Anti-pseudoscience and anti-science thread

[Anonymous No.20693800]

what is the best criteria for differentiating science from pseudoscience? Imo its Poppers falsifiability criteria (if there is even such a difference between sci and pseudosci, t. Feyerabend).

[Anonymous No.20693803]

>karl popper
holy fed, i dont like evolution either, but this aint it either way

[Anonymous No.20693813]

>>20693800
>Imo its Poppers falsifiability criteria
ye, science is based on 3 principles:
>theoretical falsifiability
>empirical testability
>minimization of interference of the observer upon the studied subject

[Anonymous No.20693851]

>>20693800
pseudo science is the application and testability of human shit
real science studies cum and vaginal discharge.
use this trick
if it smells like shit is pseudoscience
if it smells like cum and fresh pussy its science.

[Anonymous No.20693857]

>>20693803
>holy fed, i dont like evolution either, but this aint it either way

just because his tribal interest was clear in his simpleton politics, doesnt follow that his epistemiology should be negated.

>>20693851
>ebin

[Anonymous No.20693900]

>>20693803
he jumps in his own mouth in his political (((ideas))). His "tolerance paradox" is totally unfalsifiable because you cant define who is "tolerant" or what does it even mean to be "tolerant" since its a posthoc buzzword. Criteria of falsifiability still stands.

[Anonymous No.20693914]

I don't really see an issue with the distinction. Lots of things can be true without being scientific. Like there are ethical truths, theological truths, etc. which can be unfalsifiable. But who cares if they're not scientific?

[Anonymous No.20693918]

>>20693800
It's not a fact. Expect of course we can observe mutations and see and test for natural selection, see animals adapt to certain environments and literally draw whole maps of how animals changed through time from fossil records.

[Anonymous No.20693922]

>>20693800
popperism is hindsight revisionism
all scientific disciplines evolved naturally in a khunian style, it's only after they've matured do they embrace falsification and pretend that was their standard all along

[Anonymous No.20693924]

>>20693918
Yeah, sure, but did you account for Satan and/or Yahweh taking mice, killing them, grinding their bones up into dust, mixing it with epoxy, casting it into the shape of a bone that does not match the shape of any other animal's bones, and then digging it an arbitrary distance under the dirt?

[Strange Love No.20693925]

>>20693800

>what is the best criteria for differentiating science from pseudoscience?

Rigoriously applied scientific method. The actual one, not the contemporary interpretation of it.

[Anonymous No.20693927]

Reminder that Popper is referring to Group Selection, not Gene Selection, in this quote, and as such he is referring to a rejected theory not supported by Biologists.

[Anonymous No.20693931]

what does science say about women

[Anonymous No.20693940]

>>20693914
its more about the process than the product

[Strange Love No.20693954]

>>20693931

>what does science say about women

--> kitchen

[Anonymous No.20693956]

>>20693914
>Like there are ethical truths, theological truths, etc. which can be unfalsifiable.

no good statement is unfalsifiable regardless if its science or not, if its unfalsifiable like bs empiricism pic rel its indicative that its just a semantic trick and not a scientific or non scientific statement

>>20693922
>it's only after they've matured do they embrace falsification and pretend that was their standard all along

I kind of lean to disagree but wasnt this Feyerbandends explanation?

>>20693918
>Expect of course we can observe mutations and see and test for natural selection, see animals adapt to certain environments and literally draw whole maps of how animals changed through time from fossil records.

none of that proves 6 billion years of bacterias and fished and primates and monkeys, its just proves observable natural selection which is clear without that bs paradigm

>>20693925
>Rigoriously applied scientific method

you can only do that to something falsifiable not a 6 billion year myth of of creation

[Anonymous No.20693959]

>>20693956
>you can only do that to something falsifiable
Life having existed for 4.28 billion years is totally falsifiable though. If there was not evidence for this, then we would have no reason to believe it. There is evidence, thus we have reason to believe it. I do not see why we have to distrust evidence in favor of political screeds written by Rabbis circa 300BC.

