Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm What's the point?
The point is self-evident: the planet/human civilization is a patriarchal mess.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm And women deprecate men. What's the point?
Not religiously.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm You need some help on that, I see.
I'm sorry I don't take anything I read on the internet as authoritative
and know not to "believe" anything that comes from it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm It's not. Stalinists were "believers" in Communism (Leftist), and Libertarians (Rightist) are "unbelievers" in the same things. But Marxists (Leftists) are "non-believers" in free trade, and Capitalists (Rightists) are "believers" in it.

Unbelief and belief vary with the issue in question...they don't attach to "Left" and "Right."
The "believer vs. unbeliever" division underlies the geopolitical Left and Right.
It is because the former exists, the latter is a corollary. The problem is
people are made to "believe" in the daily propaganda nonsense they see
that is distracting from the real underlying war that has been fought now
for thousands of years: "believer vs. unbeliever". This is the division.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Right now, they are the leaders of Leftists ideological groups like ANTIFA and BLM, as well as far too many academics in the Humanities. There are fewer in Business and the STEM fields, which attach more firmly to reality and data than the Humanities do, which have become seriously poisoned by Marxist ideology, and today teach very little deserving of the term "education." The Western press is also clearly heavily infected, but generally more stupidly and sometimes more strategically and politically than earnestly, it would seem.
ANTIFA and BLM are movements designed/owned/operated by the House of Islam
in accordance with their goal to undermine/destroy the U.S. from the inside-out.
Again: there is only one war being fought, and it is Muslims vs. the non-Muslims
because Islam is the root of Nazism (composed of the real book-worshiping "Jews").
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Nazism WAS important. It's not now. But Nazism was always Left. It was "national socialism," not "national free-enterprise individualism."
Nazism is more important now than ever - hundreds of millions of lives are at stake as
COVID-19 is another warfare agent designed to weaken the immune systems of "unbelieving" nations.
China is the 'scapegoat' - the "Jews" always need a scapegoat to distract others from the truth.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Islam's not on the Right-Left political spectrum. They're their own thing.
This is thoroughly false.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm I would say it is. But since "Black Lives" are supposed to "Matter" to the Neo-Marxist Left, what group do you suppose they are excluding, in particular? To whom are the "black lives" supposed to "matter" more than they allegedly do?
BLM is warfare-inspired by an ideology that has a true hatred for "white people".
They just use the blacks to do the dirty work. This is how/why the Liberal/Democratic parties
are nothing but an extension of the ideological House of Islam - the politicians are the puppets.
The Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Trudeau etc. these are all "goyim" of the House of Islam.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm ...But Leftists think they are...
...Everything else is secondary,...
The problem is traced back to / rooted in Islam viz. "belief"-based identity.
The division of "believer vs. unbeliever" underlies all such "secondary" divisions.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Proof, please?
One must first understand the gravity of the motivation of the House of Islam:
for Islam dominate the world. This is why they manufacture problems:
to make themselves the (only) solution. They have been doing this for 1400 years
thus I would recommend first understanding the life of Muhammad (the idol of Islam), as
the Muslims practically re-live his life of subjugation and conquest over-and-over.
Islam is a cycle of this, thus you will be able to see for yourself that Islam is nothing
but the life of Muhammad on-repeat. This involves waging war against all "unbelievers"
and this is what we are seeing globally.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Very clearly, the particulars of the alleged "belief" are ALL that matter.
Don't you "believe" that? Then you're a "believer."
The particulars of any "belief" ultimately matter not.

One may know ALL thus: not to believe, or
one may believe ALL, thus not to know.
These are the only two "trees" and only one leads to all-knowing, as
it takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true.

These two trees reflect in/as the "believer vs. unbeliever" division wherein
all belief-based ignorance(s) are pinned in/of the "believers" as
absence of "belief" may imply presence of (all) knowledge negating.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Oh, I see...you think "belief" means the opposite of "knowledge."

It doesn't. That's just incorrect.
The presence of belief implies an absence of knowledge (and vice versa).
The difference is night and day.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Science is inductive. And inductive knowledge is inevitably only ever produced by a "belief" called a "hypothesis," which the experimenter does not already know to be true (for if she did, why do the experiment?
Knowing the degrees of uncertainty surrounding any belief/hypothesis is knowledge.
Beliefs, assumptions etc. which are taken to be immutably 'true' without trial/testing/falsification
is what separates belief and knowledge, as the latter implies acknowledgement of any/all degrees of uncertainty.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm And it is always concluded by some "belief," called a "finding," because the sum of all experiments has never been completed for even one scientific question. Something must always be "believed" at the end, even if it's sometimes no more than the "belief" that the original hypothesis is wrong.
A falsification is not a "belief" - it is a knowledge: to know what not to believe and/or further assume.
If one knows what a subject/object/particular is, one may know what not to "believe" it is. This is why
knowledge is the antithesis of belief: to know all not to believe must be a property of an all-knower,
god-or-no-god.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Actually, it is. I'm afraid you just have a strange definition of "belief," that doesn't stand up.

Or do you not personally believe in science?
Belief implies one or more degrees of uncertainty.
Knowledge implies the absence of uncertainty/doubt.

I certainly do not "believe" in mainstream science LOL.

I know (real) science works, however it is a discipline
that involves the willingness to challenge basic underlying assumptions.
This is true both individually 'conscience' and as a broader faculty of inquiry.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Sure it is. Don't you "believe" things?

Whether or not you "believe" them on evidence and reasons or not is a different question.
I don't "believe" things, no.
I don't accept anything unless
I know it can not not be so.

