Posts Tagged ‘Truth’

No Truth But Truth And Power Is Its Prophet

February 11, 2021

The outrageous core of pseudo philosophy can be defined by the claim that there is no such a thing as objective truth. It is not just the most inhuman insult, but it denies what enabled our species’ existence… Wisdom! “Sapiens”! How could there be wisdom without truth? The entire evolution of the genus Homo stands on achieving some truths. Enough truths to enable us to conquer the planet, the biosphere, and land on the Moon. The adversaries of our ancestors were extinguished, because they did not discover the most valuable truths fast enough. For example the truth of the atlatl, whose leverage made it possible for a javelin or dart to go much further, projecting power. Or the truth that clothing made of furs permitted Homo Ergaster to survive the winter in the Caucasus mountains… Two million years ago, on its way to conquer all of Eurasia. 

The dirtiest waters of the oceans of truths, are the deepest…

Pseudo Philosophers attacking truth thus attack the human genus, and human genius, the very idea of wisdom, itself. They are getting confused by the way one gets to truth: through debate, that is, socially. Always. Even the most precise science is always the result of social debates (among the scientifically minded). Science, let alone wisdom, is fundamentally cultural, thus social. It is a truism… Although of course it means that all and any inchoate system of thought will always come to the fore as a tribal phenomenon. That is not a show-stopper, because there is no other way. But it is a warning, a tribal warning… Even for Big Bang theory (not for classical optics, which is 100% true). 

So why is Pseudo Philosophy so popular? Because it is a cheap drug the established order wants We The People to be addicted to. Pseudo-philosophy attacks the notion of objective truth . If there is no objective truth, one cannot criticize systemic social inequality. Objective truth is the enemy of plutocracy, destroying it makes plutocracy free. And who is financing the top thinkeries (to use Aristophane’s word)? Plutocracy! So Plutocracy loves Pseudo Philosophy, as it hates truth. 

Foucault made some valuable contributions to thinking, sometimes. But pseudo-everything is generally more popular with plutocrats… who finance not just the “top” universities, but own the media, worldwide (or influence it in pseudo-public outfits). Thus the careers and salaries of thinkers will come only if they can engage in pseudo-wisdom of a type satisfying plutocracy. 

And that works, because real wisdom rising is harsh, contentious, cruel and brain-shattering: it is not friendly to the herd! And the herd wants comfort, pursue happiness! Deconstructing, and then reconstructing one’s brain is no small task, and it can be demeaning. The herd prefers to listen to pseudo-philosophers, all the more as, when pseudo-wisdom sings the praises of the established order, it is telling the herd that it lives in the best of all possible worlds… And the herd wants to hear that to be satisfied with its own sense of comfort…

In truth, there is not truth but the truth, and power is its prophet!

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S 1: That was a comment to the following pretty good essay, which told the truth about Foucault and other “postmodernists”:

Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

***

P/S 2:

I do not believe that there is no truth. One ought to define truth as what works (what else?) And of course there are lots of things which works, hence there are many truths. Yes, some quantum logicians have claimed quantum physics implies that there is “no truth”. It is a consequence of the many-world and multiverse interpretations of Quantum Physics. However those interpretations are not the only ones, there are other interpretations such as the De Broglie Pilot Wave, or objective collapse theories.

In any case, using the preceding definition of truth, if indeed somehow quantum logic implied that there is no truth, nothing would work. Maybe one should introduce virtual truth, namely operational neural networks… Which would work only as functioning brain circuitry (and not necessarily work as representations of the real world, namely what works out there). Those neural networks would incarnate Plato’s “forms”.Notice that a functioning neural network is a classical object. Whereas, an inchoate neural network is also surely partly an evolving quantum object. In general fundamental (quantum) processes are waves all over the place (that place is endowed with the structure of a Hilbert space), but in the end the process collapses down to points (the classical picture)… This is actually implies that virtual truths all over the place boil down to one 100% certain truth, in the end…

Did Socrates Say We Know Nothing? No! He Said The Exact Opposite! Why Plutocracy Pushes Cognitive Nihilism

February 9, 2021

We live in the age of cognitive and collective nihilism. Nothing really new there; Friedrich Nietzsche was already fighting the same exact mass psychology of ignorance extolled as wisdom… in Germany. That’s why the musician Nietzsche broke away from his friend the musician Wagner. (a German hypernationalistic racist) Nietzsche said the herd constituted by most Germans had become ignorant nationalistic brutes and terrible things would result from this. So Friedrich went to live in France and Italy, celebrating both cultures, and calling himself a Pole. Einstein, three decades later would follow a similar path, with similar (very justified) complaints.

A preferred tactic of Internet bullies, is to claim that Socrates would have said that he knew nothing, and, thus that it is the epitome of wisdom for Internet critters to say that their opponents know nothing, because, well, we know nothing. In particular Internet critters claim that whatever a superior interlocutor said in a cognitive dimension they didn’t even know existed, is irrelevant, because there is no knowledge in knowledge. 

Actually Socrates said the exact opposite of claiming that we knew nothing… And that we know plenty, and can know much more, and much better, is probably Socrates’ main message. The so-called Socratic method is a way to get to the truth, not just a s consequence, but as hypothesis. To claim the opposite is a piece of vicious disinformation. Actually, to tell the whole truth, the so-called Socrates method was probably invented as soon as language was. It is just the manner of improving ideas, hypotheses, observations and principles through a debate, by looking at all the consequences. When all the false stuff has been eliminated, the truth is left. 

The lie that Socrates claimed to be a cognitive nihilist was planted by Roman plutocrats four centuries after Socrates’ death, in an effort to devalue knowledge, all of knowledge

The Socratic Methods consists in conducting a succession of ever more refined thought experiments. The method is probably as old as language itself.

So now we have this paradox of people who think they are wise because they do as Socrates did, according to them, scrupulously knowing nothing and replacing this by frantic tribal howling (presently with the word “Trump” within in the USA, although that will pass soon). And they repeat what their owners told them to say, presently from media owned by the world’s wealthiest persons…

Socrates is viewed as a pillar of philosophy, yet Socrates wrote directly or indirectly, nothing. This is remarkable. By indirectly writing nothing I mean that we do not know of a text that Socrates originated: we have to take Plato’s word for it (and there are reasons to doubt Plato’s good judgement, namely his love affair with the tyrant of Syracuse). Whereas, for example, we know that it is Pericles’ wife, Aspasia of Miletus, who made explicit the concept of “Open Society”… a very important concept explicitly mentioned in the funeral oration given by Pericles… (We know this, because Pericles himself did not believe in the Open Society that much; clearly his wife forced him to extoll the Open Society…)… The concept of open Society was later picked and expanded upon by French Nobel laureate philosopher Henri Bergson, then Popper. By contrast the “Socratic Method” is something that Plato shows in various dialogues, conducted in pursuit of… the truth. The truth envisioned as axiomatics and consequences.

Thus, we have no direct evidence of Socrates’ thinking. Aristophanes, Xenophon and of course Plato mention Socrates. Aristophanes makes fun of Socrates for instituting a “thinkery“… if it sounds akin to a winery, this is no accident: Plato himself presents Socrates as having been the most depraved of men before he became a lover to the best, war hero, and finally beyond it all.. So the Socratic Method arose in the sort of circumstances that were rather informal… And we are not too sure in what Socrates really believed (the reason is that he may have had different political beliefs than Plato who was already an obvious right wing authoritarian…)

The result has been that many thoughts are attributed to Socrates which he did not have. As he and Plato are viewed (somewhat idiotically) as the fathers of philosophy, “philosophy” is then viewed as something it was never meant to be… Namely, a negation of knowledge. 

