RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Epistemology’ Category

Please understand,

24 Apr

there was never any reasonable evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. It was a Democrat dodge from the get-go. It was always a frantic effort to draw attention away from how crappy a candidate Hillary was.

It was always a lie and a dodge.

The fact that it gained traction and currency among the more gullible and hide-bound parts of the population is merely a demonstration of the credulous nature of the people. Those people expected the MSM to tell the truth. Foolish move. Welcome to 2017, you unsophisticated hick.

Times have changed.

There are other sources of information now, and the MSM no longer has a stranglehold on information. Now they must confront alternative accounts of events, and do so creditably. See, the key word here is, “creditably.”

But that brings up another issue: the MSM has “shot their wad” on this and now there is little left. They have hyped a theme that is simply not true, and now they reap the predictable result now that we know for a fact that it is not true–no one believes them anymore. Even my Lefty friends are more skeptical, now.

I mean, the MSM said over and over that Trump was a monster who couldn’t win and couldn’t govern if he did. Then they said he was a Russian stooge Yet they were wrong. On all counts. They have, shall we say, pooped in the soup. And now it can never be right again.

They have endorsed the trendy Post-Modernism of the Academy in order to attack their idealogical opponents, but Post-Modernism (certainly in the hands of rubes) is a vicious dog that now turns and rends its owners. Now they are on the recieving end of the whip that they themselves crafted and gleefully used on others. It was great when they held the handle of the whip…

As a great philosopher once said, “Welcome to the party, pal!”

See, if there is no truth as the Post-Modernists gleefully argue, why on earth should I believe them? Let’s see them answer that simple question.

 

Oh, so Donald Trump

13 Apr

was right and the MSM, like usual, was a pack of lying jackals and propagandists. Gee, what a surprise. If you are totally stupid, that is.

No wonder thinking people no longer give a crap about the incessant yapping of the MSM! No wonder Trump was elected. Maybe the MSM should try telling the TRUTH. I know that is not in their nature, but they could at least try… I might as well believe an itinerant hellfire-and-damnation TV evangelist as the NY Times! They are both in it for the money, power, and prestige. Tale as old as time…

Sorry, we live in a Post-Modern world where there is no Truth, only opinion. And that is exactly what the MSM are dishing up (though ultimately this vicious dog turns and mauls its owner). It has long permeated academia and is now becoming part of the culture. OK, I buy it. You’ve convinced me. But now you cannot defend yourself.

Isn’t Post-Modern academia itself vulnerable to the very same critique as the objects of its criticism? Doesn’t this double back on itself? Nice work, Post-Modernists. You have convincingly pointed out the logical flaws in Positivism, but in doing so you yourself have open up the means to your own logical destruction! Yes, the Positivists are wrong, but aren’t YOU just as wrong and for the exact same reasons? Are YOU not vulnerable to the exact same criticisms? Methinks your are hoisted on your own petard…

So the ONLY rational approach is that I need to find a Truth-Teller–a real person with whom I can have a human relationship. Of course, that puts me out of the secular realm entirely, though it seems that there is no way to both hew eclusively to the secular realm AND believe in Truth.

And if there is indeed no Truth as the Post-Modernists say, on what grounds should I believe THEM over a dog-faced baboon or some stranger creature still? If all there is is opinion, on what logical grounds is their opinion better than mine? We all have a face, so why is yours better than mine? See, here is where the dog turns on its master and mauls him…

Sure, there may be socially constructed standards of beauty, but that is merely to argue that truth is socially constructed–including… YOURS! Some cultures value big butts and find them attractive. Others value the slim-hipped look. But is one fundamentally better than the other? If so, how do you know? It’s just your preference. You like curvy women and I like thin “athletic” ones. At best it is a culturally-familially-determined preference rather than Truth, but there are other cultures! There are other families! Don’t be so ethnocentric and chauvinistic, you knuckle-dragging mouth-breather…

See, if I reject categorically the existence of a Truth-Teller, I just drift rudderless on the Godless sea of modernity. Let’s say that religion is not my cup of tea. Well, then I have ruled out the very possibility of Truth. Yeah, THAT approach is “scientific!” It leads me again to ask why I should believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon? On what rational grounds are YOU standing?  (thanks, Socrates).