"Belief" implies there is no trial/testing/falsification, thus
no actual science(s) including conscience (consciousness).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:10 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm What's the point?
The point is self-evident: the planet/human civilization is a patriarchal mess.
"Self-evident" is what people say when they don't want their evidence examined. :wink:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm And women deprecate men. What's the point?
Not religiously.
Ritually. Regularly. And today, they do it in the press, and are called "courageous" for doing it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm You need some help on that, I see.
I'm sorry I don't take anything I read on the internet as authoritative
and know not to "believe" anything that comes from it.
You should. It was "Time" magazine.

But what you say is not true there. You use the word "patriarchy," and you didn't invent that one, or the associated myths, by yourself. You got them somewhere, so there are some sources you believe unquestioningly, it seems.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm It's not. Stalinists were "believers" in Communism (Leftist), and Libertarians (Rightist) are "unbelievers" in the same things. But Marxists (Leftists) are "non-believers" in free trade, and Capitalists (Rightists) are "believers" in it.

Unbelief and belief vary with the issue in question...they don't attach to "Left" and "Right."
The "believer vs. unbeliever" division underlies the geopolitical Left and Right.
As above. Nope. Stalinists "believe" all kinds of things, and are firmly on the Left. Libertarians are highly skeptical of authority, and are on the Right.
ANTIFA and BLM are movements designed/owned/operated by the House of Islam
Proof?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Nazism WAS important. It's not now. But Nazism was always Left. It was "national socialism," not "national free-enterprise individualism."
Nazism is more important now than ever
There are no "Nazis" today. Just a few misguided anachronisms with bad haircuts and tattoos...but you'll find that Nazism has no public profile, other than the allegations made by the Left itself, no power in the media, no power in politics, and no profile practically anywhere. Nowadays, it's just a Leftist boogeyman, not a reality.
the "Jews" always need a scapegoat to distract others from the truth.
You're an antisemite? That's a fairly startling admission.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Proof, please?
One must first understand the gravity of the motivation of the House of Islam:
Prove the Left is Islamic. Don't just allege; prove.

I agree Islam is a poisonous doctrine, and I probably know more about it than you do. I've read the Koran entirely, and lived where Islam is a dominant practice. But it's not Leftist. It only shares a few superficial features with Leftists.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Very clearly, the particulars of the alleged "belief" are ALL that matter.
Don't you "believe" that? Then you're a "believer."
The particulars of any "belief" ultimately matter not.
That's what you believe, I see.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Oh, I see...you think "belief" means the opposite of "knowledge."

It doesn't. That's just incorrect.
The presence of belief implies an absence of knowledge (and vice versa).
No, that's not right. You don't know whether you'll wake up tomorrow...but on the strength of the data that you woke up for thousands of days before, and are feeling healthy, you believe you will have a tomorrow. That doesn't imply you have no knowledge, just not absolute certainty.

The truth is that you believe a whole lot of things. We all do. Because we aren't omniscient. A lot of what we do has to be done on the basis of incomplete certainty.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Science is inductive. And inductive knowledge is inevitably only ever produced by a "belief" called a "hypothesis," which the experimenter does not already know to be true (for if she did, why do the experiment?)
Knowing the degrees of uncertainty surrounding any belief/hypothesis is knowledge.
That's not something the experimenter knows before undertaking her experiment. Even afterward, since she has never been able to do the complete set of all possible tests, she's still uncertain. But she's considerably more certain than she was before, if she did her experimenting correctly. That's the best science ever does.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm And it is always concluded by some "belief," called a "finding," because the sum of all experiments has never been completed for even one scientific question. Something must always be "believed" at the end, even if it's sometimes no more than the "belief" that the original hypothesis is wrong.
A falsification is not a "belief"
Sure it is. Again, since the experimenter has not done the complete set of possible falsifications, she stops at some point, and says, "I believe my hypothesis was false."
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Actually, it is. I'm afraid you just have a strange definition of "belief," that doesn't stand up.

Or do you not personally believe in science?
Belief implies one or more degrees of uncertainty.
Knowledge implies the absence of uncertainty/doubt.
If that were true, then there would be no need for science. For we could only either know certainly, or otherwise, believe without evidence. And since we know nothing certainly, then we would do no science.
I certainly do not "believe" in mainstream science

What do you mean by "mainstream" science? Do you mean the Scientific Method itself?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:07 pm Sure it is. Don't you "believe" things?

Whether or not you "believe" them on evidence and reasons or not is a different question.
I don't "believe" things, no.
So you don't believe I'm wrong? You don't believe you'll wake up tomorrow? You don't believe in COVID 19?
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:57 am
gaffo wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:26 pm
And yet, today, the people who are rioting in the streets, campaigning for things that do not even actually serve a strategic purpose for themselves, beating up dissenters and demanding declarations of orthodoxy are on the Left. Moreover, historically, the Left has been more tyrannical and exponentially more homicidal than any "rightist" religious group has ever managed to be. :shock:

How do you reconcile that?
do you oppose rioting in the streets carte blanch?
In this case, it's totally useless for its self-declared purposes. Will the absurdity in Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Dallas...and so on, actually prevent one death or injustice? Will it reform the political system? Or will it just devastate poor, urban communities and businesses, and leave them poorer and more messed up when it's all over?

The answer's pretty obvious.
do you not think the Police lack professionalism, and kill more blacks than they would need to if they were more proffessional.
The statistics simply do not bear that impression out. It's not true.
per riots i agree - i saw the video of the guy kicked in the head - its utterly reprehensible, and i do not condone it. i hope that asshole is found and convicted.

per your latter, I beleive in numbers, and so statistics.

so that means Blacks (in America - which is what we are talking about here - i assume) commit more crimes than whites (because per percentage of pop per demographic Blacks are poorer and the poorer commit more crimes).

