RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Epistemology’ Category

Yes, Bill Nye

11 Nov

is a total fraud.

But it is an issue of epistemology. Just how does one KNOW things?

Frauds like Bill Nye rather naively think that “science” will give them truth. Nonsense. Science is a method of getting Truth, and it is very good for some things, but not so good for others. Wisdom gives you the ability to discern truth from error and when to apply certain methods and when not to. Seek for wisdom.

 
 

Yes, Milbank

31 Oct

is a jerk. But there is another, bigger, issue in play. And here it is:

Milbank hasn’t changed. He was always this way, either too stupid or to venal to stand up for what is right. Yet YOU believed and even defended him! He is the prototypical MSM hack, and he always has been. But you didn’t even know!

Next time you feel compelled to defend the MSM as a reliable source, remember this.

Be honest, YOU were snookered. So just how do you know that your current favored talking head (or general source) is telling you the truth? Dana Milbank was shown to be a turd who disregarded the truth. Dan Rather has been categorically shown to be biased. Even Walter Cronkite was quite problematic. The NY Times is regularly wrong, and the both have to make frequent corrections and are exposed by other entities.

So just how do you know you are getting the truth? What is your measure? Just why should I believe them over a dog-faced baboon? Just what ground are they standing on?

 
Comments Off on Yes, Milbank

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness

 

Don’t kid yourself,

27 Oct

the Uranium One thing is a big deal. But perhaps as big a deal (or bigger) is how the MSM has sucked up to Hillary and bashed Trump. They are NOT reliable. They lie. They obscure the facts rather than elucidate them. They report according to their prejudices, and hide anything that doesn’t support their worldview. They are NOT reliable. Let me say that yet again–they are NOT reliable.

Only a great fool buys what they’re selling. Don’t just tell me WHAT is true, tell me how you got there.

It’s true that ALL humans are unreliable at times–that’s why one logically has to ultimately rely on a non-mortal Truth-Teller. But that is a discussion for another day…

Now the logically indefensible fall-back position of Lefties of all stripes has been, “Yeah, some of what they (the MSM) report is undeniably wrong and biased, but on the whole they do a good job.” OK, here is my question for YOU then:

If some portion of what they say is false (and some true), just how do you know what is true and what is false? What is the measure? See, now you’re getting to the famous, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it!” Just how do you know it?

It is the ultimate in subjectivity, and each person is the measure of all things. It is Gnosticism (special, mystic knowledge that is arrived at through supernatural methods and is only available to a few people, usually some sort of Priest). YOU are the unwashed masses, and THEY are the Priests, who tell you everything. Or, you can drown in a sea of Post-Modern know-nothingism.

Yes, there are some things such as honesty and “character” that might get you closer to actual truth (or an approximation of it), but “secular” thinkers have categorically ruled morals out of bounds (though I don’t know who made THEM the ultimate arbiters of truth).

But I am left asking, “How do you know?” Aye, there’s the rub…

 
Comments Off on Don’t kid yourself,

Posted in Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness

 

Yeah,

20 Oct

pretty much.

Look, it’s quite clear that Trump is a competent administrator and Obama just wasn’t. Obama was a failure–he was no good at this job. Fortunately, we now have Trump, who is a real executive.

This is why you don’t ever vote for a person (if you have a choice) who has never lived off his (or her) own business. Just knowing what should happen intellectually won’t cut the mustard. Again, it’s not IQ. It is knowledge that is part and parcel of executive experience. It is the fruit of lived experience. And if you don’t have the experience, you don’t know what you don’t know.

Here’s a quote:

The result of this shift seems pretty obvious. In July, ISIS was booted from Mosul, and this week Raqqa was liberated. For all intents and purposes, ISIS has been defeated. Trump did in nine months what Obama couldn’t in the previous three years.

How do you argue with that? It is a plain fact.

 
Comments Off on Yeah,

Posted in Buffoons, Epistemology, War

 

I gotta tell you

08 Oct

I am heartily sick of the overweening, dishonest incompetence and deliberate vinductiveness of the MSM. And I am NOT fooled by them. No wonder Trump won! I blame this on them. They have made it so nothing they say is believable.  Just decide what you believe and go from there–you are NOT getting “Truth” from the MSM! They are just no help. You must look to another source for Truth. Anyone who uncritically buys what they shovel out is a damned fool.

Here’s a quote: What passes for news today is speculation and advocacy, wishful thinking and self-fashioning, mindless jabber and affirmations of virtue, removed from objective reality and common sense.

Exactly.

