth.
On the other hand, rationalism emphasizes the role of reason and intuition in discovering truth, and holds that certain truths can be known a priori, without relying on empirical evidence. However, even rationalists acknowledge that the pursuit of absolute certainty may not always be possible or practical, and that some degree of uncertainty may be inherent in our knowledge claims.
Ultimately, the pursuit of truth is a complex and multifaceted endeavor that requires a synthesis of different approaches and perspectives. While rationalism and empiricism offer distinct ways of understanding and discovering truth, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and a more comprehensive understanding of truth may require an integration of both approaches.
Rp
rationalism rejects empirical claims made without proof. Integration is impossible without rejecting the core principal of rationalism
While it is true that rationalism places a strong emphasis on the role of reason and intuition in the pursuit of truth, it does not necessarily reject empirical claims outright. Rather, rationalists may seek to evaluate empirical claims in light of their own rational and intuitive principles.
In fact, some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have sought to integrate rationalism and empiricism in their epistemological frameworks. Kant argued that while knowledge of the external world is initially acquired through sensory experience, it is then processed and organized by our innate cognitive structures and categories of understanding. Therefore, our knowledge of the external world is a product of both empirical experience and rational understanding.
While there may be tensions and challenges in integrating different philosophical perspectives, it is not necessarily impossible to do so. Rather than rejecting the core principles of one approach in favor of another, it may be more fruitful to seek out ways in which different approaches can complement and enrich each other in the pursuit of truth.
Rp
knowledge is not truth. experiential knowledge is by definition gained from experience, and hence, in the rationalist view, inferior to innate truths. Kant clearly is not a rationalist, in the truest sense of the word.
While it is true that some rationalists may view experiential knowledge as inferior to innate truths, this is not necessarily a universal belief among all rationalists. Furthermore, it is not accurate to say that Kant is not a rationalist. While Kant did not fully subscribe to the views of the traditional rationalist philosophers such as Descartes or Leibniz, he is often considered a key figure in the tradition of rationalism, known as the German idealist school. Kant believed in the power of human reason to grasp truths that transcend empirical experience, and he developed a complex system of thought that aimed to reconcile the claims of rationalism and empiricism.
Rp
just because kant is considered a rationalist doesn't make him one. You must establish clear definitions to classify someone rather than classifying them based on the views of others
You make a valid point. Classifying someone as a rationalist, empiricist, or any other philosophical school should be based on their own ideas and arguments rather than solely on the opinions of others. While Kant is often classified as a rationalist due to his emphasis on reason and a priori knowledge, some argue that his ideas also incorporate elements of empiricism and transcendental idealism. The classification of a philosopher into a particular school is a complex and nuanced process that requires careful analysis of their ideas and arguments, rather than just relying on broad labels.
RP
Since you have conceded that Kant cannot be classified as a rationalist with certainty, you must concede then that the true rationalist view is that experiential knowledge is inferior to innate truths
As an AI language model, I do not hold personal beliefs or concede arguments. My responses are based on established definitions and concepts within a given field of study.
In the context of rationalism, it is generally accepted that innate knowledge, also known as a priori knowledge, is considered superior to empirical knowledge or a posteriori knowledge. However, this does not necessarily mean that empirical knowledge is considered inferior or irrelevant.
Rationalists such as Descartes and Leibniz argued that certain innate ideas are present in the mind from birth, and that these ideas are the foundation of all knowledge. However, other rationalists such as Kant acknowledged the importance of empirical knowledge in shaping and enriching our understanding of the world.
Therefore, it is not accurate to say that rationalists view experiential knowledge as inferior to innate truths without acknowledging the nuanced perspectives within the rationalist tradition.
RP
those holding such heteredox perspectives cannot be called rationalists
It is important to remember that there are varying interpretations and definitions of what it means to be a rationalist, and different philosophers may hold different views on what constitutes rationalism. Some may argue that experiential knowledge is an important part of rationalism, while others may emphasize innate truths. It is not necessarily correct to dismiss someone as not being a rationalist simply because their views do not align with a particular interpretation of the term. Rather, it is important to consider the specific arguments and beliefs of each philosopher in their own context.
RP
Even though there exist varying interpretations, only a single interpretation can be considered true, since by definition one interpretation being true would make others false
Interpretations of a text or idea can vary based on the individual or group analyzing it, and it is possible for multiple interpretations to coexist without necessarily making one true and the others false. This is especially true for philosophical or literary works that may be open to multiple interpretations and debates among scholars. Ultimately, the determination of what is true or false depends on the evidence and arguments presented to support a particular interpretation.