I also think the Cops know this, and because of this have a bias, and think "if you are black you are poor and so are commiting a crime" - and they act accordingly, at the detriment of the poor blacks that are peaceful and find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.

and sadly a few of them pay with it with their lives.


---------you have a mind and a heart, I know this from talking with you, and i know you are not a racist dick. so i welcome discussion about this with you.

IMO, the problem in America is that the middle class was largest 50 yrs ago, and since that time it has gotten smaller and smaller - with 95-percent falling into the underclass (yes Virginia "trickldown" does not trickle).

not into discussing the evils of Blacks due to their lower nature than Whites - I reject that narative (as i ssupect you do) - but if you do not, you can go find Richard Spencer to talk about that concept, and can leave me out.

thanks for reply Sir.

PS i do believe there is a bias WRT to COPs and black folks (but more importantly i think they are trained with a Seige and Occupy (many Cops are former Military Iraqnam vets and so that in and of itself should removed them from empyment as a cop - detroit is not Feluja).

Serve and Profect used to be the mentality of COPS, until 20 yrs ago, its not now.

so defund them - hit them in the pocketbook - pensions/attack the Police Union that defends the Bad Apples as if they are Good Apples.

and for fucks sake remove Qualified Immunity!!!!!!!!!!!! for the sake of the American Citizen!
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:04 pm
...it has been this way for 1400 years. Islam has waged the same war against all "unbelievers" since the inception of Islam
nope Sufis never waged war against Hindus.

you need to learn history before you create your ranted views of the world.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:04 pm

...it has been this way for 1400 years. Islam has waged the same war against all "unbelievers" since the inception of Islam
and this is precisely what we are seeing emerge on the planet: a globalist (Islamic) attempt to subdue everyone
such to make "Islam" the only solution. This is why they must manufacture the problems for which Islam will "solve":
the problem with the genders, for example. This problem is caused by the House of Islam raping/killing "unbelieving" women
(as per Islamic jihad) such to have a practical need to "replace" women in the societies with... "women" and
if you question it, they will either try to lock you up or kill you. The disappearance of women on this planet
is directly related to the conduct of the House of Islam re: using "unbelieving" women as sex slaves.
This is the "Deep State" which houses underground human trafficking networks servicing non-Muslim leaders
and people of power. Hillary/Bill Clinton were the Western "front" for access to these networks, thus
the House of Islam wants POTUS Trump removed/gone as they did not expect Trump to win the election.
They wanted their "goyim" Clinton such to begin the genocide of Americans (still planned and in motion) as
this is to coincide the with genocide of many "unbelievers" all over the world. This is how Islam works:
they attack in unison multiple people at once. They can not do this if the U.S. is not in their control.

Joe Biden is a "goyim" for the House of Islam, hence their need to get him in.
you need to get a new boogyman, in 40 yrs the Saudi oil fields will be dry and with Islam will become irrelivent.

if i were you i worry about China, building islands and bases in Sci Lanka, and all over Africa - today - tomorrow probably South America.

the next World Power.

so 1st:

learn history

2nd:

from knowing history, use your mind to understand historical trends (UK fell 70 yrs ago - america is now falling - what nation will take her place? Saudi Arabia? - HAHA!!! no China is the inheriter of empire.

3rd.

deal with that reality -------will you be cowering under your sheet about Mooslims in 2080, when China is the world power?


ya you probably will.

lol.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

nothing wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:47 pm
This is why "Palestinians" spill blood over ridicule of their male central figure idol Muhammad: they worship him as an idol.
They are not conscious of this because they do not have the capacity to account for their own actions/state,
Palistinians act as they do because they have been illegally occupied by Israel since 1967.

the latter signing the 4th geneva accords, violate their own illegal occupation.

to affirm what they signed 50 yrs ago, all the Israelis need to do is give all Palistinians Israelis citizenship and so the right to vote in Israeli elections.

- but they have refused for 50 yrs.

----the 2 state solution died with Janin 17 yrs ago - that ship sailed long ago, but the Israelis propose it, while settling more and more of the West Bank, for their own aims.

ideal - short of cattle cars, and death camps (which they know even AIPAC lack the power to make that possible and proper) - solution is to take a piece here and there (area a area b) - while saying "we onld want peace"............until there is a small nice reservation - like my Pine Ridge - to place the complient and demoralized palistinians into.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 2:22 am per your latter, I beleive in numbers, and so statistics.
Good. So do I.
so that means Blacks (in America - which is what we are talking about here - i assume) commit more crimes than whites (because per percentage of pop per demographic Blacks are poorer and the poorer commit more crimes).
That is true. And "whites" exhibit exactly the same social pathologies in areas where there are poor "whites." So whatever's causing it, it's not race.
I also think the Cops know this, and because of this have a bias,

We have no evidence for this, and strong evidence against it. So I'm glad you follow statistics.

A police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. They are more likely to shoot "white" and Hispanic suspects than black ones, actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo
---------you have a mind and a heart, I know this from talking with you, and i know you are not a racist dick. so i welcome discussion about this with you.
Likewise, of course. I have the same impression of you.
IMO, the problem in America is that the middle class was largest 50 yrs ago, and since that time it has gotten smaller and smaller - with 95-percent falling into the underclass (yes Virginia "trickldown" does not trickle).
Actually, it does.

While it's true the GAP between poor and rich is increasing, it is equally true that the INCOME and STANDARDS OF LIVING are actually increasing for all, especially among the poorest of the poor, in the Developing World. And ironically, the biggest engine of income growth is free-enterprise initiatives like micro-loans.