 
Comments Off on Oh, so Donald Trump

Posted in Buffoons, Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Bias

 

New frontiers in media bias.

04 Apr

It pretty dang clear. Pelley got pwned, here.

If you blithely accept what the MSM says, you are a blamed fool.

So here we have a guy (Cernovitch) saying that Hillary has Parkinson’s Disease. Pelley says that Mike Cernovitch is wrong. Pelley says that Hillary had pneumonia and they know that because Hillary herself said that. But then Cernovitch asks the key question: Yeah, but how do you know that Hillary was telling the truth? All you have is her word on it. Why is her word somehow more reliable than my own lying eyes? Do I just pretend I didn’t see her lock up?

I mean, on what grounds should I believer her over a dog-faced baboon? That she wouldn’t lie? Uh, THAT is laughable! Puh-leez!

I don’t really believe anything Hillary says, anyway. As Bill Safire noted years ago, she is a congenital liar. Just how do you know she is not lying in this case? She certainly has lied in the past (and is famous for it), so how do you know she is not lying now? On what grounds are you standing? It’s time to put up or shut up.

She looks Parkinsonian. Whether or not that is the actual diagnosis, I don’t know. But something is up. I’m just glad she is not President…

 

When will the Lefty madness end?

03 Apr

It is just crazy.

Yes, those who pushed the rule are fools. But why did they do it? Well, a BIG part of it is that they have never been their own boss and lived off their own business and the sweat of their own brow. They have mainly (and at times exclusively) worked for someone else or sucked off the taxpayer. In any case, they have never had to work on meeting a payroll or making sure that every i is dotted and t crossed so some malicious gummint regulator defending his or her petty fiefdom and power does not impose punative fines. Or worse.

It just is not in their lived experience, so at best they have a vague theoretical knowledge of it–and they often have no contact with that at all. See, it is a lived knowledge, not an abstract one. They have not dealt with petty bureaucrats, and been rolled by them.

In other words, it is a real knowledge that you want. You can’t really know unless you do. Those two things are bound up with each other. You can have enough knowledge to start with only theoretical understanding, but that just starts you on the path. You only become wise through lived experience.

 
Comments Off on When will the Lefty madness end?

Posted in Epistemology

 

It is true,

01 Apr

Universities seem to be very bad at teaching They don’t teach argument. They don’t teach logic. Many young people have no skills at all at defending themselves in terms of logical argument. It is ALL about calling names rather than stating a reasonable defense of their positions.

And THAT is a dirty shame. If you do that you start to think that the main issue is the feeling rather than the logical and reasonable grounds, you figure that YOU are the measure of all things. See, it is closely bound up with an overweening narcissism.  When you ask the classic question, “Why should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?” the answer is “My feeling has epistemological primacy over logic.”

And if the feeling is primary, there simply is no truth, since my feelings are the measure of Truth and my feelings are likely different than yours. And one person’s feelings are no more valid or have any more Truth-value than anyone else’s. We all have feelings, and yours are no better than mine.

See, it all comes back to epistemology.

Yes, that post-modern relativistic know-nothingism is a dirty shame. Don’t be fooled, we are in a knowledge crisis. This is the end of knowledge itself. There is ONLY opinion, and one opinion is not intrinsically better than any other.

 
Comments Off on It is true,

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Logic

 

On political matters, at least, it

06 Mar

is quite clear that Snopes plays fast and loose with the truth. Unfortunately, one cannot trust them. They are just shilling for a certain world-view.

Of course, that brings up the question of who you can ultimately trust. The answer? No one living on this earth.

There is no human source of unimpeachable knowledge. There is effort to be truthful, but not Cartesian certainty. There is no human Truth-Teller. There are only accounts, to riff off the Post-Modernists. So science is not a foundation for truth because it is dependent on human interpretation–a graph of numbers is totally meaningless until some human assigns meaning to it.

As Carl Popper so famously said, it is structurally impossible (due to the logical fallacy of Affirming The Consequent) to prove a theory correct (you can just rule out competing theories–thus falsification). And one can NEVER falsify ALL other known and unknown or even implausible explanations–it is logically and practically impossible. You can get approximations of truth from science (and that is indeed useful), but no Cartesian certainty. You get accounts, not immutable facts.

