I too like to play stupid in conversations with some folks so I can evaluate what comes from their mouths. (sometimes, I'm not playing stupid, I actually am on some subjects)
As a matter of fact, I never play stupid, only when I want to make fun of someone and let them perform the task, which can only happen if I have to reciprocate, because someone abuses someone else or I am attacked in person. Unless I can convince the opposition that accepting the fact I present is in THEIR own best, interest, my preferred strategy is to keep pushing the opposition forward in their own assigned direction until they reach the edge of their own precipice. Luring the opposition in the wrong direction is one way to annihilate it after pointing out how far they have wondered from their own assigned objective. In everyday interaction, respecting others is necessary for peaceful coexistence as well as maintaining a healthy amount of self-respect.
The Rules of Engagement are the same for all honest disputes:
I love science; Real human nature-elemented science methodology that’s acquired by natural curiosity, especially in stacked school labs filled with empowered students unafraid of “evolving greater understandings” with honest competition and never fearing coming in last place —vs.— classrooms filled with scared disciples by disciplinary, punishing teachers “schooling” students to recall worthless “facts & statistics” seemingly anxious to hand out failing grades. I get “incomplete,” and teachers like John Gatto who’ll donate hours of their free time to “help” you comprehend, but I hate to death the whores who love to tell their students that they’re failures with no help, just threats.
Like Amaterasu Solar said, I too was lucky to have parents who encouraged me to “think around obstacles” and bought me tons of tools for building, diagnostics, research, art supplies, difficult aircraft & battleship models to build, miniature electric car racetracks, microscopes, chemistry and rector-sets, plus my father’s electronic work-shop…not toys. In spite of the fact my so-called disabilities prevented me from reading and word comprehension until much, much later, I somehow managed to figure it out without instruction manuals, which I immediately tossed in the trash. Out of habit, I still have a visceral reaction to instruction manuals. Strange, I used to think, then realizing after finally reading various manuals just how worthless most of them really are.
Science is fun for me, as long as I know and respect its limits. For example, as a cognitive scientist, I figured out the details of the current global operation by the technocrats by 1998, although the technology was still a long way from the level needed, which clearly exists today. My first response to DNA research at the same time was the realization that specific groups of people could be targeted by DNA-manipulating bioweapons; I guess, I've always been thinking like the enemy, which cannot hurt, if someone wants to be prepared.
Science cannot answer existential questions, and the answers it can produce are anything but palatable. At least, it's now turning out that the empiricist-materialist approach fails to cover even the known part of human experience.
When I was five, I was asked what I wanted from life. My response was, "I want to know the way the world works." I could have chosen something more rewarding. :)
Same. But I said, “Mother Nature” while pointing at the stars, so my father gave me a pair of military binoculars too big to look through with both eyes until I grew into them. His only caution was to never look into the sun. The following day I discovered the heat the sun produced through them when pointing the eye piece on my skin, then at a book of matches next to a pile of leaves. In less than two days I become an amateur astronomer, an accidental arsonist and a volunteer 🔥 fighter before graduating kindergarten.
Your quote about saying that people need things to be, "true" to survive was spot on. Without "Science" what does the average person have to hold onto?
Existential needs might be guides to faith/trust, too, but they reside a long way from the scope of sciences, unless destroying them is the objective, as Farari suggests...
I was blessed to have the father I did. He taught Me many things, including Latin. But of all the things He taught Me, the most important thing He gave Me was the approach of never believing ANYTHING. Rather than placing "true/false" labels on data I encounter, place probabilities based on how well the data describe what I see.
And then... Adjust those probabilities as new data come along that better explain what I see.
What this allows for is not attaching to anything as being true or false. Many, who attach to Their initial assessments as true or false, will reject better data that counter Their assessments. Whereas I can make adjustments.
My Latin is from high school. I would have been given the chance of switching to informatics, but I figured, I would have to learn about computers, anyway, which I did, while my Latin remained at the same level, which allows me to decipher some ancient Roman texts, but is not much good for medieval ones.
It's not a person's fault that most problems can be accessed only by virtue of analogy; even the hardest sciences resort to the same tool to a certain extent. In this sense, my current knowledge is always tentative, although I must take responsibility for my decisions that often turn out to be, well, somewhat inadequate.
Your deductive approach is what I also describe in
It depends on what "science" is. In a way, science provides only tentative knowledge that can be applied in problem-solving. All science has ideological foundations, but that's all "fake science" has. The limited applicability of functional science is transferred to ideologues.