So everybody's doing better, but the gap is growing.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:12 am
IMO, the problem in America is that the middle class was largest 50 yrs ago, and since that time it has gotten smaller and smaller - with 95-percent falling into the underclass (yes Virginia "trickldown" does not trickle).
Actually, it does.

While it's true the GAP between poor and rich is increasing, it is equally true that the INCOME and STANDARDS OF LIVING are actually increasing for all, especially among the poorest of the poor, in the Developing World. And ironically, the biggest engine of income growth is free-enterprise initiatives like micro-loans.

So everybody's doing better, but the gap is growing.
well yes i agree fully! Globalisation has increase the middleclass of the world! - folks in "Shithole" nations now no longer starve, and yes they benefit from globalisation and though still poor, they are less poor and do have food on the table.

my point was that America's middle class was the largest in the 70's, and though - as you stated, the rest of the poor from all over 3rd world nations have benefited from since the 70's, America has not - sadly.

- you shifted the goal posts on me, i was talking about america, but fine talking about poor 3rd world nations too.

- as long as we are on the same page.



So, I know you are not an American, but Canada is her little sister, and suffers the same shrinking middle class - as all 1st world nations do (outside of China - and India if you view the latter as a 1st world nation - both are benefiting since the 80's).....and so what do you view the solution is for American and Canadian shrinking middleclass?

and (IMO) - i see no solution (but welcome it if you see something i do not) - and me being a universal humanist (i.e a poor guy in Brazil living a better life at the expense of the middleclasses in America and Canada and Europe), is ok by me (valuing persons via their character and nothing else) - plus though i am lower middle class, i have no debt - live in a small house mostly paid for, and a simple Yaris i paid for in cast 13 yrs ago with now 220,000 miles on.............so though not rich nor even middle middle class - i am secure finacially, and fine living a simple life in a small house without debts) - and so maybe biased in my benevalence toward folks in 3rd world nations getting a better life (at our expense? - maybe so - not sure - but kinda looks that way).

if i were in debt, i might not be so benevelant? not sure - hope your god does not test me over it. Book of Job come to my mind.

just sayin.

thanks for reply, i agreed with all you had to say to me.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:06 am well yes i agree fully! Globalisation has increase the middleclass of the world! - folks in "Shithole" nations now no longer starve, and yes they benefit from globalisation and though still poor, they are less poor and do have food on the table.
Not from "globalization." That doesn't actually help anybody. It's from compassionate capitalism, actually. Initiatives like micro-enterprise, not foreign aid or multinationalism, are what's fixing the situation.
my point was that America's middle class was the largest in the 70's, and though - as you stated, the rest of the poor from all over 3rd world nations have benefited from since the 70's, America has not - sadly.
The poor in America are still better off than the poor in other parts of the world. Why do you think so many of them are trying to flood up from South and Central America, to get into the US?
So, I know you are not an American, but Canada is her little sister, and suffers the same shrinking middle class
Well, "middle class shrinkage" is an illusion. Today's lower-middle class is still way better off than most upper middle classes throughout history. We're a bit spoiled that way. Besides, it doesn't matter how rich the rich get, if everybody else is still better off. So the goal posts for "middle class" are shifting in strange ways.
and (IMO) - i see no solution (but welcome it if you see something i do not) - and me being a universal humanist (i.e a poor guy in Brazil living a better life at the expense of the middleclasses in America and Canada and Europe), is ok by me
Well, I don't want to sound unkind, but if you really do feel that, then there's an easy solution. Find a guy in the favelas in Brazil, and you take his place, and he takes yours....

But people don't do that kind of thing. And if that's a bad idea, maybe it's time to ask ourselves why.
(valuing persons via their character and nothing else) - plus though i am lower middle class, i have no debt - live in a small house mostly paid for, and a simple Yaris i paid for in cast 13 yrs ago with now 220,000 miles on.............so though not rich nor even middle middle class - i am secure finacially, and fine living a simple life in a small house without debts)
Then you're probably already in the elite class of the rich on a world scale, even if you don't realize it. it doesn't take much money to get there, actually. The problem is that you and I often end up comparing ourselves to obscenely rich Westerners. On a world scale, we're already rich.
- and so maybe biased in my benevalence toward folks in 3rd world nations getting a better life (at our expense? - maybe so - not sure - but kinda looks that way).
We can do better for them by supporting their independence than by handing them money. Giving them an opportunity is better; it increases dignity as well as income. And it makes them self-supporting.

I wish you could meet some of the entrepreneurs I've met in the developing world. They may only own a shoemaker's shop or a hair dressing business in a barrio or an urban slum, but they're proud, they're feeding their children, they own a few things, they never go hungry, they have medical care, and they feel like they have power to dream again. The courage and achievement of such people is truly remarkable; and it costs so little to help them get a start...

Essentially, what they are is people like you -- they want to own their own bike or maybe even a car, their home, and meet their own family's needs, stay out of debt, and be responsible...and they want to do it on the strength of their own achievement, not because of some shameful handout from their corrupt government officials.

You'd like those people -- they're just like we would want to be.

