Category: Epistemology

Categories
Current Events Epistemology

It’s truer now

than back in 2017, when this was written.

By its fruit the tree is known, and the tree of expertise hasn’t been doing well lately. As Nassim Taleb recently observed: “With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers.”

… If expertise is dead, it’s because those who claimed it overplayed their hands. It’s not the death of expertise, so much as a suicide.

LOTS of us have become very skeptical of claims from the medical community, fueled by the coercive crap that came out of the COVID nonsense. They lied, people died, and so did their reputation. It’s not that they are usually wrong, it’s that they are wrong often enough that we need to be a bit careful and skeptical.

We are now forced to ask ourselves, “What else are they cocksure about but, in fact, totally wrong?” Salt? Dietary fat? Basic human psychological issues?

I mean, how many times did I teach university students about Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment or Milgram’s shock experiment? And yet they were all lies. Standard, foundational Psych 101 fare, and they were outright lies. Not even misinterpretations, but bald-faced lies.

So it’s no wonder at at all that a person might hear about a study and say, “Yeah, maybe…”

See, real science is a way of knowing that has many procedural safeguards built in. It is based on logic, and always is about likelihood and persuasion. Real science eschews facts, and focusses on probability and statistical relationships and logical argument. “Known science” is an oxymoron. That’s not how science works…

UPDATE: Here is a newer article. It’s a REAL problem! We are facing crisis of knowledge, and it is attributable almost entirely to a dishonest and self-dealing “scientist” class.

Those in charge, whom we were all urged constantly to “trust,” were either ignorant of existing literature warning of the consequences of the actions they were taking or arrogant enough to think that they could produce outcomes different from those previously forecast. In the end, the “experts” failed the nation and especially its children, who suffered disproportionately from their arrogance.

Categories
Epistemology Ontology

Yeah, it was always

a steaming pile of crap! But I have to say, the priggish, moralistic preening of the Left is one of the most unlovely things about Leftism.

But in the clip from the debate that was most widely shared, a young Hispanic guy asks Seder about his objections to supposed religious fundamentalists and then, as the kids say, he proceeds to absolutely own Seder. Essentially, the question put before Seder is this: If he objects to traditional religious values as a foundation for guiding America’s collective political and legal decisions, what does he think should be the basis for morality? [emphasis added]

That is always the question. Upon what do you base your morality? What is basic and real and … how do you know? In one of the Socratic “Dialogues” (written by Plato) we see Socrates hammer the crap out of Theatetus.  Socrates asks, if all knowledge is derived from physical sensations, why should we believe you over a dog-faced baboon or some stranger creature still that has sensation? I mean, a baboon or a tadpole has sensation, so isn’t a baboon or a tadpole arguably “the measure of all things?” At least just as much as anything else is… And it is a great question.

Upon what is morality based? And if popular post-modern theory says that there are no “facts“ and all is merely a Nietzschean exertion of a will-to-power, then what “space” is left for morality as we have traditionally known it?

According to Post-Modernism, there is no transcendent morality, anyway. It is all based merely on personal preferences and power. And there’s no way to show that one “preference” is better than any other. Nothing is for sure, and nothing is transcendental. And of course, there is no morality. There is only what I like and what I don’t like. And, of course, your mileage may differ–real knowledge simply doesn’t exist. Even “science” is merely a disguised power-grab.

In short, we are adrift on a Godless sea. We are just being blown wherever the wind and waves take us, having no rudder or sail with which to steer. All we are is dust in the wind…

One can baldly assert moral superiority, and that is exactly what the Left has routinely done. And they have made it pay handsomely. But it’s rather a castle in the sky. There is no real foundation, according to them.

I mean, upon just what is that alleged moral superiority based? Me? I think it’s all a political strategy. I don’t think that their supposed moral superiority actually exists. It’s just bald preference. At least, that is the logical endpoint of their Post-Modern argument.

Categories
Bad Faith Disgusting! Epistemology MSM Toadies

NYT was “misled.”

Riiiight. How come others weren’t then? They are just making excuses, and I think they are lying. C’mon, NYT! You were totally in the tank for every lefty explanation, no matter how ridiculous or unlikely. Now you want us to believe that it is someone else’s fault that your Lefty kook slip was showing? Oh please.

It all just feels like a “cover your butt” operation.

And here is the “elephant in the room” question: If they were wrong on this, are there other things they might be wrong on? I mean, that’s a pretty big mistake to make. And they were pretty darn preeningly cock-sure. So are there other big mistakes that we don’t yet know about simply because they have not gotten the same amount of attention?

