My town might close its public library. A lot of stuff is shutting down around here. The derelict mills stand as memorials to a murdered America. I see the abandoned brick towers even from my house.
The shuttering of public libraries is a very obvious opportunity for us to open private “membership” libraries, perhaps with an Internet cafe attached. It is touted as a replacement to the town library, and its founders pay lip service to inclusiveness and openness in order not to blip the radar. Once it’s well established with a lot of members, then if the System finds out, it will be harder to stop it.
Private membership is initially free with donations solicited, and then paid-up membership becomes mandatory. The membership contract also stipulates a very high level of behavioral decorum, violation of which leads to expulsion. You maintain plausible deniability and a smiling taqqiyah, like an imam head of an “Islamic Community Center” insisting that he is a “moderate Muslim” (LOL).
With high speed Internet and skype videophone, the private library could offer college level classes in math, science, literature, history, and foreign languages, and even job training in professions like Information Technology, bicycle repair, plumbing, electrician, horticulture, drafting. It can be a center of right wing pro-White intellectualism and learning.
Michigan would be a good place for this, in a demographically White town that is losing its public library. You can call the private library, “The Henry Ford Memorial Library.” This would be a good reason to have a Henry Ford Corner that displays all of Mr. Ford’s books and biographies.
As science and naturalism are the white religion, rather than Judaism and its offshoots, I whole-heartedly agree.
By the way, I’ll bet those small towns still practice sports…
As science and naturalism are the white religion, rather than Judaism and its offshoots, I whole-heartedly agree.
That doesn’t make any sense.
A place where old discarded Whites can teach their no longer wanted skills to other Whites willing to learn something useful. Trigonometry and machining anyone?
BTW, a lot of the old Carnegie libraries have been recycled into other uses. You might look into how that was done.
Wow, that’s a brilliant idea. It wouldn’t even need to be attached to a library, just sort of a community center with a clubbiness aspect. You could have karate/tae kwon do sesssions, aerobics, plus a variety of trade and occupational skills. Computer skills being key.
A note on public libraries: in my own small town locale, where there is a suprisingly good public library system, I have observed a number of books being retired at an alarming rate. Whole shelves now stand vacant. I am concerned that corrupt individuals are somehow taking the books to sell on Amazon’s marketplace. Anyone can list used books on Amazon under a seller profile, setting up their own virtual book shop, so to speak. Many of the books i’ve received from them have been retired library books. People are picking up these books for dirt cheep and then profitting 10x in many cases. I got a copy of My Sixty Memorable Games by Bobby Fischer for $1.00 back when it was out of print, and then sold it on ebay for $70! On Amazon, you can simply type in the ISN number from the front pages, and it will tell you ball park what the book is worth. This is a Mercurian idea for one to recoup our lost tax dollars.
I heard Kievsky’s excellent interview at Voice of Reason. He mentions a number of books, some about taqqyiah and mind weaponization, but the names are all Muslim and I couldn’t catch some of them. Would he or anyone else list the titles?
asabiyyah
Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun
j1h4d
That’s all I remember from the top of my head.
Nietzsche:
“As science and naturalism are the white religion, rather than Judaism and its offshoots, I whole-heartedly agree…”
good point. What draws us to other religions is the echoes we see in them of this one, true religion in our blood — our way of seeing the world and valuing truth and higher patterns over lower. To me, this is the basis of all true religions.
As for this idea, it is one of the best I have ever heard. so perfect, so creative. This kind of creative thinking is exactly what we need. A private library would be awesome — full of real, esoteric, eye-opening books instead of video rentals and mass paperbacks full of mind-numbing political correctness.
My kids are always bringing home “Newberry Medal”-winning books from school and they are just AWFUL. They do not stimulate though so much as close it down — they have politically-correct themes, and that is the only reason I can tell that they win. Once they win, schools are all over them. They are mostly trash.
We need to have REAL libraries full of books dedicated to our own people’s religion of reading truth in the book of nature — the holy book written by the creator.
I’m with Nietzsche and Romer — science over jeeboo. Reality over Fantasy. Dreams must translate to Intelligent Action, rather than perpetual fantasizing.
Yes, Muqadimmah by Ibn Khaldun.
The House of Rothschild; Money’s Prophets 1798-1848, by Niall Ferguson, and Volume II, “The World’s Banker.”
The Rothschild story is important because it is an example of Total Victory without ever firing a shot. What it means for us is that we had better consider other forms of warfare besides hot lead and cold steel.