Gotta love those folks.
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:19 am
gaffo wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:06 am well yes i agree fully! Globalisation has increase the middleclass of the world! - folks in "Shithole" nations now no longer starve, and yes they benefit from globalisation and though still poor, they are less poor and do have food on the table.
Not from "globalization." That doesn't actually help anybody. It's from compassionate capitalism, actually. Initiatives like micro-enterprise, not foreign aid or multinationalism, are what's fixing the situation.
my point was that America's middle class was the largest in the 70's, and though - as you stated, the rest of the poor from all over 3rd world nations have benefited from since the 70's, America has not - sadly.
The poor in America are still better off than the poor in other parts of the world. Why do you think so many of them are trying to flood up from South and Central America, to get into the US?
So, I know you are not an American, but Canada is her little sister, and suffers the same shrinking middle class
Well, "middle class shrinkage" is an illusion. Today's lower-middle class is still way better off than most upper middle classes throughout history. We're a bit spoiled that way. Besides, it doesn't matter how rich the rich get, if everybody else is still better off. So the goal posts for "middle class" are shifting in strange ways.
and (IMO) - i see no solution (but welcome it if you see something i do not) - and me being a universal humanist (i.e a poor guy in Brazil living a better life at the expense of the middleclasses in America and Canada and Europe), is ok by me
Well, I don't want to sound unkind, but if you really do feel that, then there's an easy solution. Find a guy in the favelas in Brazil, and you take his place, and he takes yours....

But people don't do that kind of thing. And if that's a bad idea, maybe it's time to ask ourselves why.
(valuing persons via their character and nothing else) - plus though i am lower middle class, i have no debt - live in a small house mostly paid for, and a simple Yaris i paid for in cast 13 yrs ago with now 220,000 miles on.............so though not rich nor even middle middle class - i am secure finacially, and fine living a simple life in a small house without debts)
Then you're probably already in the elite class of the rich on a world scale, even if you don't realize it. it doesn't take much money to get there, actually. The problem is that you and I often end up comparing ourselves to obscenely rich Westerners. On a world scale, we're already rich.
- and so maybe biased in my benevalence toward folks in 3rd world nations getting a better life (at our expense? - maybe so - not sure - but kinda looks that way).
We can do better for them by supporting their independence than by handing them money. Giving them an opportunity is better; it increases dignity as well as income. And it makes them self-supporting.

I wish you could meet some of the entrepreneurs I've met in the developing world. They may only own a shoemaker's shop or a hair dressing business in a barrio or an urban slum, but they're proud, they're feeding their children, they own a few things, they never go hungry, they have medical care, and they feel like they have power to dream again. The courage and achievement of such people is truly remarkable; and it costs so little to help them get a start...

Essentially, what they are is people like you -- they want to own their own bike or maybe even a car, their home, and meet their own family's needs, stay out of debt, and be responsible...and they want to do it on the strength of their own achievement, not because of some shameful handout from their corrupt government officials.

You'd like those people -- they're just like we would want to be.

Gotta love those folks.
thanks for reply - moslty agree but not fully.

i agree we are spoiled, think we are poor - while being poor in a 1st nation is the same as upper middle class in Bangladesh.

I never compare myself to the 1-percenters though - i know i will never be one of them, nor care to - i have enough not to "stress" out over my security financially (nor to i dream of buying a mansion/luxury car/etc) like the beatles said money cant buy you love (nor happiness). 1 percenter have their own troubles - internally (most prob only have leaches for friends).

I dissagree about globalism though, i think that is why the ave joe in china is not starving as he was during the cultural revolution of the 1960's.

Globalism has helped billions to a higher level of living - vs starving to death.

-----------------

but yes American are spoiled, but it remains a fact that the middle class in American is smaller now - and was at it highest in 1973 - this is just a FACT.

I drove to Halifax with my Yaris in 2011, i drove up through West Virgina and Western Pensalvania - Erie (Erie was a fucking GHOST TOWN!) - closed buildings, folks that just shuffled alone the street, residentual home boarded up for decades. I saw Haiti in the middle of America!!!!!

and not amount of "hey entripenuralism lifts all boats" will remove what i saw with my own eyes!

America has been slowly rotting from the center outward since Reagan.

------------

I see no solution, but know more of the same old since the 1980's will not restore the american we had prior, the rot just continues and continues.


this is the reason Rump was elected in 16 (and likely re-elected in spite of his utter unqualification constitutionaly.
thanks for reply.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:44 am I dissagree about globalism though, i think that is why the ave joe in china is not starving as he was during the cultural revolution of the 1960's.
There's a difference between China's very recent openness to other countries, and the ideology known as "globalism." Globalism is the naive belief that amalgamating countries is always better than letting nations defend their own interests. That hasn't helped anybody....in China or anywhere.
but yes American are spoiled, but it remains a fact that the middle class in American is smaller now - and was at it highest in 1973 - this is just a FACT.
Well, really, not an important one. We're still way ahead if we compare ourselves to, say, the 1960s or earlier. We should be much more grateful than we are, I think. Meanwhile, people are still desperate to get into the US...and if it's such a bad place, why are they wanting to go there?

Again, I think we're spoiled to think that we are owed the level of living that we've enjoyed recently. What told us that our standard of living can only forever go up, and can never take a blip down? Did someone write that law somewhere? If they did, I don't know where.
I drove to Halifax with my Yaris in 2011, i drove up through West Virgina and Western Pensalvania - Erie (Erie was a fucking GHOST TOWN!) - closed buildings, folks that just shuffled alone the street, residentual home boarded up for decades. I saw Haiti in the middle of America!!!!!
Detroit's a mess like that today.
and not amount of "hey entripenuralism lifts all boats" will remove what i saw with my own eyes!
Well, I'm sure you saw poverty. But what you didn't see is whatever it was that caused the poverty. That happened before you got there. And it wasn't "entrepreneurism" that did that deed.
America has been slowly rotting from the center outward since Reagan.
And why would that be?
gaffo
Posts: 3597
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:14 am
gaffo wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:44 am I dissagree about globalism though, i think that is why the ave joe in china is not starving as he was during the cultural revolution of the 1960's.
There's a difference between China's very recent openness to other countries, and the ideology known as "globalism." Globalism is the naive belief that amalgamating countries is always better than letting nations defend their own interests.
I sense your understanding of Globalism is a political one (UN one world order/etc) - mine is an economic one - free trade across boarders - benefiting the 1-percenters wordwide, and the ultra poor in 3rd world nations - but hurting the middleclass of 1st world nations globally.