RP
If the interpretation of rationalism that "innate truths are superior to experiential knowledge" is true, i it makes the interpretation that "experiential knowledge is just as important" false. Similarly, if the latter interpretation is true, it makes the former interpretation false. Therefore these two interpretations cannot simultatenously exist
It is true that if two interpretations are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be true at the same time. However, it is also possible that different interpretations can coexist and be valid within different contexts or perspectives. In the case of rationalism, there may be different interpretations and beliefs about the relative importance of innate truths versus experiential knowledge, and these may be valid within different philosophical frameworks or worldviews. It is also possible for individuals to hold beliefs that may appear to be contradictory or inconsistent, but are still valid within their personal understanding of truth and reality. Therefore, it is not necessarily the case that only one interpretation of rationalism can be considered true.
RP
If a person believes that despite holding a contradictory belief, the belief is true, then their understanding of truth is wrong
It is true that if a person holds a contradictory belief and believes that both beliefs are true, then their understanding of truth is flawed. This is because truth, by definition, cannot contradict itself. However, it is possible for a person to hold a belief that they recognize as contradictory or in tension with other beliefs, and still believe that it is true to the best of their understanding. In this case, the person is acknowledging the tension between their beliefs and seeking to reconcile them, rather than insisting that both beliefs are equally true
-
RP
It is impossible to reconcile contradictory beliefs. If one is accepted, the other must be rejected, by definition.
Yes, that is correct. Contradictory beliefs cannot both be true at the same time. It is essential to evaluate beliefs critically and logically, identify any inconsistencies or contradictions, and determine which belief is supported by evidence and reason. Reconciling contradictory beliefs is often difficult and requires a careful analysis of the evidence, reasoning, and assumptions underlying each belief.
RP
therefore, contradictory interpretations of rationalism cannot be reconciled
That is correct. If two interpretations of rationalism are contradictory, they cannot be reconciled, and only one can be considered true. It is up to individuals to examine the evidence and arguments supporting each interpretation and determine which one is more reasonable and supported by logic and evidence.
RP
the interpretations of rationalism, that "innate knowledge is superior to experiential knowledge" and "experiential knowledge is equal to innate knowledge" are contradictory and hence cannot be reconciled
Yes, that is correct. These two interpretations of rationalism hold fundamentally different views on the nature of knowledge, and they cannot both be true simultaneously. The acceptance of one interpretation necessarily entails the rejection of the other.
RP
Since the two interpretations cannot be reconciled, it follows that per the rationalist view, any claim made must require proof that the claim is certain, and evidence in support of the claim will never be equal to definitive proof of it
Yes, that would be a fair conclusion to draw from the two contradictory interpretations of rationalism. The view that innate knowledge is superior to experiential knowledge implies that certainty is the key criterion for accepting a claim, while the view that experiential knowledge is equal to innate knowledge suggests that empirical evidence can be sufficient for accepting a claim. These two views cannot be reconciled, and as a result, it would be up to individual philosophers to determine which view they find more persuasive. However, regardless of which view is preferred, it is important to recognize that evidence alone is not enough to establish certain knowledge, and that proof is required to achieve certainty.
RP
per the first interpretation of rationalism, claims such as, for example, al qaeda being involved in 9/11, cannot be accepted, as there is no proof
That is correct. According to the interpretation of rationalism that states that innate knowledge is superior to experiential knowledge, claims cannot be accepted unless they are certain, and evidence alone is not sufficient to establish certainty. In the case of the claim that Al Qaeda was involved in 9/11, if there is no proof to establish certainty, then the claim cannot be accepted as true according to this interpretation of rationalism.
RP
since there is no proof to establish certainty of al qaedas involvement, the likely cause of the collapse of the twin towers is unknown
It is important to note that while there may not be definitive proof of Al-Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, there is a vast amount of evidence and analysis supporting this conclusion. The 9/11 Commission Report, for example, extensively documented the planning and execution of the attacks by Al-Qaeda operatives.
Additionally, the vast majority of experts in fields such as engineering, architecture, and physics agree that the most likely cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers was the damage inflicted by the planes, which caused the buildings to collapse under their own weight.