See, the NYT has admitted that they are unreliable. But of course, that leaves all of us so wonder if anything they report is reliable. And if so (and you would assume that just by accident some of what they report is true), just how do you know what is reliable and what is not?

In short, this leaves them in an epistemologically indefensible position. Everybody, even they, agree that they are at times unreliable. OK, so now how do you decide what is reliable and what isn’t?

Categories
Epistemology

You know, it’s

a really good question. And when I asked to a hardcore erstwhile Lefty “friend” who considers himself moral a few years ago, all I got was nervous chuckling and the avoidant, “Same as you!”

Uh, OK…

I think it is important to ask a simple question over and over and over: “Just how do you know?”

Categories
Epistemology

Empiricism eventually

becomes a species of Rationalism:

You know, at some point, Empiricism does indeed devolve into a kind of Rationalism. And the two kind of merge, really. Because at some point there has to be an explanation of what is meant by the numbers. And that meaning is not itself totally empirically derived. It rests on a foundation of logic (Rationalism). So at that point it is indeed a distant conceptual cousin of Rationalism, not pure empiricism at all. 

Even so, there really IS a difference in emphasis between the two approaches. While the numbers truly do not meaningfully exist outside of our conceptualization and explanation of them, Rationalism exalts this theoretical explanation above anything else—certainly above the data. The bottom line “reality“ is the conceptualization. The data are just ornaments hung on the tree of this conceptualization. So again, this is a major (and often not understood) difference in emphasis. 

Oh yes, there is a difference in style. But neither approach is totally devoid of the other side. It is far more a matter of emphasis. So it is true that the Conservative/Empiricist side makes the facts much more crucial and then uses (Rationalistic) logic along with the observed data in the argument, while the Leftist/Rationalist side mostly ignores or avoids the data (except when it bolsters their argument). Their focus is mainly on the “beauty“ of the idea—the internal “conceptual satisfying-ness” if you will. And for them, explanatory power is NOT the only mouth to be fed! There is Lefty orthodoxy, after all…

For Conservatives/Empiricists, facts are the basic “bricks” of an explanation. For Leftists, facts are merely the decorative mortar that, in 70s fashion, oozes out between the bricks of their pre-conceived notions (like extruded mortar joints).

Of course, these extruded joints are inherently less stable, long-term. Just like Lefty Rationalism…

Categories
Epistemology Morality

It’s an existence

bereft of meaning. Because if there is no ultimate Truth-Teller (as with saying, “your truth” and “my truth”), there simply IS no right or wrong behavior. Sure, it may be against the rules, but there is no actual good and no actual bad–no right, and no wrong. There are only procedural wrongs, not things that are wrong in se.

ALL is mere preference. One fares according to the management of one’s self;  every person prospers according to his or her genius, and every person conquers according to his or her strength. And certainly, whatever a person does has no actual moral valence! Morality actually doesn’t exist!

And neither does Truth. And therefore, Science. There is ONLY desire or preference, and the brute power to satisfy those desires and preferences! ALL claims to knowledge are merely a gambit, standing in the place of what is real–power.

The strong do what they want. The weak do what they must.

THIS is the Gospel of Bill Maher. Kinda desolate, eh? It IS Post-Modernism! It truly IS a banal atheism. It is Nihilism on steroids.

It is purely a reversion to a Nietzschian will-to-power.

You’re a long way from home… Welcome to the Post-Modern Pleasure Dome.

Categories
Epistemology

It’s true, if

you subscribe to the Relativist (and it’s stylish kid brother, Post-Modernist) ideology, there are some things that you simply can’t (logically) do.

I don’t agree with such epistemology, but I also don’t wig out much about Relativism and/or Post-Modernism. But still, it would sure be nice if proponents of those views were just a little conceptually consistent. Because I would estimate that about 98% of people who claim to be Relativists/Post-Modernists actually are not. They want to have their conceptual cake and eat it, too. Uh, no.

In all relativism, there is no way to truly know anything. And if there simply IS no “solid” right or wrong, on what grounds can anyone object to anything?

And pair it with lack of moral agency as with the various forms of determinism and the concepts of right and wrong make even LESS sense—a person prospers according to his or her own genius and conquers according to his or her her own strength—and NOTHING they do could be construed as a “crime.” 

Unless there is some kind of “Truth-Teller,” the language of morality is totally bogus and bereft of ANY logical sense! Indeed, the ONLY way to invoke morality is to postulate some sort of god. Or God. Otherwise it is just Nietzschean preference—a mere display of power. 