In particular many fake thinkers quote Socrates as saying that he only knew one thing, and that was that he knew nothing. Socrates did not say this, and actually in some places, as reported by Plato, Socrates says explicitly that he knows some things very well. 

Indeed, one of Socrates’ thought system insisted that specialized mental activities should be left to specialists who know the body of knowledge. That was Socrates’ main beef against Athenian style Direct Democracy, according to Plato. For example, Socrates-Plato points out, generals should be professionals, just as shoemakers are professionals.

Pretending that the “father of philosophy” (as the snobs love to say) said that we knew nothing is to claim that wisdom is not grounded in knowledge, and we may as well be a barnacle, knowing nothing while clinging to stuff. The “we know nothing mantra” is nihilism at its best.

That silliness, that Socrates said he knew nothing, was a lie invented 4 centuries later, in a civilization which wanted to know nothing, because knowing something was highly inconvenient: that society had Pluto Derangement Syndrome.

Roman society was busy devaluing wisdom, and thus knowledge. So Roman intellectual-prostitutes invented and glorified the cretin, by pretended that the highest wisdom was to claim one knew nothing, so that the idiotic greedy brutes could rule the world… as they do now… consider the Gamestop scandal, where the friends of the Treasury Secretary are involved, with their “Citadel”. So Yellen and company are worried that Internet critters conspired against the world’s wealthiest conspirators… Because the latter pay her, while the former do not… presumably…

Instead Socrates thought he could learn a lot by dialoguing with ignorant students. Learning from the naive and ignorant works quite a bit along the same principles as a heat pump…

The Internet is a cornucopia of the ignorant belching creative absurdities…

Socrates would have been delighted…

Patrice Ayme

Most Significant Truths Should Rule

November 25, 2020

Not all truths are created equal. Truth about what is most significant is of most significance. But awareness of signification itself comes from significant education… itself originating from a quest for most significant values.

And this is where what is called “French Theory” (in US elite universities), aka contemporary philosophy, comes short, because it tends to denies that hierarchies of significance are of any significance, which makes no sense as denial of signification is itself of the highest significance… And this sort of nihilism makes sense in a highly plutocratic society, and is a sign of it.

French Theory became popular because it was encouraged by stealth influencers (the CIA recognized it paid more than fifty influential French intellectuals in the 1950s), and their government sponsors, themselves sponsored by the Global Deep Plutocracy.

The essence of “French Theory” (a US academic recipe, using French ingredients!) is that all cultures are equally significant. Lévi-Strauss got the ball rolling, 80 years ago. The view has some merits inside, like diamonds in a rock matrix. However, brandished as an absolute truth it has also been used as a bludgeon against reason and the enlightenment.

Don’t just ask what is true, ask what, or whom, would value such a “truth”.

It it this author’s view that this is not by accident: “French Theory” has been sponsored at the highest level, precisely because it had the value of being a bludgeon against reason.

In practical US politics, it means all proffered opinions are beyond reason. This meta-mood is all over the political and social spectrum. And all what’s left then, is tribalism. This is why the New York Times rejected thousands of my comments: it made a tribal, not reasonable analysis of my comments on their merits. So, when I objected to Biden-Bush (proposed, then implemented) invasion of Iraq, the NYT would not look at my reasons: I was just classified as anti-American, a Jihadist. The Guardian (in the UK) operated the same way… and to this day bans me for that reason (!)

The most significant question is what should Lévi-Strauss derived equality of superficiality be replaced by? It is simple: good arguments and facts, alternative or not, should be extracted, refurbished and used. Trump’s wall started long ago with Cesar Chavez. Chavez knew that illegal or should-not-be-legal immigration was used by the plutocrats. That argument was, and is valid. That contemporary politicians use it should not be a question of colors.

Famously, Roman politics, when the fascist empire degenerated into catholic terrorism, had become just a question of colors. Gone were the ideas and intelligent debate. God could not be put into question. It was not red versus blue but rather green versus yellow. It lasted centuries, and civilization ultimately went extinguished (Rome/Constantinople called the Franks to the rescue in the Eleventh Century twice, and then was captured in 1207 and terminally by Muslim Turks in 1453).

So what is today’s god, forcing us into colors? Well, the mind makers, academia and the Pluto owned media. Their notion of truth of the highest significance is simple: whatever serves plutocracy is true, and the rest is “conspiracy theory”. “Factchecker” organization go as far as claiming that believing that the Deep US State had anything to do with Muslim Fundamentalism is “urban legend”. To show me how true that was the financier of “Factcheck.org” confronted me and threw my own nine year old daughter out of her bilingual school. His truth spanned the world, it was stronger than mine. All what matters in a plutocratic universe. The truth? How many billions?

Real progress will consist into making locally true arguments, no matter the consequences, as long as they don’t miss most significant facts visible to them. Further progress in understanding will be achieved by the opposite process, considering precisely which value(s) participants will attach to such truth(s). So we have to use a pincer approach on truth: the truth no matter what, in conjunction with coming from the other side, the meta approach of pondering what is the matter with that truth which makes it valuable, or toxic, to the actors involved…

Either side of the pincer will have to involve the genealogies of the attending logics… Not just coincidentally reminiscent of the famous “sum over histories” of the path integral approach to Quantum Mechanics… In truth reality, and thus truth is Quantum in more ways than one…

Patrice Ayme

Truth And Science Have Replaced Fangs and Claws In Human Beings

March 4, 2020

Science, and, more generally, truth, is a moral imperative.

Humanity has become a singularity, a nonlinear phenomenon: it has taken over the biosphere, and acts as a virus against anything alive. Climate change caused by humanity is exponentiating: it is growing ever faster at an increasing speed proportional to itself, as the direct impact of humanity is amplified by the natural effects it unleashes. 

Coronavirus is an effect of that exponentiation of humanity. If humanity’s nefarious impact is increasing, we need to exponentiate science too, to learn to compensate. That means much more financing, but also much more orientation of young people towards truth and knowledge, rather than towards the latest celebrity or sport figure. 

Science is not a new phenomenon: humanity evolved from it, and is its biological vector. It required quite a bit of knowledge to survive in the wild, 200,000 years ago, while being human, that meant without the fangs, claws, strength, or the trees to take refuge in, of the chimpanzees.  Humans became truth machines. 

Civilizations are characterized by their moods. Their attitude relative to science, and, more generally truth, is what determines their survival when facing ecological deperishment or devastation, and the attending invasions. An aggravating factor today is that we have one world civilization, using resources at several times the sustainable rate. 

 

The general increasing stupidification obvious in school test scores is caused by those who own the media, and have interest to keep humanity silly and unaware. 

 

***

Related to the preceding, Stephen Jones kindly congratulated me for my “Very thoughtful prose” on Masters of War, but wondered: What’s the beef with giving Nobel Prizes? That part didn’t resonate with me.

Thanks Stephen! I don’t like prizes in general, the way they are attributed now. One point is that the Nobel prizes are part of the establishment, that’s why Sartre declined his Nobel. The establishment behaves as the highest judge and donator, it’s all about mutual back scratching, at best. Giving prizes makes the thinking establishment acknowledging the superiority of the powers that be. That’s the wrong priority, as it turns truth into a way to create flesh and blood celebrities, as if this was the ultimate aim, all along, of thinking..

But that’s just part of the problem with prizes. Obama got a Nobel for no discernible accomplishment. All together, the establishment celebrates famous people… rather than famous ideas. And thus teached the youth that the celebrity of people is more important than the celebrity of ideas… Contrarily to what happens with young children.

Now this observation is not new: Albert Einstein didn’t get the Nobel for Relativity because the Nobel Committee knew Lorentz (who got the Nobel thanks to Poincare)… and Poincare, got the theory before… Still Einstein got the fame for Relativity, and that’s, actually, a theoretical problem (his approach denies a global frame… yet it exists, at least mathematically). So prizes: 1) reinforce the establishment. 2) do not put the fame where it should be… thus distancing from people what science is.

