RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Dog-faced Baboon’ Category

Look,

22 May

the science is settled! What are you, some kind of mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging science denier?

THIS is why you don’t totally take what “scientists” say as Cartesian Truth. Science is a great way of knowing things. But it is not the only way, nor is it impervious to bastardization. It is an entry to explanation, it gives you a platform to put forth your opinions, but it very obviously depends upon formal logic for ALL of its persuasive power. There is indeed persuasive power in such arguments, but this power is not in illogical and stupid appeals to authority.

There’s a Haitian proverb that goes, “If you knew what chicken eat, you wouldn’t eat chicken.” Yeah, if you knew what scientists believe, you wouldn’t believe scientists. And I say that as a scientist myself. You have to be able to pose the epistemological question: “How do you know?” I’m not taking things merely on a logically fallacious appeal to authority. I don’t give a rat’s patoot that you are a famous scientist or professor. Tell me why. (To quote Socrates) on what grounds should I believe you over a dog-faced baboon?

 

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…

 

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

 

Yes, Hollywood’s

21 Mar

wounds are almost entirely self-inflicted.

The first and most glaring problem is that their movies suck. They are geared toward the “elites” on the coasts, and are not interesting at all to most Americans.

Another issue is that the “stars” of today treat the normal people as the dreaded hoi-polloi and as a smell of poop smeared under their nose–they can’t wait to get back to their mansion and tell the Hispanic servant to wash it off. For them, the masses truly ARE revolting!

When was the last time you wanted to see a movie? I wanted to see the latest “Star Wars” flick, and I liked the “Captain America” series. But apart from those, what has really attracted YOU? “Fantastic Beasts” totally sucked. And what else have I seen at the movie theater to see in the last six months? I dunno. Can’t think of one off the top of my head. Maybe I’ll see a movie DVD for sale that I want in the Walmart bargain bin. For five bucks. Or I can always stream it on Netflix. There is just not much worth actually owning. Or seeing at all.

But that is to a large extent also because  the “stars” are insufferable. The movies are bad and the “stars” lecture you and are themselves execrable. Add to that the many entertainment options available and it is no wonder they are tanking. I mean, do you personally know single person who saw the Emmy’s and talked about it? How about the Oscars? That one should be easy.

My answer: Neither.

If “stars” were smart they would just shut up and act. Why should I believe them over a dog-faced baboon? I mean, upon what grounds? Just shut up and act–no one cares what you think about monetary policy! We don’t pay you for that…

 
Comments Off on Yes, Hollywood’s

Posted in Culture, Dog-faced Baboon

 

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.