 
Comments Off on I gotta tell you

Posted in Epistemology, Media Bias

 

A FANTASTIC

26 Sep

set of questions and answers. I find the last one most intriguing. What a truly stunning intellect! Stunning. As he said, And yet there’s no possibility for morality unless we presume the possibility of agency. Yes.

He is totally on the money, here. Is real change possible? Not just changing forms, like from water to ice. but changing essence, like from water to gold (the ultimate goal of alchemy for thousands of years). In human (and religious) terms, is real conversion possible? See, I have to resort to religious terminology to even communicate these concepts!

Indeed, there simply IS no morality without real choice. That’s why ham-fisted biological reductionism and Post-Modern epistemology are such problems–each on the opposite end of the spectrum, but each equally in denial of moral agency (and therefore actual knowledge). Both deny the very idea of moral agency–and therefore knowledge. Because if there is change, there is no Cartesian certainty. The only way we can have Cartesian of “scientific” certainty is if the is no moral agency.

So is there a “third way” that is neither reductionistic nor mere know-nothingism that can somehow save moral agency and actual knowledge? Because historically we can either have moral agency or reliable knowledge, but not both. What I would argue is that there is a different way of knowing…

I think there is indeed a logical “third way.” In Greek terms, we go from material, formal, and efficient modes of causation to Final causation. But of course, modern scientistic thought (not “scientific” thought) eschews final causation (and rules it automatically out of bounds) because it demands an actor who, by definition, acts with free will. It demands moral agency. And because there is free will, there are some things that can be neither predicted nor controlled.

And so what I am suggesting is that we have to look to a Truth-Teller with whom we have an actual relationship in order to know things–the knowledge is relationship-based, not abstract “fact” based. In other words, I take the knowledge criticisms of the Post-Moderns seriously, as well as the assertions of the reductionists. But then I go a totally different direction–one based in a relationship rather than abstract “facts” or scientific method.

Well, I don’t want to delve too deeply into this–I may well lose my audience. More’s the pity…

 
Comments Off on A FANTASTIC

Posted in Epistemology, Racism

 

Yep,

19 Sep

pretty much.

Remember, there was a lot of mocking Trump when he complained about Obama “wiretapping” him and his organization. But I guess he was right, eh? Still, don’t expect admissions of fault or mea culpas. Say it with me, “Trump was right and the Lefty News Media was wrong.” There. That wasn’t so hard, was it? And it has the added merit of actually being true!

Apologies and self-reflection are just not in the Left’s nature (and the MSM is the Left). It’s not who they are. Don’t expect that leopard to change its spots…

But if YOU were snookered, shame on you! You should have known. Heaven knows this is not the first time the MSM has trotted out fake things and yet you bought this most recent crap hook, line, and sinker. You should have been more skeptical. Please, in the future, don’t be fooled again. There is just no excuse for it.

So what truly are the MSM? Unreliable shills. Face it, you simply can’t get the truth from those sources. Sorry, do the hard lifting yourself! They are NOT a good source of knowledge, not consistently, anyway. And if it is not consistent, by what measure do you decide that in THIS case they are telling the truth and in THAT case they are not?

That’s why historically, thinkers have postulated an unchanging and perfect world (like Plato and his world of forms) or a perfect principle or a perfect being (God). Anything short of that renders actual knowing impossible. That’s why Post-Modernism denies the very possibility of Truth or Fact or knowledge–all is mere opinion. Perhaps a bit of bad beef (to quote Charles Dickens). What may be true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. If there is a shadow of change, it cannot logically be Truth, and there’s no way to really know anything. As an old church hymn says,

  Change and decay in all around I see                                                                                                                       Oh, Thou who changest not, abide with me (written by William Henry Monk)

And also to the point in this case is this: Just because YOU believe it, why should I? What claim do YOU have on Truth? See, there has to be some “ground” upon which you are standing. So what are those grounds? What is your proof? Why do you believe what you do? And just why should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?

 
 

It’s a great question.

19 Jul

If the MSM only has its credibility to sell, what happens when they have no more credibility?

Quote: Honestly, the legacy media — CNN especially — has had a pretty bad six months. I won’t go through the whole list, but some of my favorites were when CNN reported breathlessly that Trump asked for two scoops of ice-cream at luncheons in the White House; when CNN accused Trump of inciting violence by tweeting a pro-wrestling GIF and then, following the general finger-pointing and derisive laughter at their reaction, their open threats of doxing the guy they thought made the meme; and then when the Comey testimony was coming up, reporting that “sources” were saying Comey would refute Trump’s assertion he wasn’t under investigation, only to have to retract when Comey’s written testimony was released.