Are prizes necessarily bad? Am I sour because of what once happen with a prize of mine, long long time ago? Am I so anti-establishment because I am not part of it? Yes to all the preceding. Prizes could be mainly useful when they push ideas and authors who have been ignored, but deserve a good look.

At it is, the establishment is very monolithic, and prizes, medal, memberships, prestigious appurtenance and other ceremonial ribbons are what enables the establishment to claim gravitas, respect and diversity.

The freer wisdom is, the greater. And there is no better way to cage than with caresses…

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Notes: 1) The Nobel Com spread the disinformation that Einstein didn’t get his Nobel in 1921, for Relativity supposedly because Bergson didn’t like Local Time Theory. That is disinformation: Poincare, beefing up on Lorentz, invented this, Local Time. Bergson got the Nobel (in philosophy) later.

***

I developed my objections to prizes in early 2015…

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/how-plutocrats-buy-god/

And the NYT followed suit in the Fall:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/10/06/the-folly-of-big-science-prizes/

WANT HUMAN? FREE TRUTH! Instead, San Francisco Promotes Lying, While Hating History, Reality

June 30, 2019

GAFA AGE SAN FRANCISCO IS READY TO SPEND HUGELY TO DESTROY US HISTORY!  

Teaching US Children the USA Was Wonderful In The Past, Knew Neither Slavery, Nor Genocide, and big bad imperialistic white men: Curiously, and infuriatingly, this has become a (pseudo) progressive agenda. Or when false and fake progressives reveal their true nature.

***

The San Francisco school board unanimously decided to spend at least $600,000 of taxpayer money not just to shroud a historic work of art but to DESTROY it. Destruction of historical art is paramount for San Francisco leaders, so as to deny, and definitively erase, the reality of what happened in the USA: slavery and genocide. According to the SF School Board, US high school students should never be exposed to such notions.

In other words, San Francisco wants to succeed where the Nazis failed: claim there was never any holocaust, no slavery. Especially not in the US. Nothing to see, nothing to learn, for ever and ever, during the great San Francisco 1,000 Year Uber Reich. 

***

The Terror Of Politically Correct Self-Contradicting Imbeciles:

One of the commissioners, Faauuga Moliga, said that his chief concern was that “kids are mentally and emotionally feeling safe at their schools.” Thus he wanted “the murals to be painted down.” Mark Sanchez, the school board’s vice president, later told the New York Times that simply concealing the murals wasn’t an option because it would “allow for the possibility of them being uncovered in the future.Destroying them was worth it regardless of the cost, he argued at the hearing, saying, “This is reparations.”

So, according to this foolish reasoning, the way to “repair” what happened in Auschwitz and several thousands other Nazi extermination camps, is to erase all memory, and any traces of it. Washington and Hitler would become great men of history, who never engaged in racism, slavery and holocausts.

Those pseudo-”progressive” people as on this school board, are truly so stupid that they are becoming insane. 

Why insane? Because they want progress, but then they claim the past was perfect. So why to progress? From a perfect past? And since when can we progress from lies alone?

In a typical posture of his, Washington, as depicted in the mural San Francisco would pay any price to destroy, orders to proceed with “Manifest Destiny”, genocide, slavery, all the blood and injustice which made the US as it is. No good US citizen should ever know that real factual truth about the Founding Fathers, say the Snow Flakes. And that the USA was established through the most successful genocidal holocaust in the history of humanity. At least this is what the school board of San Francisco believe. Hitler would have gone to their feet and embrace them.

New York Times: 

“These and other explanations from the board’s members reflected the logic of the Reflection and Action Working Group, a committee of activists, students, artists and others put together last year by the district. Arnautoff’s work, the group concluded in February, “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” The art does not reflect “social justice,” the group said, and it “is not student-centered if it’s focused on the legacy of artists, rather than the experience of the students.

And yet many of the school’s actual students seemed to disagree. Of 49 freshmen asked to write about the murals, according to The Times, only four supported their removal. John M. Strain, an English teacher, told The Times’s Carol Pogash that his students “feel bad about offending people but they almost universally don’t think the answer is to erase it.”

Which makes one wonder who these bureaucrats actually seek to protect. Is it the students? Or could it also be their reputations, given that those in favor of preserving the murals are being smeared as racists?”

The work was made by a famous Communist artists, and it is 80 years old (that’s antique by California standards). The short of it is that the San Francisco Bay Area, long at the forefront of thinking, is now wrecked by the mentality of avid greedsters, who know only one thing that is greater than greed, and this is to cover-up what they are really doing. They want to erase any suspicion that they are what they truly are. So they scream they are anti-racist, or, as Google used to, order us “not to be evil”. This all started with Reaganism [1]

In this mural, African origin slaves can be observed. Female black ladies slaves are working the cotton fields in the background. So it was. The WPA paid for the work and the artist had been taught by the great Mexican master of social consciousness rising throughs murals, Diego Rivera. The WPA was the Work Progress Administration, crucial part of the New Deal, full of socialists, leftists and outright communists.

The Murals of Washington High were detested by the McCarthyists, but there was never any talk of destroying them. That was inconceivable. One didn’t destroy art, even in Nixon-McCarthy witch hunt USA.

New York Times: “By now stories of progressive Puritanism (or perhaps the better word is Philistinism) are so commonplace — snowflakes seek safe space! — that it can feel tedious to track the details of the latest outrage. But this case is so absurd that it’s worth reviewing the specifics.

Victor Arnautoff, the Russian immigrant who made the paintings in question, was perhaps the most important muralist in the Bay Area during the Depression. Thanks to President Franklin Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration, he had the opportunity to make some enduring public artworks. Among them is “City Life” in Coit Tower, in which the artist painted himself standing in front of a newspaper rack conspicuously missing the mainstream San Francisco Chronicle and packed with publications like The Daily Worker.

Arnautoff, who had assisted Diego Rivera in Mexico, was a committed Communist. “‘Art for art’s sake’ or art as perfume have never appealed to me,” he said in 1935. “The artist is a critic of society.”

This is why his freshly banned work, “Life of Washington,” does not show the clichéd image of our first president kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. Instead, the 13-panel, 1,600-square-foot mural, which was painted in 1936 in the just-built George Washington High School, depicts his slaves picking cotton in the fields of Mount Vernon and a group of colonizers walking past the corpse of a Native American.

“At the time, high school history classes typically ignored the incongruity that Washington and others among the nation’s founders subscribed to the declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ and yet owned other human beings as chattel,” Robert W. Cherny writes in “Victor Arnautoff and the Politics of Art.”

***

Fighting the Red Coats, Burning Tea And Currency… More Washington High Murals

Washington was heir of a prominent military English American family. He owned hundreds of slaves. Urged by his friend and savior Lafayette to free them, Washington used weasel words, in correspondence with him, for years, to shirk his responsibility. New York Times:

“In other words, Arnautoff’s purpose was to unsettle the viewer, to provoke young people into looking at American history from a different, darker perspective. Over the past months, art historians, New Deal scholars and even a group called the Congress of Russian Americans have tried to make exactly that point.

“This is a radical and critical work of art,” the school’s alumni association argued. “There are many New Deal murals depicting the founding of our country; very few even acknowledge slavery or the Native genocide. The Arnautoff murals should be preserved for their artistic, historical and educational value. Whitewashing them will simply result in another ‘whitewash’ of the full truth about American history.”