[Anonymous No.20693971]

>>20693800
Pooper isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. He advocated falsification because he saw the problem of induction as insurmountable. But if we accept falsification and reject induction, the falsified theories don't even have the slightest chance at being true and science is therefore worthless.

[Anonymous No.20693972]

>>20693959
>If there was not evidence for this, then we would have no reason to believe it.

this is your mind of ScienceTM. Protip-history doesnt end, vax yourself against Hegelian stupidity you midwit.

[Anonymous No.20693980]

>>20693972
idk how you got Hegel from that

[Anonymous No.20693981]

>>20693956
I haven't read feyerabend, I'm basing this more on what I've read regarding the string theory kerfuffle. Dawid's String Theory and the Scientific Method is a good read.

Many of the heuristical reasoning string theorists use now to justify their research direction is the same used by natural philosophers in the previous centuries when they didn't worry about satisfying experimentalists. Critiques about string theory predictions being post-dictions dont hold much water since string theory didn't begin as a program to discover gravity, but to explain the strong force and it was only by historical coincidence that it produced gravitons.

[Anonymous No.20693982]

>>20693956
>none of that proves 6 billion years of bacterias and fished and primates and monkeys
Earth isn't even 6 billion years old. And we do have bacteria fossils all the way from 3.5 billion years ago actually and signs of life from 3.7 billion years ago

[Anonymous No.20693984]

>>20693981
thanks for the reading recommendation, pussy

[Anonymous No.20693991]

>>20693972
But I thought that everything had to be falsifiable? Theories about the age of the Earth are totally falsifiable.

[Strange Love No.20693998]

>>20693956

>you can only do that to something falsifiable not a 6 billion year myth of of creation

That's the whole joke about it. One can deduce mechanisms based not only on logic and available data points but also on an "intuition" which recognizes general patterns and how they apply to different specific cases. But the overall experimental sciences are severely restricted ... certain data is irrevocably lost and/or fragmentary, experiments performed on complex systems are very prone to interference from factors and conditions unknown or hard to monitor for the researcher (therefore reproducability crisis) .... I could go on and on. Been there, done that. Humbug.

[Anonymous No.20694002]

>>20693991
if you think about it, all we have to do is send a satellite 7 billion light years away and have it look at the direction of the earth.

[Anonymous No.20694008]

>>20693971
>He advocated falsification because he saw the problem of induction as insurmountable.

I dont think he saw it as insurmountable, you work around induction and should be aware of its limitation.

>But if we accept falsification and reject induction, the falsified theories don't even have the slightest chance at being true

you can use falsification criteria even in non-empirical science to cut out shitty unfalsifiable philosophy like consequantial morals (pic rel here>>20693956). In empirical sciences if somethins is falsified its incorrect, but not unfalsifiable

>>20693980
>idk how you got Hegel from that

Hegel>Marx>Darwin. hopefull youll figure it out.

>>20693981
>Critiques about string theory predictions being post-dictions dont hold much water since string theory didn't begin as a program to discover gravity, but to explain the strong force and it was only by historical coincidence that it produced gravitons.

Im not that senpai with string theory, but Fey had identical explanation in his Against method on theory of gravity - that is was posthoced into exact science

>>20693998
>But the overall experimental sciences are severely restricted

it all starts with intutions, good testable hypothesis is created by qualtiy hunches, but even when restricted, scientific method is worthy if you stick with falsifiable hypothesis and not unfalsifiable semantic claims

[Anonymous No.20694020]

>>20694008
>Hegel>Marx>Darwin
How the fuck does Marx lead to Darwin? Marxism and Darwinian selection are at odds with each other.