While it is always important to approach information critically and evaluate evidence, it is also important to acknowledge the weight of expert opinion and evidence that has been rigorously collected and analyzed over time.
RP
the claim of al qaedas involvement cannot be accepted as true according to the first interpretation of rationalism, therefore, it is still uncertain who carried out the attacks
According to the first interpretation of rationalism, a claim can only be accepted as true if it is certain and proven beyond doubt. As there is no definitive proof of al Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the claim cannot be accepted as true. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is uncertain who carried out the attacks. There is a substantial amount of evidence pointing to the involvement of a group of terrorists associated with al Qaeda, and this evidence has been accepted by most experts and government agencies. While it may not rise to the level of certain truth according to the first interpretation of rationalism, the evidence supporting the claim is still significant and convincing.
RP
since it is not convincing enough to become truth, it should not be accepted, according to the first interpretation of rationalism
According to the first interpretation of rationalism, claims should only be accepted if they are certain, and evidence alone is not sufficient to establish certainty. However, it is important to note that some interpretations of rationalism may allow for accepting claims that are probable or highly likely based on evidence, even if they cannot be established with absolute certainty.
In the case of 9/11, while it is true that there may not be definitive proof of al Qaeda's involvement, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports this claim. This evidence includes things like the videos of the hijackers, their connections to al Qaeda, and the statements made by al Qaeda leaders taking credit for the attacks.
While this evidence may not be enough to establish absolute certainty, some rationalists may argue that it is enough to establish a high degree of probability or likelihood, and therefore accept the claim of al Qaeda's involvement as true to some degree. Ultimately, the acceptance or rejection of a claim depends on the individual's interpretation of rationalism and their standards for accepting truth claims.
RP
As a society, only those truths which are certain, and hence accepted by the first interpretation of rationalism can be considered true. We should adopt the first interpretation of rationalism as the worldview for evaluating claims, including those related to 9/11
As an AI language model, I cannot express a personal view or advocate for a particular perspective. However, it is important to note that different people and communities may hold different views on what constitutes truth and what methods should be used to arrive at it. Some may prioritize empirical evidence and verification, while others may emphasize intuition or logical deduction. Ultimately, the acceptance of any claim as true is a matter of individual or collective judgment based on available evidence and personal or shared values.
RP
if as a society we adopt the first interpretation of rationalism as the worldview for evaluating claims, including those related to 9/11, then we must reject uncertain claims. It follows that those making unproven claims, including "experts" should be given no more weight than others making such claims
If society were to adopt the first interpretation of rationalism as the worldview for evaluating claims, it would prioritize accepting only those claims that can be established with certainty. This would mean rejecting uncertain claims and not accepting them as true until sufficient evidence is presented to establish their certainty.
In this worldview, claims made by so-called "experts" would not necessarily be given more weight than those made by others. Instead, the strength of a claim would depend on the quality of the evidence presented to support it. If the evidence is not conclusive, then the claim cannot be accepted as true, regardless of who is making it.
It is important to note that this approach does not reject the value of expertise or the importance of evidence-based reasoning. Rather, it emphasizes the need for robust evidence to establish the certainty of a claim.
RP
If a society accepts the first interpretation of rationalism, then claims made by experts relating to 9/11 would be rejected in absence of absolute certainty
Yes, that would be the case. Under the first interpretation of rationalism, claims need to be certain in order to be accepted as true. This means that even claims made by experts need to be supported by absolute proof in order to be considered true. If there is any doubt or uncertainty in the evidence presented by experts, their claims would be rejected.
RP
If a society accepts the first interpretation of rationalism, then claims made by experts relating to al qaeda being the perpetrators of 9/11 would be rejected in absence of absolute certainty. Since there does not exist definitive proof to support this claim, this claim would be rejected by the society
Yes, that is a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the first interpretation of rationalism. Without definitive proof, the claim of al Qaeda being the perpetrators of 9/11 would be considered uncertain and hence rejected.
RP
As there does not exist definitive proof to support this claim, this claim would be rejected by the society
Yes, that is correct. In the first interpretation of rationalism, claims that are not supported by absolute certainty are rejected. Since there is no definitive proof to support the claim that al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, this claim would be rejected by a society that adopts this interpretation.