Before any mental creation comes truth. Truth is established from real facts, not fake news, and big lies. Yesterday’s facts rule today’s horrors. If one wants to eradicate the latter, one has to understand the former.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/wrong-history-wrong-philosophy-nazi-lies-still-ruling-in-2015/

It is a fact that the North American English colony was founded, and prospered, thanks to genocide and slavery. Slavery was initially that of the whites (indentured servants), but, after a few years slavery became that of  Native Americans, and then imported Africans. Slavery permitted industrial culture of tobacco which made the English Colony highly profitable. Genocide was encouraged by New England cities which paid for Native scalps. Land was gained, one scalp at a time.    

Those brutal, homicidal social structures were transmitted to the USA, which pursued slavery and genocide on an even greater scale. That’s somewhat known… But other facts have been forgotten: the argument has been made that the true motivation of the American War of Independence was not the scandal of taxation without representation, but the fact that British authorities prevented European colonists to invade Native American lands (such as the Ohio Valley where Colonel Washington had important investments). Surely partisans of the established order will not entertain such a possibility.   

Are the facts of English American colonization, and of the USA for much of its history terrible? Yes. But the only thing more terrible than terrible history is to deliberately deny it ever happened. Happened. Indeed, the USA was born in extreme violence and that explains why, to this day, for example in health care or guns, or extreme inequality, extreme violence is felt to be the normal order of things.

In Nazi Germany, the Holocaust of the Jews was rendered possible only because the (Nazi) authorities succeeded to hide the truth enough from most of the German population that plausible denial could be brandished. The will to hide the truth is as inhuman as it gets: indeed, it defeats the essence of human beings, who are truth machines (Eat enough mice, and truth will come out)

Truth can be, often is, inhuman, it’s most human to uncover it… And then one needs to explain it, prior to re-engineer the reality that truth was depicting into something more humane. There is nothing more important to teach to children… through countless examples. 

Instead, nowadays, a mood has arisen that truth should be hidden, guided by the will to total comfort all the time: hedonism gone mad, not just lazy. This deplorable mentality is what is needed to keep on going with the mass extinction of the biosphere, doing nothing about it.

That mood festers particularly in the San Francisco Bay, a land of contradiction. How come so many contradictions? Think of it: to commit a crime, it’s generally easier, or even necessary, to hide it, so one needs a cover-up. The cover-up is best, when it completely hides reality. So crimes and cover-ups denying them tend to cohabit. And the more, and deeper the crimes, the more outrageous and extensive the cover-ups. 

A lot of the business model in high tech applications has consisted in running ahead of the law, with the complicity of bought off politicians (such as found in the Obama administration [2]).

***

It All Happened Before: Rome Also Collapsed in an hypocrisy called Christianism so immense, and so insane, that all of desired reality came to be known as the “Apocalypse”: 

Covering up reality with its opposite fosters insanity, because the appearances are the opposite of reality, and then people have to engage in ideologies enabling this schizophrenia. See Brexit [3]. This is exactly why Roman Catholic Orthodoxy (Christianism) became the state religion of the collapsing Roman empire, where the truth was that a tiny .1% minority, the plutocracy, in combination with the military dictatorship, was exploiting nearly all the GDP, while the rest of the population was living in ever more horrendous conditions… 

To deny that reality, Christianism said it was all for the best, as the collapse of civilization would bring the apocalypse, and then the Messiah would return. And only then (the same schema holds in Islam).

Real progressives assess reality better than those stuck in the past. To fail to discern between the depiction of a thing and the endorsement of a thing one learns to do when one is a small child. To look at the painting above and to conclude that it “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, Manifest Destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.” is apparently an example of how folly brings infamy. But the motivation below this may be even worse. There may be a method to the folly: greed once again…

The San Francisco Bay Area is increasingly dominated by the ideology of pleasing the wealthiest men in the world. The first thing those plutocrats want, is that we take leave from reality and our common senses. That plutocratically fostered insanity starts with saying art is not art, and history didn’t happen, because it shouldn’t have happened.

The rest of the world is forewarned: the world’s center of high tech is becoming mad… Yes, remember the fish rots by the head (same happened to France, not so much in 1940, rather than after the Second World War, during so-called “decolonization and “French Theory”, as I have explained extensively). 

The assault against reality was planned by the powers that be, and instigated by their sycophants masquerading as “antifa” or “progressives”, or “liberals”, “snow flakes”, etc. Verily, they are just obnoxious pigeons obsessed by crumbs, ready to feel and think anything to get some more… of whatever they believe they desperately need. 

Want human? Free truth!

Patrice Ayme

***

***

[1] In the 1980s, top Democrats came to collaborate with Reagan (except for Trump, who fought Reagan to death). It was all a huge and gigantic lie. David Stockman, Reagan budget director, explained that “trickle down”, Reagan economic program passed by O’Neil and other Democrats, the policy of advantaging the wealthiest was all hidden below a big lie: 

“It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down,’ so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.

— David Stockman, The Atlantic…

Thereafter, all the way to the end of Obama’s second term, Reagan was the big lie which kept on giving… to the plutocrats, and an increasing unequal society.  It’s no coincidence that Trump, who opposed Reagan, came up and screamed to all they didn’t know what reality was. Notice I am not embracing Trump here. Simply pointing out that Alternative facts and Alternative Reality, didn’t wait Ms. Conway to rule contemporary politics.

And here is the crux: As that big lie, that the Reagan policies would help the Commons, whereas in truth, they were designed to foster plutocracy, worked basically four decades, all of society, even the rabid low lives opposed to it, learned to lie…

***

[2] Some have accused me to have Obama Derangement Syndrome (I invented the TDS diagnostic, so that was amusing). However, I observed with glee, that, in the last few weeks, a bipartisan and Democratic Congress-Trump White House effort has been launched against the top tech monopolies that Obama took his orders from, and which are now the world’s most powerful companies… and most stealing companies…

***

[3] Brexit claims to want to Make England Great Again, but all the MEGA it will bring will be British implosion (and that’s bad for the UNSC!) So it self-contradicts: the way to keep the UK strong is to make it the spine of Western Europe, with nuclear armed France….

 

Truth Makes No Sense. Sense We Make. As Love We Do!

January 8, 2019

The truth doesn’t make sense. Truth doesn’t have to make sense. Because WE, humans, not truth, make all the sense there is, and all the senses, there are in the world. Giving senses to truth is what WE do.

Truth doesn’t have to make sense, but we need to make sense… to survive. Truth is eternal, its survival not a problem, and truth doesn’t need to remember stuff. Truth just is, it is what is. Another word for truth is reality. We don’t know all there is, neither does truth, because truth doesn’t know anything. Truth is what is. Truth is not what proffers meaning. That we do.

Then the question naturally arises: what is meaning? What does meaning mean? (One is condemned to read until the end of this essay to find out!)

We, on the other hand, need to well-order reality (in the mathematical sense) to create causality chains, little stories in our minds we can act upon, reflecting what is… Pieces of truth, enough of them, we need, in order to survive.

Making Sense is our Prerogative. And only ours.

A simple truth about humanity is that it needs faith… to think. That explains much, excuses a lot, while complicating everything. Yet it doesn’t mean anything goes.

Exposed to this truth, many a scientist or rationalist, of the shallow persuasion, will scoff. They are wrong. They use faith everyday, and especially them.

Thus the great mathematician Alexandre Grothendieck once discovered that the (French) military secretly financed his own Institut des hautes études scientifiques (IHÉS) . Grothendieck was fiercely, and loudly, anti-militaristic. Grothendieck had founded IHÉS (with Dieudonne, another French mathematician). Being militarily funded violated what Grothendieck called “one of his axioms”. So Grothendieck resigned and gave up math, at the grand old age of 42.