>if you stick with falsifiable hypothesis
Like evolution and the age of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.20694032]

>>20694008
> Hegel>Marx>Darwin
I really don't think Darwin had anything to do with the other two

[Anonymous No.20694036]

>>20694008
>I dont think he saw it as insurmountable,
By insurmountable I mean impossible to refute and, like you said, he thought it must be worked around.
>In empirical sciences if somethins is falsified its incorrect, but not unfalsifiable
But the problem is that you're not getting anywhere with science (as there are an infinite amount of claims to be falsified) and you can't even speak of probabilities if you a priori reject induction.

[Anonymous No.20694039]

>>20694020
>How the fuck does Marx lead to Darwin?

if you are spliting hairs, its more Hegel>marx and Hegel>Darwin

>Marxism and Darwinian selection are at odds with each other.

yet both are hegelian and lead to pure idea with magic of time

>Like evolution and the age of the Earth.

what empirical finding would make evolution incorrect?

[Strange Love No.20694040]

>>20694008

>but even when restricted, scientific method is worthy if you stick with falsifiable hypothesis and not unfalsifiable semantic claims

Very much true, yet this simple reality is getting progressively lost within the "art" of science (well, can ofc only truly judge the field of my prior career). The intuition is getting lost, it is all about the "data" now, no matter what it might (appear) to spell out ... less and less actual mechanisms, more and more statistics (and amplification of mere noise). I am disgusted by it to this very day ... so excuse the minor rant here please.

[Anonymous No.20694071]

>>20694039
>yet both are hegelian and lead to pure idea with magic of time
What does this even mean? Every one of these garbage threads you make just leads to people laughing at you for retreating to these bizarre definitions privy only to you.

>what empirical finding would make evolution incorrect?
Well, for starters, we would have to have not found all of the evidence suggesting that life operates according to basic units of heredity. So, if we cracked open a cell and did not find DNA (or some DNA analogue like RNA), then that would be a really good start.

Secondly, if you could find evidence of some kind of life that was not the result of gene-products produced by replicators in result of some kind of unit of heredity, you could also find evidence of life not subject to genetic selection. This is actually how things like pseudo-cells and "non-living life" made out of nifty ferrofluid nano-compounds work (they just float around, glom stuff up, and eventually split, organize it, and eventually split in half when they get big enough), so if you could find those floating around in the wild, then you would find "non-evolutionary life".

Both of these wouldn't really disprove evolutionary theory because you could make an argument that the evolution is still occurring (as in the case of the pseudo-cells), but then you're also arguing that the basic units of heredity aren't even units but rather atomic compounds, and that gets you into realms that are pretty fucking exotic.

[Anonymous No.20694075]

>>20694036
>By insurmountable I mean impossible to refute

any claim that comes from induction>hypothesis>deduction scientific method is can be easily attempted (!) to refute with another of the same kind. If it doesnt come from that method its totally untouchable empirically.

>you're not getting anywhere with science (as there are an infinite amount of claims to be falsified)

I wouldnt call that not getting anywhere, you have the same "problem" in philosophy - a whole spected of ideas to deal with.

>>20694040
>The intuition is getting lost, it is all about the "data" now, no matter what it might (appear) to spell out ... less and less actual mechanisms, more and more statistics (and amplification of mere noise)

I can relate much to this, they scoff at any idea no matter how elegant it is if it doesnt have a lot of statistical phishings, they treat numbers as decoration and think numbers create findings on their own (like in magic of evolution). Link below

https://webm.red/b2pj

[Anonymous No.20694106]

>>20694071
>What does this even mean?

its means that you are a braindead midwit.

>we would have to have not found all of the evidence suggesting that life operates according to basic units of heredity

that is genetics you moron, genetics exists regardless of evolution. And no, a le rebito in precambrion would not falsify evolution.

[Anonymous No.20694133]

>>20694106
The existence of genes guarantees evolution, anon.