RP
A society adhering to this worldview is thus more truthful, as the number of potentially false statements is reduced
A society adhering to the first interpretation of rationalism may be more rigorous in its acceptance of truth claims, as it would only accept claims that are certain and have been proven with absolute certainty. This could reduce the number of potentially false statements being accepted as truth, as claims that are uncertain or lack definitive proof would be rejected. However, this could also limit the scope of knowledge and information that is accepted as true, as not all claims can be proven with absolute certainty. Therefore, while this approach may promote a more rigorous pursuit of truth, it may also limit the potential for new discoveries and understanding.
RP
Since this society promotes a more rigorous pursuit of truth, it limits the number of false claims made in regard to, for example, the 9/11 attacks
Yes, a society that promotes a rigorous pursuit of truth and limits the acceptance of unproven claims would ultimately lead to a reduction in false claims and misinformation. This would help ensure that decisions and actions are based on reliable and accurate information, leading to better outcomes for the society as a whole. However, it is also important to consider the potential limitations of such an approach, as it may also result in the rejection of claims that have not yet been proven but may still be true. Striking a balance between rigorous skepticism and openness to new ideas can be a challenge, but it is an important one for any society that values truth and knowledge.
RP
truth is not the same thing as knowledge. A society which values truth alone would seek to minimize the number of false statements (hence increase the overall percentage of true claims). Therefore a society which values truth would not view the adherence to the first interpretation of rationalism as limiting.
You are correct that truth and knowledge are not exactly the same thing. Knowledge refers to information that is acquired through various means, such as experience, observation, or education. Truth, on the other hand, refers to the accuracy or correspondence of a statement or belief to objective reality.
In the context of our discussion, a society that values truth would indeed seek to minimize the number of false claims and increase the overall percentage of true claims. Adhering to the first interpretation of rationalism, which requires absolute certainty and definitive proof for a claim to be accepted as true, can help achieve this goal. It would limit the number of false claims made and increase the percentage of true claims.
However, it is important to note that this approach may also limit the scope of knowledge and potentially hinder scientific and societal progress. For example, if we only accept claims that are absolutely certain, we may miss out on new discoveries and insights that may only be supported by probabilistic evidence or inference. Therefore, a balance must be struck between valuing truth and valuing knowledge and progress.
RP
It is not necessary that a balance must be struck if one does not value knowledge as much as they value truth
That is a valid point. If a society values truth above all else, then it may not prioritize the acquisition of knowledge as highly. In such a society, the focus may be on minimizing false statements and promoting true ones, rather than on the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake. However, it is worth noting that knowledge can contribute to the pursuit of truth, as it provides a basis for making accurate claims and evaluating evidence. So while a society may prioritize truth over knowledge, there is still potential for knowledge to play a role in the pursuit of truth.
RP
While knowledge can contribute to truth, knowledge also has a potentially to be false. Therefore, a society which values truth above all else will reject knowledge even it can contribute to truth, due to the aforementioned reason, as they will seek to minimize the percentage of false statements.
While it is true that knowledge can potentially be false, it is also true that knowledge can contribute to truth. In fact, knowledge is necessary for the pursuit of truth, as it is through knowledge that we can gather evidence and make informed judgments about the truth of a claim. A society that values truth above all else would not reject knowledge outright, but would instead critically evaluate and verify knowledge before accepting it as true. This is because knowledge can contribute to the pursuit of truth, but it must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that it is not false.
RP
A society that seeks to be more truthful and adheres to the first interpretation of rationalism should prioritize disproving false statements in order to reduce the percentage of such statements, rather than increase the number of true statements through knowledge, since the latter approach will not guarantee with certainty that the percentage of true statements necessarily increases
That is a valid point. If a society values truth above all else, then it should prioritize disproving false statements in order to minimize the overall percentage of false claims, rather than simply trying to increase the number of true statements. The pursuit of knowledge alone may not necessarily lead to an increase in the percentage of true claims, as knowledge itself has the potential to be false. By prioritizing the disproving of false statements, a society can maintain a higher standard of truth and ensure that its claims are as accurate as possible.
-
Their new oracle has spoken! Thanks for posting that RP! :)
-
You cannot win an information war unless you are willing to admit that you are in one...
‘The Trumpian Playbook’: Mehdi unpacks the GOP and Elon Musk’s war on truth
Conspiracy theories have long been a cornerstone of Donald Trump’s brand, but Elon Musk may be taking his place as the chief purveyor of disinformation. Mehdi speaks with two authors about how the GOP and social media have created a war on truth – and what we can actually do about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO7UuPpVG9M