Dreams must translate to Intelligent Action, rather than perpetual fantasizing.
You call it intelligent action, I call it endless, aimless induction.
It isn’t intelligent if there isn’t a telos.
The Age of Faith and Reason
I have a telos.
Science does not constitute a telos.
Science does not even count as a worldview. It is just a method, and as Hume and many others have pointed out, not even a logically valid one.
Libraries where I live seem full of young blacks using the free internet to manage their myspace pages and mentally ill, homeless black men who wonder around in a daze and fall asleep in the chairs.
danielj-
what point are you trying to make? scientific methods can be used in the pursuit of a goal.
Danielj,
If science is not a logically valid method, then must it not be a religion? And if so, whose religion is it other than that of its creator, whites? Using the White Religion, we would say that whites co-evolved with science in Europe as they did with tool making in Africa. Thus our religion is us and we are our religion.
Our creativity and ingenuity are linked to our religion as much as early stone tool making is with earlier stages of human evolution. We are genetically predisposed to science because we needed to be very organized in our beliefs and they had to be correct for us to survive the winters of our birth. We are our genes and our genes are the genes of science, creativity and ingenuity. Now we must survive the threatening Summers of our death. At least that is what our religion tells us, if we let it.
Just to elaborate some more. If science is not a logically valid method, then its a belief or a behavior. In the sense that its a belief and is an organized system of beliefs, then its a religion.
To the extent science is a persistent and repeated behavior of whites, then its genetic to whites. It is the exercise of ingenuity to solve practical problems to assure survival which depends on accuracy and validity to give that survival.
Thus science is an evolved religion of whites. Its a behavior encoded in whites to develop an organized system of knowledge for survival against adversity. To actually deliver survival, it has to be valid. This is the test of the validity of this belief system, to organize knowledge, our survival.
Its encoded in our genes to organize and test our knowledge so that it has a proven, within our belief system, value in our survival. The test of the validity of our beliefs is part of our belief system and is itself encoded in us as genetically programmed behavior. Its our survival that is the test of our beliefs.
That is why we at this blog are disbelieving “Revealed PC”. Revealed PC is leading to our extinction. So using our White Religion, we reject Revealed PC.
Using our way, we also examine the source of Revealed PC and find its an alien hostile invasion using it as propaganda intended to neutralize our method of survival. Thus we are practicing our religion right here at this site and in this movement.
We are exposing Revealed PC as an alien propaganda that is false and intended to cause our extinction and not our survival. It pretends to help our survival but actually it helps those invading us survive and helps them to extinct us. Thus practicing our religion and its fundamental test, what helps our survival against adversity, we reject Revealed PC and we recognize those spreading it as alien invaders who are working us harm and intend our extinction.
So our religion, science, exposes the false teachings of Revealed PC and its vendors. We also recognize the assault on science itself, our core religion as part of the attack on us. Our people are excluded from the elite universities we founded and that are full of the science we created. Our good books are tossed out of our libraries, and many of them shut down. Our schools are dumbed down to serve the needs of the invaders and experimental science dropped from some schools because invader children can’t understand it or are not interested in it.
ATBOTL: Most librarians are women. Not many will face down the diversity, they could get hurt. Also, perverts like libraries. If someone spots them, they can just run right over any 40 year old woman trying to stop them on the way out. A librarian friend used to put in a call to the fire station across the street when she had a problem like that, and the big White firemen would be over in a flash.
Actually, given the situation at many public libraries, private libraries might have a place even if the public ones are still open. Longer hours, no riffraff, useful classes, no riffraff, better books, and no riffraff. And no respectable “White” riffraff who will end up wanting to “reach out to the community”. The governing board will need to keep it exclusive, membership by invitation if need be. Taqqiyah is the word.
Suggestion for initial sorting of members: Donate ten or twenty of your own books in good condition. Anyone who brings in any of the works of Alan Dershowitz gets their paperwork lost.
Sorry to go on at length, but one last bit.
The invaders falsely label our own tendency to our own survival as racism. They say we are the source of racism. They say we must allow non whites in and accept their take over because of our sin of racism. The invaders say that their God has condemned us to extinction for our sin of racism which is the sin of pride in ourselves and our achievements.
Using our religion, we analyze their claims and reject them as false. Their religion of Revealed PC is nothing but self serving lies intended to get us to let them destroy us. So we reject their Revealed PC and we reject them. We need to expel them as the invaders they are, not give them power over us. They are using that power over us to extinct us now by bringing in more invaders and giving them majority control of everything, which they use to drive us to total extinction.