Grothendieck’s “axioms” were his faith: he had faith in his axioms. All and any axiomatic system is a system of faith. Axioms can be ridiculous, like the Axiom of Parallels (known to be false in spherical geometry, which Pytheas of Marseilles had used, contemporaneously with Euclid…)  

Truth makes no sense, but we have to make sense, and not just on the blackboard! Grothendieck, 1960s… IHES…

Grothendieck was very clever with his mathematics, much of it related to Category Theory applied to Algebraic Geometry. He didn’t realize that it was the military which had saved him from extermination in 1944, by killing the Nazis. In his memoirs, hiding in the French woods, as an ex-German Jew, and child, he didn’t realize that his life was at the most extreme risk…. He said this himself in his memoirs. But shouldn’t have he realized, when reflecting on his lack of reflection then, that the military, in particular the French military and the FFI (Forces Francaises de l’Interieur) saved his life?

Shouldn’t Grothendieck have been grateful? Just 30 years earlier, the French military had been defeated by the Nazis and forced, by traitors to accept a ceasefire, leading to the Holocaust of the Jews (if the French military had kept on fighting, from the Mediterranean, the Wehrmacht would have been unable to attack the Soviet Union, and thus to massacre all the millions of Eastern European Jews it did massacre, with the help of the SS and other PhD endowed nuts…)

Here we confront a problem with scientists: they love to pose against the grain, spurning truth. It’s not just the likes of John Lennon who do. Lennon’s loud screaming for peace, was coincident with similar poses from the likes of Bertrand Russell, and company. Some will point out it was the time of the Vietnam War. Right. However, whatever it was, the Vietnam War was no holocaust, nor genocide. Right, it was no good. But still, no genocide. Meanwhile genocides were conducted in Canada and Australia, very discreetly, against the Aborigines. They could be conducted, those genocides, because they were, and are, discrete.

All those protesters protesting against something else, not so clearly significant, as if it were the end of the world, contributed, by raising loud red herrings, to make those genocides safe (for the whites to conduct) and effective (by separating children and parents, ravaged, acculturated adults were sure to come about, and further disappear the aboriginal population in crucial parts of the Anglosphere, through all sorts of depressions, abuse and drug addictions….

Truth is what made us. Made us as a society, a civilization, a species, an ethics, a psychobiology, a force that goes, a will, a hope, an arrow of time… Denying truth is denying our creator.

Patrice Ayme

 

TRUTH IS WHAT WORKS

August 1, 2017

Debating what “Truth” means is not new, and has been a very hot subject not just in the Twelfth Century Paris’ Cathedral School/University (when the great philosopher Abelard fiercely, at the risk of his life, opposed Saint Bernard about launching a Second Crusade).

Some of the greatest names in philosophy and foundations of physics  or logics of the Twentieth Century have thrived in questioning the notion of truth (Karl Popper, Einstein, Heisenberg, Jules Henri Poincaré,  for physics; Alfred Tarski, Carnap, Russell, Robinson, and many others, for logics).

As usual, just as Nietzsche made philosophy with a hammer, I deconstruct it with an H-bomb (melting all these hammers in the process). My conception of truth is simple, I have no time to twist truth is all direction, in the hope of being tolerated by all and ideologies. Why would be clear by the end of the essay (where the venom is located, as in the scorpion’s tail).

I will try to approach the truth about truth, by answering some of the comments of Eugen R, a dedicated commenter on this site, in the hope some would have similar position. I know plenty well enough that postmodernism basically asserted there was no truth (that makes Foucault’s .

***

Eugen: Science is just an instrument, how can be an instrument truth or false?

Answer: Science is what humans do. “Science” comes from the Latin for “to know”. One may then ask what “knowing” is. “Knowing” is what can be checked experimentally. Many animals use tools. Chimps who break hard nuts with stones are practicing science. They know that the stone will enable to extract the delicious innards.

Notice in passing that all advanced animals have culture: they transmit science to fellow creatures: it’s unlikely that chimpanzees,, or gorillas learn their entire pharmacopeia of plants they know (more than 50) by the experimental method (especially as some plants can be deadly). Transmitting science can be viewed as the definition of both culture and “advanced”.

Eugen: “Is science about finding out the truth”. The answer is no. Science is about to try to understand the non-understandable.

Answer: Well, scientific RESEARCH is about to try to understand what’s not understood. An attempt to stand-under. For example, there is NO science of Sub Quantum Reality. Not yet. But there are attempts to elaborate some (String Theory, Supersymmetry, SQPR: Sub Quantum Patrice Reality).

If you told a prehistoric man that Earth is round, like a ball, he would have asked what a ball is. So one would have had first to make him understand what a ball is. To understand the shape of the Earth, one needs to have a modicum of mathematics most two years old have now, but prehistoric man didn’t.

Eugen: Science also limits itself only to the natural phenomena, that can be experimentally observed.

Answer: Ex-per means out (ex) trying (per, a Proto Indo-European root). There are three ways to acquire knowledge: experimentation, culture and… FAITH (here we come!)

Some will be stupefied by the preceding. Faith??? What has faith to do with it? Everything: everybody climbing up into an aeroplane, has faith. Faith in thousands of engineers, mechanics, the laws of physics, and the pilots. Faith is what anchors knowledge into certainty (take that, Jihadists and priests).

Therein a hierarchy: because both culture and faith ultimately depend upon experiments.

Science, as a body of knowledge, not as a method, is a set of logics each unifying bodies of experiments each defining elements of TRUTH(s).

That definition also fits mathematics itself (mathematicians experiment with baby examples, and then write overarching theories unifying those baby examples; an example is that the definition of curvature for sphere, thought of in general enough a fashion, provides with a definition for the curvature for a saddle)

***

Eugen: As science advances with its understanding of the reality, and developing new sophisticated instruments, like the Hadron Collider, which is in a way extension of our limited human senses, it slowly pushes the limits of what is field of scientific research and what is not. For example the phenomena of life and consciousness were taboo for scientific research until recently.

Answer: Entirely true. For example Galileo’s X30 magnification telescope enabled to observe mountains on the moon and four satellites around Jupiter.

CRISPR allows gene editing, and thus for us to control our fate more than ever before. AI and the Quantum Computer, let alone neurology, enable us to become life and consciousness creators. We will have to elucidate what true progress really consists of, before creating with CRISPR all over. Not only we have become gods, but we have to admit it. Hence it’s all the more important that we tighten up the notion of truth, and not leave it for Jihadists and plutocrats to design, and impose truth according to their self-interested whims.

NO TRUTH, NO MORALITY

[I am very critical of the cult of Gandhi, considering what happened after he got control of India: more than ten million dead, and counting. However, I do use the occasional quote, and not just to keep my cynicism in shape…]

Eugen: Science also doesn’t ask if this or that finding about reality, even if thousand times experimentally verified, is truth or not. Science is claiming hypothesis that can be verified or refuted. If refuted, then the hypothesis is not valid, if verified, it means, it still was not refuted.

Answer: You start to sound like Karl Popper, who thought that science was all about refutation. But when a crow uses a spike to extract insects from tree bark, you are not going to tell the crow that it didn’t refute that the spike couldn’t be used to extract insects. The crow would, rightly, think you don’t know how to think.  

Popper thought too much about refutation. Sure, that’s how truth is established, so what? When a massive bell is tuned, metal is carefully removed by a lathe, until the bell sounds the right (“true”) tune.

In general, to find out what’s true, one eliminates what’s (experimentally) false. Initially Galileo looked at Jupiter and noted the “chance” alignment of several tiny stars with Jupiter and the ecliptic plane. The next night, looking at Jupiter on a whim, he noticed the “stars” had moved with Jupiter. So the hypothesis that they were “stars” was erroneous. Truth was established by elimination.

***

Eugen: Truth is a very different phenomenon. Truth, either you believe or you don’t.