[Strange Love No.20694134]

>>20694075

>they treat numbers as decoration and think numbers create findings on their own (like in magic of evolution)

The idol worshippers of noise, the acolytes of gibberish, yes. "Big data" is just the final nail in their coffin. Do miss my old prof now, he was still kinda different to all this ... but not many good men like that around anymore, only blind fools.

>https://webm.red/b2pj

Ok I need to get me another beer now after this. :/

[Anonymous No.20694188]

>>20694134
also regarding importance of intuition in making a quality hypothesis from data noise, its the same intution as in art (Im not using that as a romantic analogy, Im meaning its literally the same). Both in good hypothesis creation and in art you organize data noise by ideas - Feyerabend, opposite to Popper, because of that claims that there is no difference between science and pseudoscience just good and bad idea creation since according to him scientific methodology is not unique to science. I think even then, you can use falsifiability criteria...?

[Strange Love No.20694228]

>>20694188

>its the same intution as in art (Im not using that as a romantic analogy, Im meaning its literally the same)

Painting a bigger picture so to speak ... I know very well. :)

>just good and bad idea creation

The "art" is to recognize good from bad here even if you have already committed to an idea. There's no fault in being wrong on occasion ... only in not recognizing it. At best a continuous process which leads towards actual *truth* ... either by steady progress or leap of faith.

>pic

Jup ... >>20693954

[Anonymous No.20694257]

>>20694002
Wouldn't Earth look the same as it did when the satellite was launched though? Assuming it was launched at just under the speed of light looking back at Earth should be almost static right?

[Anonymous No.20694319]

I.
The Doctrine of Pneumatism

1. Objective reality exists.
2. If you call the existence of objective reality itself into question, congratulations, you're a solipsist. The problem is, this is a philosophical dead-end, it offers no Praxis nor guidance to politicians, the people who rule this world. So you have no solution for upcoming the Collapse and are a pathetic Last Man, a parasite on the economic system which runs on biology.
3. The ultimate goal of the zoon politikon (a social being, i.e. all humans if you have never even partaken in basic philosophy) is for the world around them (the matrix upon which to imprint a Dasein) be a better, more authentic place.
4. Dualism doesn't exist. It's an illusion created by the Self after its creation at around the age of 3-4 when the Self (abstract thought) is "burst into existence" (Heidegger's "Being in Time") and struggles to connect the chaos surrounding the abstractly thinking Being. Thus it falls into dualism to better categorize the world, into opposing binaries. Opposing binaries are social constructs, illusions. See: the Pauli-Jung conjecture. Dual-aspect monism. In fact this is what Hegel from the start preached: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. This is what Plato from the start preached. What did they mean by this? The synthesis of opposing binaries will not be a mere equal-parts compromise!
5. Reality is One. Ideal reality, that is. There is also the hitherto, material reality, which is dualistic because it's fed by illusions about the Real created by the weak Being between the ages of 3 and 8. So, in the material world, dualisms exist. People are either Good or Bad. In the Ideal world, only Good and only Truth exists, because Good is Truth and Truth is Good, and falsity doesn't exist, because again, monism, only Truth exists and falsity (the absence of Truth) doesn't exist, because... it's absent. This is literally Plato, guys. And it's True!

[Anonymous No.20694324]

>>20694319
THE PERENNIAL MANIFESTO OF THE METAMODERN POSTHUMAN
Earlier title
>The Creation of Meaning: the Metamodern Moment
>(How to create meaning in a world where "nothing" is real?)