I'm fine with the UN myself, because it serves as a debating society - to less tensions /war vs without it. I do value concept of international norms/"law".

you do know the UN is toothless and has no army (nor should it), and only exists because of the Cold War (like Nato as well) - and to date serves the US, and a few other powerful nations as well (those on the security council) - note the UN did not serve the US wen Mexico and Germany sided against the US in 2004 - both saying in effect that Iraq had no WMD and invading was illegal under international law.

and so the UN served it purpose and checked the US.

result?

US ignored Mexico and Germany, and so the UN and illegally invaded Iraq, the rest - 2 trillion wasted bucks, a greater Iran whit Iraq as the puppet state, no WMD (which of course the US knew - Iraq ended thier WMD in early 90's after their defeat in the 1st Gulf War - and US used the lie of WMD with full knowledge, as legal cover for illegal war.

and so the UN is toothless - no international army to invade America after we nullified the UN SC and went to war illegally with Iraq.

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:14 am
but yes American are spoiled, but it remains a fact that the middle class in American is smaller now - and was at it highest in 1973 - this is just a FACT.
Well, really, not an important one. We're still way ahead if we compare ourselves to, say, the 1960s or earlier. We should be much more grateful than we are, I think. Meanwhile, people are still desperate to get into the US...and if it's such a bad place, why are they wanting to go there?

Again, I think we're spoiled to think that we are owed the level of living that we've enjoyed recently. What told us that our standard of living can only forever go up, and can never take a blip down? Did someone write that law somewhere? If they did, I don't know where.
I drove to Halifax with my Yaris in 2011, i drove up through West Virgina and Western Pensalvania - Erie (Erie was a fucking GHOST TOWN!) - closed buildings, folks that just shuffled alone the street, residentual home boarded up for decades. I saw Haiti in the middle of America!!!!!
Detroit's a mess like that today.
dissapointed Sir.

so your are playing the "let them eat cake" reply.

and so offer no solution except the expected reply of history:

Germany 1932

Iran 1979

France 1789

Russia 1917

etc...............

what date shall we have for the American Headstone? (or any of the other 1st world nations with a shrinking middle class - England for instance - Brexit is a response to your flippancy - revolution will be the ultimate answer if your continue with your fllppancy).


Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:14 am
America has been slowly rotting from the center outward since Reagan.
And why would that be?
because the top 1-10 percent are no longer taxed the rate they were in the 1970's and trickldown don't work as a substitute to good old high taxes upon the richest folks.

taxes serve the public good, and the since trickldown has had 40 yrs to prove itself - Reagan and post - and has instead shown there is not such thing as trickledown (only Burmuda/Caman off shore tax havens) - time to throw Reagan overboard and return to Carter, and tax the rich 70 percent - as they were in the 70s and not the 30 they have been the last 40 yrs.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:00 pm you do know the UN is toothless and has no army (nor should it), and only exists because of the Cold War (like Nato as well) - and to date serves the US, and a few other powerful nations as well (those on the security council)
Yes, I know. The UN was, in fact, a globalist delusion of Roosevelt's, from the start. As you say, it's toothless. But I also think it's immoral, because it fails to condemn very wicked regimes, and condemns free and democratic polities in their place.

Me, I'd be happy to see it defunded and shut down. It's worse than useless...it's expensive, immoral and useless, all in one.
dissapointed Sir.

so your are playing the "let them eat cake" reply.
Not at all.

I'm saying that right now, you and I are already "eating cake," and need to be more grateful for the "cake" in our mouths, rather than angry that it's slightly less sweet than the "cake" the previous generation ate. We're still way, way ahead of the rest of history, and we need a tune-up on our history if we don't realize that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:14 am
America has been slowly rotting from the center outward since Reagan.
And why would that be?
because the top 1-10 percent are no longer taxed the rate they were in the 1970's
Nah. Not buying it.

You're not going to improve the economy or the lot of the average man by raising taxes on the rich. That's never worked, and it never will. You can't get more milk by killing the cow. Once we've "eaten the rich," we're out of resources again. We need money-generating people, not money-consumers.

As I say, we are statistically far better off than people throughout most of history...just not, perhaps, the last few years. We need to stop whining like spoiled children, and be thankful for what we've got. And can we do better? Sure. But not by jealously pulling down anybody who's more successful than I am. That's just spite, and it won't create durable benefit for anyone. Instead of throwing riots and looting stores, we've got to take personal responsibility for ourselves, and expect our fellow citizens and our politicians to do the same -- and to hold them to some standards when they don't behave. That's what we're not doing right now, and that's why things are on the skids.

The whole Western prosperity was built on one simple thing: the Protestant work ethic. Be honest, work, save, give, and don't consume rashly. If we all did that, our economy would be booming. And even now, three things are statistically necessary for financial success in the West right now: 1) finish school, 2) don't get pregnant, or get anyone pregnant out of the context of committed matrimony, and 3) get a job...any job, and work at it diligently and honestly. With those three things in place, statistically, the chances of ending up below the poverty line are close to zero...barring sudden calamity, of course. But those are three things people are just not doing right now.
nothing
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by nothing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm "Self-evident" is what people say when they don't want their evidence examined.
No, it is what something is - women wearing head-to-toe garments
(as a product of men having no capacity to control themselves
such to religiously blame the WOMAN should the man rape her)
is self-evident because it is in plain sight ie. it would take a denier
of the reality itself to argue otherwise.