We are the brain of our race working as intended according to our genetically encoded behaviors. In that part, the invaders are right. But as they know and any honest analysis of their conduct shows, we are right to see them as invaders and genociders and to reject their lies and reject them.
We can analyze their past behavior and see a systematic method to their actions. They try to displace and substitute themselves for our cognitive elite. Then they bring in a working class of other races to replace our native working class. They cut of the genetic head and then the native stock is cognitively dead. They have to neutralize us and bully us into silence as they replace us in academia, schools, and government. Then they replace our body and we are dead. That is their plan over and over.
Marxism was an alliance between them and workers to kill off the native high IQ genetic stock. Then they continue with importing non-white workers to do the same to the working class stock. Every descendant and variant of Marxism uses this same strategy. Using our religion we can recognize it. We can apply our test that organized knowledge that promotes our survival is valid to reject their Marxism and all its derivatives however relabeled even as neoconservatism.
I used to work at one of the largest public libraries in America: besides being a place where hobos could hang out and use the toilet, it was also the only place I could read, for free, an old, unsanitized Socino edition of the Talmud. I used to donate books there from many underpublished authors (as long as they had an LC number), yet my numerous inquiries as to why they were never catalogued/in the stacks always remained unanswered (at least explicitly)…they also used to have weekly sales of books with the phased-out dewey catalog system for 20 cents, a buck, whatever…super cheap stuff from the pre-Orwellian era, when an author could freely write about the shape of some famous figure’s skull shape or race!
danielj-
what point are you trying to make? scientific methods can be used in the pursuit of a goal.
I’m trying to counter the ridiculous assertion made in the first comment. The method is not a goal. Acting “rational” is not necessarily acting right. Employing the method is of course used to solve some small problem, in some infinitesimally sized piece of the galaxy, but that doesn’t mean science, qua science, is itself a goal. Do you see the distinction? One can be scientific about anything (just like one can be logical about anything).
If science is not a logically valid method, then must it not be a religion?
No. I don’t understand what you are getting at here? Are you saying that religion is logically invalid? That is borderline incoherent. You need to be more specific.
Science is based on induction and induction is based on a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Science says “If A, then B; B, therefore A” and therefore operates under a fallacy. It is called the problem of induction. Now, to be fair to science, what it actually says is “If A, then B because we see B follow A all the time; B, therefore it is probably a case of A too” and that isn’t that much of a whopper, but it is still a formal fallacy.
And if so, whose religion is it other than that of its creator, whites? Using the White Religion, we would say that whites co-evolved with science in Europe as they did with tool making in Africa. Thus our religion is us and we are our religion.
This is almost an overstatement and an ironic one, considering Christianity laid the groundwork for the scientific revolution in Europe.
That is why we at this blog are disbelieving “Revealed PC”. Revealed PC is leading to our extinction. So using our White Religion, we reject Revealed PC.
What about the overwhelming majority of Whites that don’t? Is Hunter Wallace the Apostle Paul?
I was more specific in my comment after the one you quotes. If science is not valid, then is it a behavior or is it a belief? If its a behavior is it not adaptive because it has promoted survival of those who practice it? That is of whites.
“Is Hunter Wallace the Apostle Paul?”
If you take the time from Apostle Paul to when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, then we don’t have that long. We need an Emperor Constantine figure about now.
Compare science to the religion of Revealed PC:
The invaders say that for our sins, their God has given them power over us. They say they have to use that to replace our cognitive elite. This is what they said in the Bolshevik Revolution. Then they said they had to get rid of the Russian cognitive elite and in other countries with Bolshevik takeovers for being capitalist.
In the Middle Ages, they said they had to replace our cognitive elite for not being capitalist enough. Under Marx, they said they had to replace it for being too capitalist. Now they say they have to replace it for being too racist. The reason changes, but their solution remains. This is what we need to apply our science to and pretty quick. We need to reject their religion of replacing us and substitute our own religion of their not replacing us.
I was more specific in my comment after the one you quotes. If science is not valid, then is it a behavior or is it a belief?
I told you OAL, that it was simply a method. It is one type of reasoning (inductive) and the knowledge that it gives is less certain than the other type (deductive).
If its a behavior is it not adaptive because it has promoted survival of those who practice it? That is of whites.
I don’t really know how to answer that. obviously there is an ongoing debate. Some people go so far as to argue that the massive release of energy we’ve unlocked from the planet has been the most dysgenic thing in the history of our race. Some argue that it has made us weak and has elevated the crafty Jew and unscrupulous businessman (sometimes the same person) to lofty heights and contributed to the destruction of our homes, families, and nations.