I too like to play stupid in conversations with some folks so I can evaluate what comes from their mouths. (sometimes, I'm not playing stupid, I actually am on some subjects)
As a matter of fact, I never play stupid, only when I want to make fun of someone and let them perform the task, which can only happen if I have to reciprocate, because someone abuses someone else or I am attacked in person. Unless I can convince the opposition that accepting the fact I present is in THEIR own best, interest, my preferred strategy is to keep pushing the opposition forward in their own assigned direction until they reach the edge of their own precipice. Luring the opposition in the wrong direction is one way to annihilate it after pointing out how far they have wondered from their own assigned objective. In everyday interaction, respecting others is necessary for peaceful coexistence as well as maintaining a healthy amount of self-respect.
The Rules of Engagement are the same for all honest disputes:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/steve-kirsch-is-challenging-again
Hope you have a nice holiday, Ray.
I love science; Real human nature-elemented science methodology that’s acquired by natural curiosity, especially in stacked school labs filled with empowered students unafraid of “evolving greater understandings” with honest competition and never fearing coming in last place —vs.— classrooms filled with scared disciples by disciplinary, punishing teachers “schooling” students to recall worthless “facts & statistics” seemingly anxious to hand out failing grades. I get “incomplete,” and teachers like John Gatto who’ll donate hours of their free time to “help” you comprehend, but I hate to death the whores who love to tell their students that they’re failures with no help, just threats.
Like Amaterasu Solar said, I too was lucky to have parents who encouraged me to “think around obstacles” and bought me tons of tools for building, diagnostics, research, art supplies, difficult aircraft & battleship models to build, miniature electric car racetracks, microscopes, chemistry and rector-sets, plus my father’s electronic work-shop…not toys. In spite of the fact my so-called disabilities prevented me from reading and word comprehension until much, much later, I somehow managed to figure it out without instruction manuals, which I immediately tossed in the trash. Out of habit, I still have a visceral reaction to instruction manuals. Strange, I used to think, then realizing after finally reading various manuals just how worthless most of them really are.
Science is fun for me, as long as I know and respect its limits. For example, as a cognitive scientist, I figured out the details of the current global operation by the technocrats by 1998, although the technology was still a long way from the level needed, which clearly exists today. My first response to DNA research at the same time was the realization that specific groups of people could be targeted by DNA-manipulating bioweapons; I guess, I've always been thinking like the enemy, which cannot hurt, if someone wants to be prepared.
Science cannot answer existential questions, and the answers it can produce are anything but palatable. At least, it's now turning out that the empiricist-materialist approach fails to cover even the known part of human experience.
When I was five, I was asked what I wanted from life. My response was, "I want to know the way the world works." I could have chosen something more rewarding. :)
Same. But I said, “Mother Nature” while pointing at the stars, so my father gave me a pair of military binoculars too big to look through with both eyes until I grew into them. His only caution was to never look into the sun. The following day I discovered the heat the sun produced through them when pointing the eye piece on my skin, then at a book of matches next to a pile of leaves. In less than two days I become an amateur astronomer, an accidental arsonist and a volunteer 🔥 fighter before graduating kindergarten.
Your quote about saying that people need things to be, "true" to survive was spot on. Without "Science" what does the average person have to hold onto?
Existential needs might be guides to faith/trust, too, but they reside a long way from the scope of sciences, unless destroying them is the objective, as Farari suggests...
I was blessed to have the father I did. He taught Me many things, including Latin. But of all the things He taught Me, the most important thing He gave Me was the approach of never believing ANYTHING. Rather than placing "true/false" labels on data I encounter, place probabilities based on how well the data describe what I see.
And then... Adjust those probabilities as new data come along that better explain what I see.
What this allows for is not attaching to anything as being true or false. Many, who attach to Their initial assessments as true or false, will reject better data that counter Their assessments. Whereas I can make adjustments.
I even did a video on this...
Never Believe ANYTHING! (7 min): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/never-believe-anything:5
My Latin is from high school. I would have been given the chance of switching to informatics, but I figured, I would have to learn about computers, anyway, which I did, while my Latin remained at the same level, which allows me to decipher some ancient Roman texts, but is not much good for medieval ones.
It's not a person's fault that most problems can be accessed only by virtue of analogy; even the hardest sciences resort to the same tool to a certain extent. In this sense, my current knowledge is always tentative, although I must take responsibility for my decisions that often turn out to be, well, somewhat inadequate.
Your deductive approach is what I also describe in
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-formidable-tool-at-your-disposal
Knowledge about open systems must be maintained in an open cognitive model.
My Latin lessons were when I was 5... LOL! Indeed, We can only approximate reality in Our minds, and Some will be closer than Others. Love always!
Fake science is the new cult of religion. You need no brain to become a member. Just pay your dues with your death.
It depends on what "science" is. In a way, science provides only tentative knowledge that can be applied in problem-solving. All science has ideological foundations, but that's all "fake science" has. The limited applicability of functional science is transferred to ideologues.