As such, "believers" in/of Islam are "believers" because "belief"
is what is required to deny the existing reality such to "believe"
in an alternative one, such as religiously abusing women is sanctioned
by a sky-daddy.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Ritually. Regularly. And today, they do it in the press, and are called "courageous" for doing it.
There is a war happening against "unbelieving" (ie. non-Muslim) men.
Muhammadan men begin invading non-Muslim nations by grooming,
raping/killing non-Muslim women. This is how/why the "gender" crisis
is being manufactured by the House of Islam: to obscure the fact
that women are literally disappearing off the face of the planet.

Non-Muslim women are considered booty/property by Muhammadan men, as
this is explicitly outlined in the Qur'an (if you care to read the document
they are trying to subject the entire planet to).
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm But what you say is not true there. You use the word "patriarchy," and you didn't invent that one, or the associated myths, by yourself. You got them somewhere, so there are some sources you believe unquestioningly, it seems.
I don't "believe" in patriarchy - I know it exists.
If you "believe" something, it implies you do not actually know.
If you "know" something, it implies there is no degree of uncertainty (ie. "belief").

All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s), as an all-knowing god,
should one exist, must know all (ie. who, what, where, why, when, how
and/or ultimately if: not to believe) and be able to explain the root
of the associated ignorance(s).
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm As above. Nope. Stalinists "believe" all kinds of things, and are firmly on the Left. Libertarians are highly skeptical of authority, and are on the Right.
I don't know what a "Stalinist" and/or a "Libertarian" are, outside of being just another label(s) to slap onto people.
I avoid the label games as much as possible, as fundamentally the problem is indiscriminately one of "belief".
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm There are no "Nazis" today.
Islam is the root of Nazism. It divides the world on the basis of "believer vs. unbeliever" wherein
it takes a "believer" to "believe" themselves superior to others and/or others are inferior to themselves.
They need to scapegoat their Nazism onto others (as with all things the House of Islam is guilty of)
and use "white people" because the latter are the least likely to take the Islamic shahada and go back
to the dark ages of man, worshiping books and male central figure idols such as Jesus/Muhammad.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm You're an antisemite? That's a fairly startling admission.
I don't buy the label, it is used to slander/accuse/harass people
who question the underlying the Abrahamic power-structure, as
it is all rooted in "jew" worship of books/idols such as Torah/Bible/Qur'an
and/or Moses/Jesus/Muhammad. It is all a saturation of patriarchy
rooted in man worshiping man, hence Nazism and Islam are one.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Prove the Left is Islamic. Don't just allege; prove.

I agree Islam is a poisonous doctrine, and I probably know more about it than you do. I've read the Koran entirely, and lived where Islam is a dominant practice. But it's not Leftist. It only shares a few superficial features with Leftists.
If you knew more about it than I do, you would know it to be the underlying ideological root of Nazism, but you do not.
Nazism/supremacism can only exist in/as a state of BELIEF. If no belief, no nazism/supremacism. The entire 'business'
of a BELIEF in al ALL-KNOWING god is fallacious, as an all-knowing god must know all NOT to believe (ie. be the negation
of belief-based ignorance).

Did you know all mosques constructed until ~730CE have qiblas facing PETRA in South Jordan, and not Mecca in Saudia Arabia?
Do you know what that means? Muhammadan can't have ever faced Mecca if/when praying, as they built mosques facing PETRA
up to 100 years after his death. Do you have any idea how catastrophic this is for the central claims being made by Islam?
Do you have the capacity to understand that what Muslims are "taught" is pure dogma and has no basis in the reality?
What happens when you have over a billion people rooted in a premise(s) that have nothing to do with the reality?

The historical Muhammad was a polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord, regarded as the "greatest example" for all of humanity.
Does it take a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm That's what you believe, I see.
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s), thus
the particular "belief" does not matter: what matters is
it implies an absence of knowledge.

Whether or not one willing to admit they know not
is a matter of "believing not know" rather than
knowing not to believe. These are related to
the two Edenic trees:

Image

Obviously the "believers" know not from which tree they even eat,
for being rooted in mere "belief" rather than knowledge.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm No, that's not right. You don't know whether you'll wake up tomorrow...but on the strength of the data that you woke up for thousands of days before, and are feeling healthy, you believe you will have a tomorrow. That doesn't imply you have no knowledge, just not absolute certainty.

The truth is that you believe a whole lot of things. We all do. Because we aren't omniscient. A lot of what we do has to be done on the basis of incomplete certainty.
Knowing one knows not is a knowledge.
I don't "believe" in anything but possibilities I don't know
to a certainty are (or are not) possible. In any case, what
I believe is possible is what I ultimately do not know.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Sure it is. Again, since the experimenter has not done the complete set of possible falsifications, she stops at some point, and says, "I believe my hypothesis was false."
"Believing" a hypothesis is false is not the same as knowing it is.
If a hypothesis is true, it is because it can not not be true (ie. by necessity).
If a hypothesis is false, it is because there was/is a belief/assumption underlying
which is not necessarily true. This is the purpose of science: to challenge
basic underlying assumptions. "Belief" is essentially the opposite: to merely
"believe" rather than consciously try/test/falsify the belief/assumption.