Anything contrary to this is just mushy-headed defensiveness. Let’s be QUITE clear: To postulate right and wrong IS to postulate a unique God (not Pantheism).  If there is right and wrong and you can know things, there logically must be a God. That logic is air-tight!

Indeed, to know ANYTHING is, at heart, an appeal to traditional theism. Because if there is no God and everything is just random crap or a demonstration of a mere will-to-power, then NOTHING can be known, anyway! So no science…

THAT is why Galileo and Newton and such were overt and unapologetic theists. THAT was an integral and logically necessary part of the scientific endeavor itself! That is also why science only evolved in Christian Europe, and not in the more practically advanced China…

Categories
Anti-scientific stance Barbaric! Epistemology

Amazing!

Just amazing! And not in a good way, either.

All the paper’s authors agreed to retract, save Lesné, who has been under investigation for manipulating data. 

What makes this retraction so significant is that it has driven research into Alzheimer’s treatments for nearly two decades, and treatment approaches based on its conclusions have failed to yield results. 

If the hypothesis that amyloid protein buildups cause Alzheimer’s symptoms is wrong, Lesné is responsible for perhaps billions of wasted research dollars and two decades of scientists following a false lead. 

And immeasurable human suffering. I mean, is my dad dead because of what she did?

MANY bedrock social psychology studies have recently been shown to be fraudulent–the foundational studies we all learned. Milgram. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. More currently, the “scientists” at the CDC and elsewhere who totally fabricated data in order to push a political agenda. And now this. Wow. 

Folks, we need reliable data upon which we can base decisions! And to find out that this fraud runs so amazingly deep is more than a bit discouraging. It means that we don’t actually know what we think we know. 

It is a crisis of epistemology. And it is head-spinning. 

I think we are seeing now how important morality is in Science. Because without morality, there actually is no knowledge. 

Categories
Current Events Epistemology Truth

ALL Leftism

eventually devolves into a lack of moral agency. An obvious example is the teaching of the so-called New Atheists.

Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, collectively referred to as the “four horsemen” of the movement…

But here’s the issue: If all is merely materialistically necessary, then so is my opposition. And so is New Atheism. There IS no Truth Value to either side. In other words, Dawkins and Hitchens (Hitchens died in 2011) admittedly have no truth/meaning argument at all against theism!

No matter what “team” you are on then, it is merely necessary. You are merely a product of your upbringing, education, and cognitive abilities. You no more choose your position than a nail chooses to go into a board after being struck by a hammer!

BUT, on the other hand, if there IS moral agency, the “team” I choose to be on is a reflection of my own morality, of right and wrong, good and bad.

So, it boils down to this: If all is mere reflex, any view I have is by definition truth-deficient and therefore has no meaning at all. And if there IS real moral agency, then there is fundamental meaning to my behavior–there IS “right” and “wrong.”

Atheists need to be a little consistent: If there is no moral agency, then we are just complex hammers, and there is no right or wrong–there is only metaphysical necessity. If I oppose them, that is no more morally meaningful or significant than their pronouncements! It’s ALL just sound and fury, meaning nothing.

Me? I think there is indeed moral agency. And thus there is moral meaning to our thoughts and behaviors.

Categories
Anti-scientific stance Epistemology

See, I think Academia

is in some serious trouble. Once people start honestly fact-checking, there is very likely to be many, if not most, researchers who are in fact guilty of Academic fraud. And THAT scares the crap out of Professors!

So Academia as a whole is scared, and rightly so. Because so dang many of them took a scientific shortcut to fame and fortune. Leaving epistemological squalor in their wake.

And it’s not a new thing. No, not by a long shot. I am a psychologist. And MANY of the seminal, ground-breaking experiments at the very heart of psychology were… faked. I learned about them as a student, and taught them myself as a professor. And they were faked–the Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s electric shocks, lots of it. And these were bread-and-butter staples of psych 101!

But suddenly people are (rightly) becoming very skeptical. They are (again, rightly) less impressed by credentials, soi-disant expertise, and “scientific findings,” etc. MANY famous studies just can’t be replicated–and you wonder why. Well, I guess we know why now…

And it’s NOT just psychology–that is just what I personally am most familiar with. Nutrition is another area that is more than a bit sketchy in that way. Even some medical “science” is more wish-fulfillment, hide-bound-ness, fear-mongering, and profit-seeking than fact (see: COVID “vaccines”).

The solution? Honest science. Show your work. Independent replication. Time. True peer review. These things are actually in place, it’s just that they have been bastardized, bowdlerized, and corrupted.

I trust reviewed and replicated science. Humans? Not so much…