Answer: No. In the entire human experience, truth is experimentally determined. Truth is why planes fly. Truth is experimentally determined, even in mathematics (and that’s the difference between mathematics and pure logics, where the notion of truth is much more restricted and still a matter of debate)

***

Eugen: You can’t prove or disprove truth.

Answer: This is the situation, only in pure logic, where “truth” is introduced by axioms (“propositional logic”), and, externally, by the universe within which the logic sits (the “context” in usual human parlance; there true propositions are introduced by hand). Still, it’s less easy than it looks as extremely elaborated debates on the notion of truth, even in this arena of logic and metalogic, was intensely debated around the 1950s (with unclear resolution; my conclusions about truth in logic are mine alone, and tend to simplify, if not oversimplify…)

In mathematics, baby examples are true (inasmuch as their axioms are true; many axioms were long implicit, even in Euclid and Archimedes… Or in today’s math. If you tell that to a research mathematician, s/he will often tend to get very angry…)

***  

Eugen: Patrice spoke about Euclidean geometry as being truth. Yes within its limited frame as a closed system or as Patrice called it, “attached context” it is truth. The same can be said about sentence like, “the water has property of wetness”. It is truth always, after all wetness can’t exist without water, and water can’t be not wet. But exactly as in case of wetness of water, Euclidean geometry, is only a system of words within themselves.

Answer: 1) water is not always “wet”. Ice is slippery as long as it is covered by a thin film of water. Without it, solid water is adherent. Pluto has towering ice mountains.

2) Science has found water is mostly H2O (there is some heavy water too: D2O).

3) Euclidean geometry is NOT just a “system of words”. It’s a system of words and a system of implications (either explicit, or implicit: all logic, except computer programming, contains implicit semantic drift). All together Euclidean Geometry is a logic, a “logos”.

The Christians were crafty enough, in the beginning to make “The Logos” GOD. That seduced the Neo-Platonists who ruled the empire, just below the plutocratic level. That was the bait.

Right now, many US pilots pass out in their jets: a F22 Raptor, the most sophisticated fighter in the US arsenal, crashed in 2010 that way, and the pilot, captain Haynes, was killed. Others followed since. Entire types were grounded at times for weeks. The entire fleet is affected, including F16s, F35s, etc. The cause is unknown. Some guess that the cause has to do with the very complicated software which controls the air given to the pilots and their pressure suits (one needs pressure to breathe at altitude…) This problem is still unsolved. Why? The truth has not yet been found.

***

Fake News, The Passion for Fiction, etc:

The Nobel Prize in literature was not given to non-fiction authors, for half a century (until Belarusian Svetlana Alexievich). You know people such as yours truly, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russel, Bergson, etc. Why? Because nonfiction is an inconvenient truth. Fiction writing is, by definition, not true, with fake news, fake creatures, and fake reality all around. Alexievich, a Bielorusian, implicitly criticizing the Bielorusian dictatorship, is safely removed from the leading dictating elite of the planet, so she is free to tell all the truths she wants… We may as well encourage her, to distract the Commons…

It’s no coincidence that France has seen its prominent industry collapse in recent decades, the mood turn gloomy, while so many French truths turned to lies. Naturally enough, France is now the most tobacco drugged out advanced country, especially young women. Something not right in France, just there! At the same time, the French writing establishment is obsessed with fiction. And out there roll out another sort of fake news: insipid “novels” which have nothing novel about them.

Lest the denizens of the sister Republic, the USA, start to chuckle, I will point out that the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies were fueled on so many lies (“Look at me, I’m brown, thus who cares that inequality is the highest ever, thanks to eight years of my policies??… which were actually mostly those of Clinton-Bush, where it counted most“). Thus the drug epidemics in the USA is now the most lethal ever. Opiates alone kill more than either guns or car. Why? Average people want to forget the lies. That’s also why they voted for Trump (who, at the very least, is more entertaining than the look-at-my-skin type… First orange hair is funnier than bronze skin…)

Most of the establishment has been intoxicated on its fake news, fake pre-occupations, etc. What it takes to sail a sea of lies.

***

Truth Is What Works:

When what was well-known before has been proven false, what is left is the truth. What does “truth” mean? It means that, when making a tool, or following a procedure while avoiding all known errors we end up with a tool, or procedure which works, something which is “true”. Because whatever does not work is an error.

It’s not very difficult to understand. But of course people who are in power are there because of an ideology, a system of thought, and, for them, that is the tool which is true, because it works for them.

It’s precisely because truth is what works that ideologies are true for their practitioners. But they are not THE TRUTH.

THE TRUTH, within, or about, an ideology, any ideology, even one with scientific pretense, is what’s left when an ideology’s lies have been detected and rejected.

Part of the mental intoxication from the elite has been to pretend that truth is all relative, can’t be proven, does not exist, never has, never will, and the “postmoderns” have been their prophets, while eating caviar and drinking champagne, while encouraging hard core Islam, and giving a pass to all things plutocratic. Weapons have been few and far between… Until Trump, a live Molotov cocktail to throw at the establishment.

Truth is what works: a definition of truth which works, a definition which is not supporting faith denying truth, the latter being the sort of faith I have no faith in!

If truth is what works, as I believe, the state of the planet is proof enough that we are collapsing under the weight of lies and errors ruling us into oblivion. Amen.

Patrice Ayme’

All We Need Is Truth

July 30, 2017

People are simple. And love to be simple. That’s why, for most of them, aside from their profession, all they know is “sports”, and it’s a new religion. Being complicated is expensive.

One commenter on my site, Benign, apparently obfuscated by my broadside against the delirious sexism of past and present Catholicism, called me deluded to think that “rationality” even exists. Evolution does not “progress.” The Soviets “rationally” outlawed marriage from ~1918 to the 1940s, before realizing that this “rational” decision didn’t work.”

The USSR outlawed marriage???????? Same source which saw them drinking blood of “capitalists”? Logic is easy, truth is hard.

Modernist, Postmodernist, Metamodernist Jargon Is Jargon, and jargon ain’t truth! “Meta”, though, is a serious operation we all practice. See “Mind From Meta“.

Marriage is a fact of human ethology, the natural behavior of humans. To outlaw it would not have been irrational, because reason can always be found, but futile, as going against marriage goes against human nature. This is exactly why the Soviets didn’t outlaw marriage: they were not that dumb.

By the late 1920s, Soviet adults had been made more responsible for the care of their children, and common-law marriage had been given equal legal status with civil marriage. Is that what Benign alludes to? By 1944, the Soviets went back, and recognized only legal civil marriage, to encourage more steady families.

Rationality exists, but as I have emphasized in the past, as a constant rolling of the drums, a logic can be anything. That evolution “progresses” is a battle from 1800 CE, when Lamarck asserted this thesis. It’s correct: clearly some of today’s lifeforms are the most complex ever.  Some day all biologists will proudly view Lamarck as right, and their predecessors of the 1960s, who were fanatically anti-Lamarck, as deluded bigots.

How do I know Lamarck was right? Tons of knowledge that those who scream Lamarck was a maniac (following the slave master Napoleon) never heard of these tons, they are children.

To see evolution’s progress, don’t look at sharks, or oysters, and other animals in evolutionary stasis. Instead, look at Blue Rorquals, most massive animals ever, & look at us, most clever. The most advanced animals are the most complex, and they are complex in ways beyond what we understand of genetics.

Beatles sang: “All You Need Is Love!”. Silly stuff: we all got love, otherwise we won’t exist. We have all the logics, at our disposal, and all the love we got as children.

To order and discipline our logic, and even our loves, most of what we need is truth

“Postmodernism” was the realization that many ideologies were the fruit of tribalism, not truth (as they malevolently claimed). This is not really new. See  vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au-delà de Pascal (a thought unpublished in his lifetime: truth before the Pyrénées, error beyond them)..