Alternative titles:
>The Case for a Self-Sustainable Economy of the Harmonious Future, or
>What do Hegel and Popper teach us? or
>Praxis for the Modern World, or a Refinement of the Ellul-Zizek Paradigm, or
>How to Defeat Ur-Fascism? Actively Contain the Bullying Factors, or
>"We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident?" A Neo-Neomarxist Praxis for Life, or
>Ethics for the 21st Century, or
>One Monism for Everything, or
>Gnosticism for Modern Times, or
>The Monistic Dialectic, or
>The Non-Dialectic/The Anti-Dialectic, or
>The Anti-Cult, or
>The Meaning of Greek Philosophy, or
>Measurement of Objective Truth through the Parallax of Two Distinct Analytical Models, or
>On the Quest for Truth in a Truth-less World, or
>Posthumanism: the Concept, or
>The Critical-Analytic Matrix

[Anonymous No.20694330]

>>20694324
6. The future will either be harmonious or there will be no future at all (by "the future" I don't mean any particular civilization, just the Human species as a whole)
7. A harmonious future is possible to envision.
8. To accomplish this, we need a historical materialism.
9. Marxist historical materialism was a wrong interpretation of Hegel. Thus, it was pseudoscientific. How to define this? Popper has an answer, that really isnt new at all. A scientific theory rests upon 3 principles: it must be falsifiable in theory, empirically testable in practice, and it must strive to minimize interference of the observer upon the studied subject.
10. A scientific theory of History is possible. Popper's theory of science is, funnily enough, pretty much historical materialism, even though Popper fought historicism unto his death.
-
11. To accomplish a harmonious future, we must devise a scientific theory of history (i.e. one that is true and works), because then such a theory has predictive power, and then you can structure policy around it. This is VERY important for Praxis.
12. A scientific theory of history must be theoretically falsifiable (claims about the Human nature), empirically testable (matter of policy) and minimize the interference of the observer and his biases, with the subject (History)
13. Monist neo-Hegelianism, or neo-Hegelian Monism is the way to go about constructing an architecture of the human or a scientific theory of history and future (and policy).
14. If monism is true, then all binaries are always wrong. If dualism is true, then no unifying theory is possible and philosophy is useless (Wittgenstein: "philosophy is either obvious or useless" nonetheless, Wittgenstein's failure in actually constructing a sensible Tractatus does not mean it's impossible, this line of thinking does not track and Wittgenstein's nihilistic approach to philosophy is a failure)

[Anonymous No.20694334]

>>20694330
15. We can either construct a monist or a dualist theory of history. In the last 14 points I've laid out why a dualist theory of history is doomed to fail. How to construct a monist theory of history?
16. The Self/Being (Dasein) is everything to history.
17. The study of history reveals that the evolution of history is really just the evolution of the Being.
18. The evolution of the Being is impacted by just 2 environmental factors: (1) the physical size of his community (2) the set of information carried by this community. These 2 factors produce a varying number of pathways for the Dasein to self-actualize. Prehistoric hunter-gatherers had a limited number of pathways to self-actualize and were thus happier.
19. Technological progress is unstoppable. History proves that.
20. Attempts at reverting technological progress, or reverting to the primitive Dasein, are doomed from the start. It's a reactionary expression that does not lead anywhere productive.
21. Reactionary thought only leads to suffering, doubly so when it's coupled with a totalist mode of policing. Reactionary thought is the thought of the Nietzschean Last Man. Reactionary thought is an unconscious and unwitting replication of the master-slave paradigm, a paradigm which does not lead to a reduction of suffering for anyone.
22. The status quo is always bad. Until it isn't. And you must always fight to change it. Until you don't. But we're not there yet. That moment is called post-scarcity. We have not achieved it yet. That's why we suffer. We live in a world of scarce resources and near-infinite information on how to obtain them. This creates schizophrenic potential for the post-modern Dasein.
23. The master-slave paradigm serves to at best continue the status quo, at worst change it into something much worse.
24. If the future must be harmonious for it to exist at all (fig. 6), how to envision it? Most important crises for the post-post-modern Dasein must be identified (this is the moment we're in right now: the metamodern moment). The crises are the following from most important to least & each follow the former: (I) the national identity crisis, (II) the personal identity crisis, (III) the demographic crisis, (IV) the climate crisis, (V) the authoritarian crisis (it's a master-slave-paradigm-replicatory crisis in general), (VI) family-forming (VII) wealth inequality