This is how/why Islam is anti-science, thus anti-truth, thus anti-humanitarian
as all human beings have a longing to know (if even unconscious).
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm If that were true, then there would be no need for science. For we could only either know certainly, or otherwise, believe without evidence. And since we know nothing certainly, then we would do no science.
On the contrary: there is a basic need for science as we can know much to a certainty:
that which is certainly not necessarily true (ie. false). Hence falsification.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm What do you mean by "mainstream" science? Do you mean the Scientific Method itself?
The only prevailing: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and associated
Big Bang/Black Hole/Dark Matter/Dark Energy offspring that come from it.

The degrees to which GToR is valid/invalid can be known, as the universe
is certainly not gravity-centric. In fact, the universe is interesting because
space and time are actually not two separate things, they are reciprocal
aspects of motion viz. s/t x t/s = 1 wherein s/t = v (speed) and t/s = e (energy).

In this way, all motion(s) has a corresponding energy constituency responsible
for that same motion, thus motion and energy are mutually inseparable.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm So you don't believe I'm wrong? You don't believe you'll wake up tomorrow? You don't believe in COVID 19?
I can't "believe" you are wrong, as I do not what about?
No, I do not "believe" I will wake up tomorrow. I know if I don't, something unusual will underly it.
No, I do not "believe" in COVID-19 as I know who is behind it and why. This entails my knowing
not to "believe" the mainstream media propaganda beating it into others' heads that this is
something other than warfare. It is all planned ahead of time and will be used to "cover"
for the death(s) of a lot of people who are considered "enemies" of the ideology concerned.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9680
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Left vs. Right viz. Believer vs. Unbeliever

Post by Immanuel Can »

nothing wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:37 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm "Self-evident" is what people say when they don't want their evidence examined.
No, it is what something is - women wearing head-to-toe garments...
I agree with you that abusing women is wrong. But the Islamists don't think it is. Nazis didn't think killing women and children was wrong, since it tended to the "purity" of the race, they said. Western women don't think butchering their babies is wrong.

"Self-evident?" Nothing is "self-evident." No mere material facts warrant specific values. Only an objectivity beyond feeling, beyond culture, beyond humanity can do that.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Ritually. Regularly. And today, they do it in the press, and are called "courageous" for doing it.
There is a war happening against "unbelieving" (ie. non-Muslim) men.
Tell me about it. They kill hundreds of thousands of Christians every year.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm But what you say is not true there. You use the word "patriarchy," and you didn't invent that one, or the associated myths, by yourself. You got them somewhere, so there are some sources you believe unquestioningly, it seems.
I don't "believe" in patriarchy - I know it exists.
Yeah, you believe in it. It never actually happened.

Was it when women were "trapped" at home, having babies, while men went to the coal mines to work 16 hour days? Or is it now, when far more men die on the job than women, and where wars, suicide and addiction take more men than women? When were men king?

You should read "The Road to Wigan Pier," by Orwell, if you think being a man is fun.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm As above. Nope. Stalinists "believe" all kinds of things, and are firmly on the Left. Libertarians are highly skeptical of authority, and are on the Right.
I don't know what a "Stalinist" and/or a "Libertarian" are, outside of being just another label(s) to slap onto people.
Then you should. They're not just "labels," but ideological descriptors used by the people who follow those ideologies themselves, as well as those who don't.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm There are no "Nazis" today.
Islam is the root of Nazism.
Nah. You've got your creeds mixed up there.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Prove the Left is Islamic. Don't just allege; prove.

I agree Islam is a poisonous doctrine, and I probably know more about it than you do. I've read the Koran entirely, and lived where Islam is a dominant practice. But it's not Leftist. It only shares a few superficial features with Leftists.
If you knew more about it than I do,
I'm pretty sure I do...both theoretically and practically.
The historical Muhammad was a polygamous pedophile genocidal warlord, regarded as the "greatest example" for all of humanity.
Yes, he was. But many people are not Mohammedans, and still "believe" things. Heck, you believe in the "patriarchy," though you claim you don't believe in "labels" and don't "believe" anything at all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm No, that's not right. You don't know whether you'll wake up tomorrow...but on the strength of the data that you woke up for thousands of days before, and are feeling healthy, you believe you will have a tomorrow. That doesn't imply you have no knowledge, just not absolute certainty.

The truth is that you believe a whole lot of things. We all do. Because we aren't omniscient. A lot of what we do has to be done on the basis of incomplete certainty.
Knowing one knows not is a knowledge.
Yes, and it's a thing that should make us humble. We all have to believe things, because without belief, we literally couldn't get out of bed in the morning. We wouldn't know for sure we're going to survive the experience.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm Sure it is. Again, since the experimenter has not done the complete set of possible falsifications, she stops at some point, and says, "I believe my hypothesis was false."
"Believing" a hypothesis is false is not the same as knowing it is.
That's too bad for science, then, because that's as far as science can ever take anyone.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm If that were true, then there would be no need for science. For we could only either know certainly, or otherwise, believe without evidence. And since we know nothing certainly, then we would do no science.
On the contrary: there is a basic need for science as we can know much to a certainty:
I'm sorry...you're just naive. Science is probabilistic. It's utterly incapable of producing "certainty." It's great at showing which hypotheses about material things are worth believing and trusting, though...and that's pretty great.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm What do you mean by "mainstream" science? Do you mean the Scientific Method itself?
The only prevailing: Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and associated
Big Bang/Black Hole/Dark Matter/Dark Energy offspring that come from it.
This is a cloud of jargon. I'm now afraid you don't know what you're referring to.

Do you know what "scientific method" means?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:10 pm So you don't believe I'm wrong? You don't believe you'll wake up tomorrow? You don't believe in COVID 19?
No, I do not "believe" I will wake up tomorrow.
Then stay in bed. It's not safe out there. :D
Post Reply