Journalism certainly isn’t a source of Truth–it is just the accounts and interpretations of the journalist. The only option is to turn to another source, or we are totally adrift on a Godless sea… In other words, the BEST sources of human-sourced knowledge have been incontrovertibly demonstrated to have feet of clay. They are ultimately unreliable.

Now Snopes has dutifully pooped in its own bed, following the lead of “climate scientists” and the MSM. You watch, this is the beginning of the end for Snopes. Their ONLY claim was that they told the truth, and that has been shown to be unequivocally false. They are shown to be just another axe-grinding hack. And ONE incident of demonstrable dishonesty ruins the whole thing–if it is 99% accurate, you can never be sure that any one item is not in the 1% false group. You can fish the poop out of the soup, but that doesn’t make the soup appetizing. It’s (to quote the original Iron Chef) OVAH! They are a dead man walking. I mean, on what grounds should I believe Snopes over a dog-faced baboon? I can’t think of one…

Yes, I agree that in the human realm there are no facts, only accounts. But one can STRIVE to give valid accounts. While that won’t fix the knowledge problem, it would be practically useful.

This Snopes thing is just another nail in the coffin of human truth. Already it is clear that only a great fool trusts the MSM. They abdicated their role of honest broker long ago.

 

To riff on Rush Limbaugh,

22 Feb

the First Amendment does NOT prevent one from criticizing the press. It just gives you, me, and everyone the legal right to express opinions without fear of legal/govenment retribution. That’s it. The press have no more or less freedom of speech than you or me. They are NOT in a privileged position. So some “reporters” need to get off their high horse and recognize that.

A free press is important, but really the bedrock issue is free speech. You don’t have to be a NY Times reporter to have that, and a NY Times reporter has no more of it than you or me. The NY Times reporter is no more immune from criticism than you or me. If they are full of crap, they can be called out on it without any damage whatsoever to the Constitution. So I would say to NY Times reporters to quit your whining and kvetching and defend yourself! And take that weak sauce and get out of here, you freakin’ loser…

Criticizing the press is just NO problem, Constitutionally or morally. THEY need to tell us why we should believe them over a dog-faced baboon, to quote Socrates. Otherwise it is just a bald-faced appeal to authority, and I don’t buy that, even a little. Upon what grounds are they standing? Why should I believe them?

 
Comments Off on To riff on Rush Limbaugh,

Posted in Epistemology, Free Speech

 

Yes, the media

20 Feb

has lost all credibility. Quote:

the public doesn’t believe you people anymore.

But I think it has gone way beyond being skeptical of what the MSM says. Now it is that one just assumes that they are lying. It is the first and most likely option in many cases. There’s no way to get solid truth from them. It’s NOT that every little thing is false, it’s that there is some significant proportion that is demonstrably false and you just never know what group a specific piece of news falls into. So one drop of mold ruins the whole batch. There are some pieces of brownie that are perfectly fine, but you just never know which one you got.

See, most people can accept “mistaken.” There is no shame in being innocently incorrect. What they can’t accept is “deliberately misleading. “HUGE difference, there.

 
Comments Off on Yes, the media

Posted in Epistemology, Media Bias

 

Yeah, the MSM

12 Feb

is getting totally hammered. Actually, the fact that they unreasonably and psychopathologically criticize Trump redounds to his benefit. People hear what the MSM says and assume that they are mistaken at best or outright lying. Look at the poll numbers on trust. The MSM is NOT trusted, and that is for a very rational reason. The problem for them is that most people know that they are just political hacks spinning as much as they can. They have shown us that we live in a post-modern world where there is no truth.

They have crapped in their own bed. They have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. I mean, why should I believe them over a dog-faced baboon? What claim to truth do they assert? Upon what grounds are they standing? See, they won’t say because that question and the honest answer destroys their Truth-claim.

 

Gee, whoda thunk?

08 Feb

Oh yeah, anyone with half a brain.

But it’s a problem of Post-Modernism: If all is just opinion and ax-griding, on what grounds to you imbue truth-value to anything?

It’s ironic that the media both believe this and have taken us down this road. Again I paraphrase Socrates, “On what grounds should I believer you over a dog-faced baboon?”

 
Comments Off on Gee, whoda thunk?

Posted in Epistemology, Media Bias