[Anonymous No.20694338]

>>20694334
25. A harmonious future must be produced by an individual with a sense of self so strong that in creating a vision to unite all of humanity he will not abandon his own self and die before the vision is set on the path to successful completion.
26. A harmonious future will be a vision that combines solutions to each of the 6 underlying crises of modern human existence, some of which are new but most of which are really as old as humanity itself.
27. The answer to answering the personal identity crisis lies in answering the national identity crisis.
28. A rebirth of nationalist thought is needed that is mindful of the 5 other crises.
29. A harmonious future for everybody will be based on 3 key foundations: capitalist post-scarcity created through full automation of the entire work force which will then be covered by UBI, liberal democracy, pacifism
30. Since binaries don't exist and Monism is true, the policy that will bring us to a harmonious future is neither left-wing nor right-wing, but taking crisis V into account, it must not lend itself into fascism, and while taking crisis VI into account, it must not lend itself to stalinism.
31. Capitalism (finance especially) operates on self-fulfilling prophecies and herd mentality.
32. The key problem of policy is to create a positive self-fulfilling prophecy that does not allow for negative self-fulfilling prophecies which cause crises.
33. There is only one positive self-fulfilling prophecy, because there is only one positive Future—that which is harmonious.
34. Monism is physically correct: everything is One. The Universe is One. Energy is everything. Matter is energy. Everything is One.
35. Consciousness in the Monist worldview is neither material nor spiritual. It is metaphysical in the sense that it, being material, represents a separate physical force. How could it be scientifically defined? We need to look out of the box. Consciousness is a physical force which may slow down the entropy of the Universe unlike any other physical force, but it's yet unrealized. Normal ("unrealized") human consciousness as it exists right now can be thought of as potential energy (this is who the neoplatonists and gnostics called hylics and psychics). Human consciousness that represents a Nietzschean Ubermenschian Dasein can be thought of as kinetic energy (this is who they called pneumatics).
36. The goal of wise policy is to create a truly pneumatic society. More precisely, the goal of wise policy is for the world to be united, under globalization, voluntarily dominated by the economic power of the United States (most pneumatic state in the world), and to cause the society as a whole to become pneumatic without even having the capitalist "herd" be aware of being pneumatic.
37. The meaning of life lies in being pneumatic.
38. Endless and self-sustainable economic (& tech, again, One and the same, economic practice = technology) growth based on green energy (incl. nuclear) is possible and pneumatic.

[Anonymous No.20694343]

science is such fucking bullshit. the more time goes on the more apparent it becomes. most things are just discovered by accident or by random moments of insight

[Anonymous No.20694346]