“Deconstruction” consisted in finding out where things came from. It’s not conceptually different from analysis (a unloosening), a concept found in Aristotle, and obvious centuries before him.

All this is to say that those who have pretended to introduce new ways of thinking about thinking have eschewed the truth: there is no truth, but truth, and, in the human species, it’s as old as dinner . There is no truth, but truth! In the human species, truth is as old as dinner. No truth, no dinner for the human, but one for the lion. The truth was in the dinner. In how to get dinner!

Right, truth is dangerous, because some claim to have it, and they don’t. But they always have, and always will. The Wise can’t go around, claiming they don’t have the truth, as Socrates did, or, worse, as Socrates claimed again and again, and the self-declared “post-modernists” parroted, that there is no truth… Because if they do that, they do exactly what German Jews (among others) did with Hitler and his Nazis: leave a wide open field for infamy to proclaim its own version of truth. And everybody, or, at least, most Germans, believed them. And others, like most Americans, pretended that it was OK with them.

The scientific method does NOT opposes the notion of truth, as those who have only a shallow knowledge of pop science are all too often led to believe. It’s exactly the opposite. Euclid’s theorem or the classical laws of optics are still true… They are actually more true than ever. In their domain of application. They are more true than ever, precisely because now we know where their domain of application came from. In other words, we control their meta-logic. We know where their truth come from, and where it’s located. And how to control it.

There is no logic without a metalogic, establishing therein, a notion of truth. Thinking is, and always was, an experimental process.

All we need is truth. But it’s the hardest thing. Truth never was, nor will ever be, a safe place. But it’s the safest place.

Patrice Ayme’

Truths May, and Will, Vary

April 25, 2017

“Arum Lily”, Zantedeschia Aethiopica is a species of flowering plant in the family Araceae, native to southern Africa in Lesotho, South Africa, and Swaziland. Here it is, south of San Francisco:

Arum Lily. In California, authorities hate French Broom, a very pretty and soft plant, which often displace the horrendous native, Poison Oak. Poison Oak can kill. However, Californian authorities believed it was moral to use poison to eradicate the French Broom and a species related to artichokes, with enormous ecological damage. Just because of the erroneous belief that immigrants have to be eradicated, even if they looked innocuous.

This is a perennial plant from South Africa, an immigrant to California (and much of the rest of the temperate world). A vegetal Elon Musk which has taken root, literally (Musk is from South Africa).

Some hate immigrants. It was long an obvious ecological truth that immigrant species were necessarily evil. However, the most recent scientific studies show that immigrant life forms are not necessarily bad. Immigrants can help the ecology by replacing disappeared taxa. An example is Tasmanian Blue Gums giving shelter to Californian Monarch butterfly (endangered).

Just as with artichokes and French Broom, Californian authorities embarked on an eradication campaign of giant Blue Gum Eucalyptus, without planting other trees to replace them. Result? Poison Oak, which grows extremely fast in any place disrupted by human activity, exploded, and a drought occurred (one could argue). Another result is that the Californian Monarch, which had learned to reside in the immigrant Blue Gums, is now nearly eradicated… Some will point the finger at Neonicotinoids, no doubt responsible, as was a de facto eradication campaign of native “Milkweed”. Neonicotinoids, a new type of insecticides, eradicated bees worldwide (and were outlawed in France in 1999…)

Wherever Europeans went, they brought European fauna and flora with them, displacing and replacing local species (even indigenous bees). This curious superiority of all things European is no accident: immigration to Europe has long been massive, it has been extremely diversified, for millions of years. As Nietzsche, said, Europe could say:’What does not kill me, makes me stronger!’ Europe is actually a cocktail of immigrants (even the Celts are immigrants, even much European agriculture, let alone Cro Magnon Man descended from immigrants, and… so did Neanderthals…)

In matters scientific, truths are often rendered quite different, under closer inspection. Although the scientific method didn’t change since there are humans, and they made tools, scientific truths continually evolve significantly. The concept of time itself has endured enormous changes in the last 140 years, and there are two of them, quite different and opposed, as we try to think today. The principle dogmas of biology have been shown to be just this, obsolete dogmas (cephalopods modify their genetics in real-time, and there is evidence that’s connected to their intelligence: the more intelligent a cephalopod, the more it can modify it’s RNA).

Truth in some textbooks, lies beyond them. Science is not a cult with dogma, aside from the obligation of thinking anew.

Patrice Ayme’

TRUTH, SCIENCE: CONSTRUCT, Only Then Try To Falsify

December 24, 2016

The notion of truth is central to the human condition. “Belief”, “Faith” claim to solve it. But there is a better way: dynamics.

BUILD, THEN VERIFY: HOW SCIENCE & TRUTH PROGRESS. TRUTH IS AN ECOLOGY.

Popper’s Error: Science Is Not Just About Falsification. Science Is Construction First, Falsification Later:

Abstract: ‘Falsification’ ruled 20th-century science. However, falsification was always second to construction. First construct, only then falsify. Why? As simple as it gets: One cannot falsify something that one has not constructed.

So what is truth? For a hint: look at biological evolution: in a way evolution is a truth, any species solves a number of problems it is confronted to. (It could be the Ebola virus: the virus solves the problem of its own survival.) I will show truths are also denizens of an evolutionary process. (Leaving the Bible’s Logos in the dust…)i

***

Detailed Examples Show That Falsification Is Always Second To Construction: the heliocentric theory jumps to mind.

Heliocentrism (Earth rotates around the Sun) was first proposed by the astronomer Aristarchus (320 BCE). At least so said Archimedes. The arguments were lost. However, Aristotelian physics was in the way. PPP Carefully Looking At The Phases Of Venus Falsified The Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System

Buridan (~ 1345 CE) demolished Aristotelian physics (no, islamophiles, Buridan was indeed first). Armed with his correct inertial theory, Buridan proposed that Earth turned around the sun. But he could not prove it. Copernicus said more of the same two centuries later: yet it could not be proven.

The philosophical argument had been known for 18 centuries: the Sun was the bigger thing, so the smaller thing, Earth, should rotate around the bigger thing. (Maybe some Ancient Greeks thought about another argument, relative to speed: if the Sun turned around, in just a day, its speed had got to be enormous; enormous speeds were unfriendly; if Earth rotated around, it needed to rotate on itself: would the clouds fly away? Aristotle’s erroneous physics said so, but Buridan explained  that Aristotle’s arrow experiment was false, by introducing rotary inertia.

Kepler came out with his laws, a stupendous achievement. Still one could not prove heliocentrism definitively. It had become the simpler description, though, by a long shot. 

Falsification Of The Egocentric Ptolemaic System Was Only Provided By The Goddess Venus

Falsification Of The Egocentric Ptolemaic System Was Only Provided By The Goddess Venus; By The Way, I Protest Against The Adjective “Copernican”. Aristarchus, and Even More, Buridan, Were The Main Architects of Building The Truth About The Heliocentric System. Buridan threw Down Aristotelian Physics, Something Even Archimedes Did Not Do (that we know of!)

[In the Ptolemaic System, Venus Was Always Between Earth And Sol, Thus, Venus Always Appeared As A Crescent. Seeing Venus fully lighted by Sol showed Ptolemaic astronomers were full of it. Now, OK, they had to wait for the progress of European optics in the middle Middle Ages… Reading glasses and all that…]

And then Galileo found that the little things, the four satellites of Jupiter, were rotating around the big thing (Jupiter). Another indice.

At this point, there were several independent lines of arguments each pointing at heliocentrism as the most economical, most likely explanation (size, speed, lesser overall rotational inertia (rotational “impetus”, to speak as Buridan did), Kepler’s Laws, Jupiter’s satellites).