See, I think that CNN and the rest of the MSM have squandered their only real asset–credibility. THESE are the wages of boosterism and sycophantic boot-licking. They are rightly seen as not trustworthy. No wonder many of us just don’t care what they (or Mueller) say about “collusion.” Maybe it’s true, but maybe it’s a steaming pile of dung. The scales have fallen from our eyes and we rightly assume that there is an agenda behind the accounts. Indeed, that is all there is! There are no “facts.”

And the problem is that according to that Post-Modernism we just can’t know the truth–they have pooped in the proverbial soup. There simply is no way to get truth from there. You can strain the soup, but that doesn’t make it palatable. In their trendy post-modern way, they say that there IS no truth, only accounts. But OK then, just why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon?

 
Comments Off on It’s a great question.

Posted in Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness

 

So why do Trump voters

13 Jul

and many other just not care about the Russia kerfuffle? I know I sure don’t. And I was never a Trumpkin.

The first reason is, I think, because the Lefty media is SO dishonest. They have “cried wolf” over and over, and now we just don’t care WHAT they say. They lie all the time, so what makes us think that they are telling the truth THIS time? They have long lied about Trump and have a clear animus toward him. They will always couch things in the worst possible terms for Trump. I think we just assume that this is merely an expression of that animus and NOT an even-handed search for truth. If I thought I was being told the whole truth, I would care. But I really doubt I am. So I don’t. These are the wages of MSM boosterism and slavish Obama suck-up-ism. This is what happens when you reject even the possibility of Truth.

If you sacrifice Truth, MSM, it will come back and bite you in the butt. If, as you have taught with post-modernism, there IS no Truth, just why should I believe YOU over a dog-faced baboon? Huh? On what grounds could you possibly claim Truth-Value? I thought you said that there IS no Truth! So again, on what grounds should I believe YOU? Where do you get your authority?

The reason Donald Trump said he could shoot somebody in public and his people would still support him is largely because the reporting on it would be so suspect. We would think that maybe he DID shoot this guy, but then again it is quite unlikely that we are getting the whole story from the MSM. They lie. Maybe he didn’t really shoot him. Or maybe he did but it was justifiable self-defense. We simply don’t know, and the MSM are just not reliable. So we just shrug.

The other important issue here is that the alternative–Hillary–was SO bad that the point really was moot. I may not like Mint Chocolate Chip ice cream. I may correctly point out that it tastes like frozen Pepto-Bismal. But when the alternative is poop ice cream, one starts begging for the mint chocolate chip!

There were many of us who would rather be poked in the eye with a rusty nail than see Hillary as President. And Trump has done some pretty laudable things. So two things may well be true, here: You might not like Trump AND he might be the best available option. The choice is NOT made in a vacuum. Sometimes you choose the best available option, even if that is not the best imaginable one. This is something that many Republicans need to learn.

It was quite clear that Trump was a far, far better option than Hillary. So given that, what else is there? What else matters? Don’t talk to me about some sort of high-minded idealogical or moral purity–that truly doesn’t mean crap in this situation.

The moral thing is to do the best thing in the situation you are actually in. So quit whining about the lack of perfection in this world and make a freakin’ call.

 
Comments Off on So why do Trump voters

Posted in Current Events, Dog-faced Baboon, Epistemology

 

It is a great

11 Jul

 point. Only a great fool chokes down all the the MSM wants to feed you. (Credit to Powerline for the photo below)

But that leaves us with a much more difficult question: How do you know just what to believe? That question is so difficult that most people have run away from it and taken refuge in various logical fallacies.

If, as the Post-Modernists have convincingly argued, if all is actually vanity merely opinion, does Truth even exist? And if so, how do I find the Truth? See, now we have gone well beyond science and are into the realm of religion. Lots of folks are very uncomfortable with that, and for good reason.

The other option is utter and complete nihilism. There is only the existential despair of Camus and his ilk. Like in L’etranger, there is just no meaning at all to either beliefs or actions. Existence is absurd, an exercise in waiting for Godot. Well, THAT is not an overly attractive option, either.

So while it is incontrovertible that CNN is a crappy source of truth (and Heaven knows I am pleased to see people wake up to that fact), that recognition doesn’t solve the root problem of knowledge. Relying on CNN or the NY Times is merely a reliance on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. One is wise to reject that.

Is there a solution? Yes, but you may not like it… (HINT: it has nothing to do with science and therefore is not guilty of either reification or the logical fallacy of Affirming The Consequent)

 
Comments Off on It is a great

Posted in Epistemology, Media Untrustworthiness