We need an Emperor Constantine figure about now.
I kind of prefer an Augustine with sword on hip.
Compare science to the religion of Revealed PC
They claim science and rationality as their guiding principles. Have you heard of the French Revolution? The Bolsheviks believed the same things.
In the Middle Ages, they said they had to replace our cognitive elite for not being capitalist enough.
The Middle Ages actually enabled a bit more of a meritocratic system. It enabled second sons in England to do the damn thing. There have been pros and cons in all ages.
We need to reject their religion of replacing us and substitute our own religion of their not replacing us.
Nobody here denies this, it is merely a question of defining our substitute.
Good stuff, OA.
I told you OAL, that it was simply a method. It is one type of reasoning (inductive) and the knowledge that it gives is less certain than the other type (deductive).
I should have said that induction is not certain at all. One cannot be less certain in the logical realm. Perhaps, one can be psychologically certain by virtue of induction, but it is a completely unjustified certainty.
Ben Tillman, thanks.
Danielj,
Do you consider that deductive logic is certain?
That the rest of math is as certain as deductive logic?
That we exist and don’t make mistakes or are mistaken?
If we can make mistakes, is not your preference for deductive logic a belief or behavior?
If math is as certain as deductive logic and we are reasonably certain of our use of deductive logic, are we not also as sure of our naive beliefs about reality?
If we are, are we not as sure of mathematical physics including mechanics, EM, quantum mechanics, statistical and thermodynamics, etc?
If so, then inductive logic is in some sense as good as deductive, at least as to these things?
If not, are we not back to belief and behavior as to anything we are saying here? Which brings us back to that we have a behavior, that is genetic to organize our beliefs according to science. That is whites do and some others such as East Asians.
Belief in PC is not adaptive to whites. As a part of an organized set of beliefs which can describe religion, PC is not a good religion or subset of a religion for whites. PC leads to our extinction. Moreover, those pushing it intend that. Some say it more or less openly.
Since PC is not adaptive for whites, we have to reject it. Also, this should be openly by at least some whites, this group for example. Its up to us to convince other whites that PC and pretense to adhere to PC is not adaptive for whites because it leads to their extinction.
PC is also not adaptive to human evolution. Averaging down is not progress in evolution. Evolution wants to filter not to average. So averaging down, which is what non-white immigration is, is not adaptive to humans as the forefront of human evolution.
So if you think of humans as having a grand purpose in the scheme of things, then mixing and averaging down is a step backward, a sin against the universe if you like.
Filtering is what is good and right. Filtering is next to God. Filtering is essential to morality, ie discrimination.
Morality is not in individual atoms but in the configuration. Libs try to find morality in individual atoms and if one is white, to condemn all whites or condemn the entire configuration.
PC is a rejection that morality is in the configuration because it elevates the worst to be the equal of the best and denies filtering as essential to morality and human progress.
PC condemns all filtering, while itself filtering whites out leaving another group on top. Which brings us back to PC is not adaptive for whites and they must reject it as immoral.
Do you consider that deductive logic is certain?
Yes.
That the rest of math is as certain as deductive logic?
Math is a form of deduction. The are necessary truths.
That we exist and don’t make mistakes or are mistaken?
We make mistakes even in deduction, but logicians realize and spot the fallacies.
If we can make mistakes, is not your preference for deductive logic a belief or behavior?
My preference in reasoning is for deduction. It doesn’t mean that their is absolutely no place for induction.
If math is as certain as deductive logic and we are reasonably certain of our use of deductive logic, are we not also as sure of our naive beliefs about reality?
If we are, are we not as sure of mathematical physics including mechanics, EM, quantum mechanics, statistical and thermodynamics, etc?
If the facts are based on observation, they are inductive.
If so, then inductive logic is in some sense as good as deductive, at least as to these things?
No it isn’t. Induction by scientific method is based on a fallacy. Do you truly understand this? It is based on a fallacy called asserting the consequent and is therefore uncertain. If someone claims it is certain, it is a lie. One cannot obtain truth values from induction.
I think we are cross talking here.
I’m no fan of political correctness.
The are necessary truths.