>>20694338
II.
The Practice of Pneumatism

39. Pneumatism/Pneumaticism/Pneumatics is at heart an economic system, pragmatically it is a political ideology/theory, and also functions as a theory of sociology, philosophy, history, religion and the future.
40. Referring the Fifth Axiom: in the material world, Humanity is divided into 4 categories: people with a strong sense of Self (Being, or Dasein) who are Good and people with a strong sense of Self who are Evil & people with a weak sense of Self who are Good, and people with a weak sense of Self who are Evil.
41. To practice Pneumatism, as a Pneumatic/Pneumatist, is to first find likeminded people (hereafter referred to as Pneumatics or Pneumatists), and then work together for the betterment of Humanity to help achieve the ideal world in the material world, thus bringing the ideal world to reality by realizing the monistic doctrine of Pneumatism.
42. As a Pneumatic, you need to find likeminded people, Pneumatics, because that in itself is a Pneumatic activity, it acts like a springboard for action. Synchronicity & synergy in political Praxis.
43. To find Pneumatics, you will first have to practice Pneumatic morality and learn to distinguish the Good from the Bad. Important distinction. People with a weak sense of Self are not necessarily Evil. Likewise, people with a strong sense of Self are not necessarily Good—in fact usually they aren't! People with a weak sense of Self are more often Good than people with a strong sense of Self, because people with a strong sense of Self, regardless of morality, attain power over people with a weak sense of Self, and power corrupts (and absolute power corrupts absolutely).
44. But does it? Thus begins the practice of Pneumatic morality. Find likeminded friends and actively contain toxic enemies. More precisely, try to attract people who are Good, regardless if they have a strong or weak sense of Self—help Good people. Likewise, when facing people with a strong or weak sense of Self who are Evil—actively contain. By this I mean: do not answer aggression with aggression, generally practice pacifism in life. On two necessary conditions (and only these two) insults are good: (I) if you target them at toxic people (II) if you at the same time do not try to belittle their very sense of Self (Being/Dasein) with them. So there are good (constructive) insults and bad (toxic) insults. So, this is active containment. Contain but do not ignore threats. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt: "talk softly but carry a big stick." Applying this IR philosophy to local matters is a life-changing experience. This is true assertiveness, i.e. being neither aggressive nor submissive.
45. People who are Good at heart are to be your friends, but even people who are Evil at heart can (might) have a change of heart with a good enough Praxis.
46. Sometimes, though, a person is just so Evil that no amount of good Praxis can salvage them.

[Anonymous No.20694352]

>>20694346
III.
The Historiosophy of Pneumatism

47. History is ultimately defined by the Human desire. Only 3 core motives underlie the Human desire, from most important (to the conscious ego, not to the unconscious superego) to least:
>1a. transcendence
>1b. love/respect
>2a. freedom
>2b. power
>3. truth
As you can see, I treat the desire of love and respect as the same as the desire of transcendence, each being an emanation of each other, forming one and the same desire. This is one fundamental human desire. Freedom and power are emanations of another one desire. History is the result of people having wildly different conceptualizations of these and practical solutions for achieving them, as well as the economic/social class impacting the moral choices and preferences of the acting party. Which is why Plato was brilliant but not fully brilliant, or Aristotle thought that women had fewer and less healthy teeth. Or why late Hegel thought that the Great German civilization was the greatest and should spread. if you're just gonna continue writing ad hominems, you're the one who resembles GPT-3 (not DALL-E, DALL-E is just an application of GPT-3 for imaging) who just collects zany 4chan replies, more than me collecting anything

48. In fact, to create a revolutionary thought in 2022 one needs to already begin by acknowledging one thing:
over the course of the last 2,500 years, Man has already discovered all there is to discover, axiomatically speaking. that's why there's so little original thought nowadays and it's all just a rehash of past tropes which gets boring. so to create a revolutionary thought, we need to collect all the knowledge acquired and craft a synthesis

49. This is where I basically refine Heidegger, Ellul, Foucault and Zizek's thought, credit goes where credit's due. Here's the problem that I'm trying to solve: the level of disintegration of Self in the 21st century

[Anonymous No.20694357]

>>20694352
50. The original human Self (Being/Dasein) already begun disintegrating with the advent of agriculture and first permanent/long-term settlements some 10-14 thousand years ago. More immediately relevantly though, in the 19th century under industrialization (atomization of society), which brought with it an explosion in information and the spread of industrial civilization, the Self was set on a course of disintegration unlike ever seen before. then in the 20th century came many different crises that impacted the Self—from feminism & emancipation (gender equality), to WW1, war communism, stalinism, fascism, WW2, the Holocaust and then everything post-WW2 being a reaction to these fundamental existential political crises

51. Now in the 21st century we're witnessing a disintegration of the self even further, as philosophy & a truly intellectual pursuit is no longer treated seriously. this anxiety really began with Popper & popperists and is now continued by educators like Sabine Hossenfelder, who are trying to truly move science forward while respecting THE PHILOSOPHY of science. Indeed I will be using the words "truly" and "authentically" liberally here, following the footsteps of Adorno, the Frankfurt School and Critical Theory in general