It was a “beast in the forest approach”: it sounded like a lion, it smelled like a lion, it had the color of a lion, it looked as if it had the ears of a lion. So what of Popper’s “falsification” approach in this? Suppose that it did not have the color of a lion. Does that prove it’s not a lion? No. It could be bright red, because it’s covered with blood, and it’s still a lion. Or all black, because it’s in the shade, yet, still a lion.

By 1613, though, Galileo’s telescope had enough power to resolve the phases of Venus (and dare to publish the result). Only then was the heliocentric theory definitively proven, and the Ptolemaic system ruled out. If the way the phases behaved had not come out right, heliocentrism would have been wrong. PPP Venus provided with the Popper Falsification. However, even before that, all astronomers had come to the conclusion that it was certain that the Earth turned around the Sun.

***

Of The Bad Influence Of Popper & The Primacy Of Falsification:

Falsification is not fun and cuts down the impulse of imagination. Putting falsification from cognition first kills imagination. Imagination is more important than cognition. Imagination is the definition of the human condition.

To realize that only the phases of Venus were an incontrovertible proof, one had to have derived the heliocentric theory far enough to come to that conclusion. By the time it became clear that the Venus phases were the incontrovertible proof could be, 99% of the theory of heliocentrism was established. 

It was a question of mental chicken and egg: neither came first, the theory had to evolve. Actually, the phases of Venus can be resolved by exceptional observers with fantastic eyes, and special atmospheric conditions (the human eye can resolve a minute of arc, Venus apparent size is around two-third of that).

If one had been guided by only finding a definitive proof of heliocentrism, one would have invented no science. For example Buridan and his students invented graphs. They also demonstrated early calculus theorems, but without any of the sophisticated formalism, equation, analytic geometry, which those theorems would push to discover…

By considering that only the last step of an inquiry makes that inquiry scientific, Popper and his falsification obsession make science impossible. (Down with Popper; make no mistake, I like Popper, but then I also “like” Ivanka Trump’s mien in the coach cabin of a Jetblue sardine can, when she kept calm in the middle seat, while being “harassed” by two PC college professor idiots… They were thrown out of the plane, came to regret their actions, and then deleted their Tweeter accounts where they wrote about the deedd they planned. Both the martyrized Ivanka and one of the cruel college professors of barbarity were with small children, including two infants…)

As Buridan pointed out, one could not tell the difference, experimentally , between the heliocentrism he proposed and Scripture (so one may as well believe scripture, he added insolently). But that impossibility to falsify did not prevent him to think about it, and to think about it as a science.

***

Evolution theory is even more constructivist: 

The Greek philosopher Anaximander of Miletus, before the Persian fascist annihilated Miletus, proposed that people descended from fishes. Later, Aristotle, baffled by fossils, ordered his students to go out, observe and establish a registry of living forms.

By then evolution theory by mixed artificial and natural means was well-known in Greece, as related methods produced superlative cattle sold around the Mediterranean. Nobody can know how much was explicitly in writing about evolution (out of 700 Greco-Roman classics we know of, only 150 survived… through the Frankish controlled monasteries).

Evolutionary ideas were revived in the Eighteenth Century, until Lamarck proposed the theory of evolution in 1800 CE. Lamarck became quickly an object of hatred from the dictator Napoleon and the Christian Church. A bedrock of his conclusions were microscopic studies of fossils of mollusks (decades behind the microscope destroyed his eyesight). Lamarck was a research professor, not a falsification professor: he invented ideas, and even words: he used neologisms such as biology, mollusk, invertebrate, etc.

Lamarck also proposed a non-selective mechanism to explain evolution (as I said above, the Greeks were thoroughly familiar with natural and artificial selection). That obviously could not be disproven, and the mechanism was completely unfathomable. It is only now that epigenetics has been demonstrated to exist, and some mechanisms explaining it have been made explicit.

Methinks there is much more to come (because DNA is a Quantum machine in a Quantum environment, and all interactions are non-local…

***

Those Who Don’t Want To Build, Don’t Want to Know:

We build theories, first. Then we test them, always. First build.

Those who don’t want to build, don’t want to falsify.

***

Finding Truth By GOING BEYOND The BIBLICAL GOD:

To assuage and pacify the Neoplatonist leadership of the Roman empire, the evangel of John proclaims in its first few sentences that the “logos” was God, and God was the “logos”. In other words, logic, the discourse, ruled the universe.

Now the “logos” itself is its own truth: any logic defines a propositional truth from its axioms: well-formed propositions are “true” in a sense. HOWEVER, propositional truth is not ALL the truth in a logical system. That observation is the key to the problem of truth.   

Moreover, there is the problem of meta-truth. Meta-truth evolves out of truth (Godel famously proved that meta-truth existed). Logicians have been struggling with both non-propositional truth and metatruth (Godel’s proofs were proofs of existence, and did not provide with an explicit mechanism to build metatruths; later Godel and Cohen rolled out axioms which were independent of others, and thus could be considered true or not).

The preceding shows that building a scientific theory is a built-up of truth: Popper’s work was naive, removed from reality.

A scientific theory’s formation is an evolution of truth: it defines truth as it goes. Science is the best state of formal knowledge we have: thus truth is an evolution

Still, although truth evolves, that does not mean there is no absolute formal truth. There is: planes fly, don’t they? For a plane to fly one million formal truths need indeed to be true, at the same time, or the plane would crash.

Thus one can see that truth does not evolve like a species: metatruth evolves like an ecology does, generating on its way perfect species, local truths. An ecology evolves perfect species, such as sharks and oysters, which barreled, same as they always were, through massive extinction waves in the last few hundreds of millions of years. Evolution also produced species whose main business is to evolve, such as hominins (ourselves and all those cousins of us we used for dinner, in the past).

So, in the evolution of logic and metalogic, perfect truths are produced, so perfect they become part of the logos themselves (truths such as realizing that love is the engine of all things human!).

God is truth, and we make it up, as we debate reality with our imagination.

Patrice Ayme’

P/S: The essay is better appreciated if one is familiar with 20th century philosophy of science (and it penetrated the exercise of science itself, especially physics). Karl Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. However, if I say, tomorrow the sky is blue, that’s falsifiable, but not necessarily scientific. The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements. That’s silly, because Popper wanted to ‘prove’ that Marxism was not scientific… Yet clearly the work of Marx contains falsifiable statements. Moreover, Pauperism leaves one with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a ‘whole theory’ as well as the problem of what makes a proposition ‘meaningful’.

My approach above pretty much throws the whole thing through the window. Science has to do with truth, and metatruth, which have architectures of truth, just as a building or a plane have them.

 


SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism

SoundEagle 🦅ೋღஜஇ

Where The Eagles Fly . . . . Art Science Poetry Music & Ideas

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Artificial Turf At French Bilingual School Berkeley

Patterns of Meaning

Exploring the patterns of meaning that shape our world

Sean Carroll

in truth, only atoms and the void

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

GrrrGraphics on WordPress

www.grrrgraphics.com

Skulls in the Stars

The intersection of physics, optics, history and pulp fiction

Footnotes to Plato

because all (Western) philosophy consists of a series of footnotes to Plato

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

Striving For The Best Thinking Possible. Morality Needs Intelligence As Will Needs Mind. Intelligence Is Humanism.

Learning from Dogs

Dogs are animals of integrity. We have much to learn from them.

ianmillerblog

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

Defense Issues

Military and general security

RobertLovesPi.net

Polyhedra, tessellations, and more.

How to Be a Stoic

an evolving guide to practical Stoicism for the 21st century

Donna Swarthout

Writer, Editor, Berliner

coelsblog

Defending Scientism