*They* are necessary
It doesn’t mean that their is absolutely no place for induction.
that *there* is
It turns out that the very best explanation I have seen of the difference betwen religion and scinece and it’s methods and reasonings can be found in James P. Hogan’s “Catastrophes, Chaos & Convolutions” in the Chapter entitled “The New Medievialism,” and in the introduction of Hogan’s “Kicking the Sacred Cow.” There is also a good explanation of inductive and deductive reasoning.
Hogan is good because he gets right to the point and is able to explain in fairly concise writing that is easily understood.
“Deduction begins with a set of premises that are taken to be incontestably true, and by applying the rules of inference derives the consequences that must necessarily follow. Geometry is a good example, where a set of initial postulates considered to be self evident (Euclids five, for example) is operated on by the rules of logic to produce theorems…A deductive system cannot originate new knowledge. It can only reveal what was implicit in the assumptions. All the shelves of math textbooks simply make explicit what was implied by the choice of axioms.
So deduction takes us from a general rule to a particular truth. Induction is the inverse process, of infering the general rule from a limited number of particular instaces.”
“Deduction operates within the limits set by the assumptions. Induction goes beyond the observations, from the known to the unknown, which is what a genuine innovation in the sense of acquiring new knowledge must do. Without it, how could new assertions about the world we live in ever be made? On the other hand, assertions based merely on conjecture or apparent regularities and coincidences–otherwise known as superstition–are of little use without some means of testing them against actuality. This is where deduction comes in–figuring out what consequences should follow in particular instances if our general belief is correct. This enables ways to be devised for determining whether or not they in fact do, which of course forms the basis of the scientific experimental method.”
**************
When religious mindsets were the norm, from the Greeks on up to the Renaisance, we were content to be bounded. Men seldom sailed so far as to not be able to see the coast line, for example. And the sculptured model and canvas were the most popular form of artistic expression, with there bounded regions and finite curves.
But when men began to rely less upon the machinations of gods to guide and shape their destinies and began to look less at predetermined destiny and fate, we broke lose from bounds and began loking outward to the infinite. There followed Calculus with its infinities and boundless curves.
These eras come and go, actually, depending upon great dissasters such as the modern two World Wars and the French Revolution. And when things sem to be looking up, we once more look again at the infinite and are not bounded.
“but it is still a formal fallacy. ”
True, but so what?
Here in this universe and the world we live in, things are quite messy and nothing is perfect. This has the consequence of approximations being generally the very best we can ever do. Hence it turns out that being *mostly*right *most* of the time is about the best we can hope for.
Demanding that every theory, every statement be absolute leads to a very confined space. And that is why exploration of ideas and a willingness to try out new theories even though they may not have the best initial observational basis turns out to be our best bet for gaining new knowledge and understanding. A pedantic approach stifles innovation and will confine us to a distance where the coast is always visible and the finite the limit.
There followed Calculus with its infinities and boundless curves.
The two people who invented calculus were religious nuts! They would disagree with endless induction for no reason.
True, but so what?
So what? I don’t know how to respond to that. You’re saying that truth doesn’t matter.
Here in this universe and the world we live in, things are quite messy and nothing is perfect. This has the consequence of approximations being generally the very best we can ever do.
This isn’t the issue. Nobody frames the debate that way. People rule out religion and claim they know the absolute truth. There is never evidence of the humility you are displaying here.
“The two people who invented calculus were religious nuts!”
This is true, but they were also two religious nuts who came to recognize, by realizing the work of others before them, that things work differently than was previously thought. Newton was a religious nut who set out to reconcile science with religion.
Calculus and the science of Newton WERE a spilt from the old bounded and finite way of looking at nature. Calculus was revolutionary in its treatment of infinities and unbounded concepts. And this WAS a drastic break from the past and its limits and bounds.
“They would disagree with endless induction for no reason.”
Who has said anything about “endless induction?” You are the only one who keeps talking about endless induction. And I plainly did not say anything about having “no reason.” You are distorting my words, badly.
“You’re saying that truth doesn’t matter.”
See above. You have a knack for spin. However, no one, I think will, buy it. Did my posts here give you the impression I cared not for the truth? Really? I thought my meaning was plain. I wrote that induction was a necessary part of innovation. Moreover, contra you, deduction does not prove “truth,” either. The text I quoted above is a very good description of the purpose of both inductive and deductive reasoning.
You are someone who has only a marginal understanding of these subjects under discussion on this thread.
“There is never evidence of the humility you are displaying here.”
More proof that you have inadequate knowledge of the subject under discussion. The author I quoted discusses many such people. Virtually every area of science is flooded now with skeptics and people of humilty. It is only the rigid “establishment” that lacks such humilty.