52. Native Americans, for example, had a very limited set of information about the world. So their "spiritual" (Dasein) pathways were limited. This satisfied their Dasein. the problem with the 20th, and especially with the 21st century, is the OVERLOAD of information, which causes the number of pathways to really approach infinity. this causes the Self to go into flux, to disintegrate completely

53. Now, basing all of this on the theory of positive disintegration, I believe that in fact our civilization doesn't have to be in decline yet, in fact I believe modern civilization is ripe for a new beginning and new growth. basically, now that the Self has almost completely disintegrated under the progress of capitalism and disintegration of intellectual/philosophical guidance, we can create the Self anew, for the new world. Essentially, what we have to do is collectivize the Ubermensch. that is the goal of my vision of Monism for the 21st century. the complete ridding away of Jungian opposing binaries. and a synthesis of them in the Jungian sense too, i.e. not merely a compromise between each of the opposing binaries, but a truly new third thing. I believe this can be done, and in answering this lies the solution to our undergoing civilizational collapse. what also needs to be recognized is where exactly Ellul (and more precisely Ted Kaczynski) was wrong

[Anonymous No.20694360]

>>20694257
well theoretically, we would need to send it faster than the speed of light. but eventually we'll have the technology for this.

[Anonymous No.20694361]

>>20694357
54. To solve the upcoming civilizational collapse, one needs to first identify the set of crucial crises that are underpinning this civilizational collapse. to do this, we need to first ask ourselves: what are the founding axioms of civilization? basically, from the Neolithic revolution onward, we can see the departure of the notion of "society" first from small "bands" of hunter-gatherers of ~20-150 people each (a few families composed of people who knew about the dangers of incest), to agricultural settlements. then in these agricultural settlements really is created the first modern conception of the Human, as in, a person that goes beyond the natural order as his Dasein gets under pressure and he must create some new form of order for himself. thus, begins civilization. and it does not begin with writing.

55. it begins with politics. civilization begins when the agricultural communities depart from proto-communism and establish a hierarchical structure to better face external pressures in the context of Humanity (and the new agricultural Dasein) being still new. hierarchy was the easiest way out of this, as it also kind of was in hunter-gatherer bands (which were never truly anarchic). and then it's the same story again, when in these hierarchical agricultural settlements Power inevitably concentrates in the hands of the few. this comes up as a result of tangential benefits both for the Master class, and the Slave class (the Master class offers protection and guidance, the Slave class offers their labor, and so it all works together). therefore, the beginning of civilization can really first be witnessed not through the creation of writing, but through the creation of walls, because such an effort in an agricultural community necessitated being a carrying out of orders of some form of Master class (be it an actual ruler/landlord or, most likely, a priestly class). where can we see walls being built for the first time? the proto-city of Jericho. this is extremely important, because the flawed modern notion of civilization is the beginning of writing. but really Jericho is where civilization began, this also weirdly legitimizes the Bible, or at least the biblical story. this already presents an accumulation of information and a further disintegration of the hunter-gatherer Dasein.

[Anonymous No.20694377]

>>20693813
Those things sound nice but in practice nothing is ever irredeemably falsified, any empirical test relies on non empirical assumptions and techniques and the choice of a research subject and technique often undermine the pretence of neutrality.

[Anonymous No.20694384]

>>20694377
>in practice nothing is ever irredeemably falsified
it doesn't just sound nice. it's just a formulation of the scientific method which Popper did not invent but which allowed the West to shift from pseudoscientific alternative woo unlike the Hindus and the chinks. so no. it doesn't just sound nice, it's a very powerful sieve because the number of plausible but unscientific explanations is near endless and yet you've got to focus on a few key ones because you can't put all of them to a test

[Anonymous No.20694387]

>>20693800
Popper said this in 1974, and changed his mind in 1978

[Anonymous No.20694469]

This neural network that we programmed to run on this computer totally proves evolution guyzzz.