Evolution, the Big Bang theory, aspects of the General and Special Theory of Relativity, The doctrine of uniformatarianism and gradualism, HIV and AIDS, Global Warming and many other environmental issues, DDT, Ozone holes, Black Holes, Dark Matter, WIMPS, The Missing Mass, The sun as a fussion engine, etc. etc., ALL of these subjects are being scrutinized by many scientist and enginners who display “humilty” and are not sure of either these theories and the theories set forth as alternatives and are open to examing the evidence, observations and even speculating upon ideas that do in fact have a basis for believing them sound.
You are grossly misstaken here.
“Nobody frames the debate that way. ”
Yes, people do. Once again, the two books I cited are full of citations from credentialed scientist and enginers who do just that.
It seems you are the one who is dogmatic here and are trying to say that science is bunk while religion and faith are the True path to understanding. You are the one who mosts fits the charges you are levying.
This is true, but they were also two religious nuts who came to recognize, by realizing the work of others before them, that things work differently than was previously thought.
Everybody that makes any sort of “advance” realizes this very fact to some extent. I’m not sure how an obsession with alchemy qualifies as an ideal to be upheld. I’m not really exactly sure what you are getting at here.
Newton was a religious nut who set out to reconcile science with religion.
Did he even perceive the need to reconcile them? Did Newton see them as opposed or at odds? I’m not sure since I’ve yet to pour over the works and words of Newton. I’d like to see some specific quotes by him that led you to believe this. Calculus is just math.
I’m sure we can count Leibniz, as on who tried to reconcile his naturalistic rationalism with its absurd self and with God (as entirely approachable and deducible from a mathematic), as one who fits this description of yours. He was definitely trying to reconcile his rationalism and God and left a trail of evidence a mile wide that I am somewhat familiar with.
I don’t think either of these men square exactly with this modern idea of Promethean man that WN’s toss about as some kind of role model.
Calculus and the science of Newton WERE a spilt from the old bounded and finite way of looking at nature. Calculus was revolutionary in its treatment of infinities and unbounded concepts. And this WAS a drastic break from the past and its limits and bounds.
You don’t have to sing the high praise of calculus to me. I think it is great and important. It doesn’t necessarily mark the beginning of an entirely new era for me. Zero was very important too.
See above. You have a knack for spin.
Who is spinning? You casually throw out the observation that induction operates under a formal fallacy as if it means nothing.
However, no one, I think will, buy it. Did my posts here give you the impression I cared not for the truth?
No. That was a rhetorical device. Your posts gimmie the impression that you are unconcerned with the justification of knowledge.
I wrote that induction was a necessary part of innovation.
I agree. It is essential to techne.
Moreover, contra you, deduction does not prove “truth,” either. The text I quoted above is a very good description of the purpose of both inductive and deductive reasoning.
My point is that deduction is certain and, when valid, not fallacious like inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, it is a very good quote that sounds like it comes out of a very good book. I’m looking for it as we type. It isn’t the fucking philosopher’s stone though bro. I assure you there is more out there.
You are someone who has only a marginal understanding of these subjects under discussion on this thread.
Oh really? Well I don’t have my degree yet but why don’t you let me know where you got you Ph.D at brother?
I think I understand the issues as well as or better than anybody here so far.
More proof that you have inadequate knowledge of the subject under discussion. The author I quoted discusses many such people.
I’m talking about run-o-the-mill people. I’m not talking about scientists and philosophers who properly grasp the issues. I’m well aware that they are out there.
Virtually every area of science is flooded now with skeptics and people of humilty.
I personally think this is a huge overreach. Most fit very well the accidental caricature of Greg Graffin’s professoriat in Submission Complete.
ALL of these subjects are being scrutinized by many scientist and enginners who display “humilty” and are not sure of either these theories and the theories set forth as alternatives and are open to examing the evidence, observations and even speculating upon ideas that do in fact have a basis for believing them sound.
Still almost all of the mentioned subjects have one “official” viewpoint that is propagated almost religiously with the authority of a bull and accepted reflexively, unthinkingly and unquestioningly. We are in an area of neo-Scholasticism and desperately in need of the Renaissance that you are describing as an already nascent phenomenon. We are in much agreement but are talking past each other here. We are also in much disagreement and I’d prefer not to gloss those over entirely. I would also hate to emphasize the disagreement unduly at the expense of amicable and mutually beneficial exchange.
You are grossly misstaken here.
I think that is a grossly mistaken mischaracterization of my assessment 🙂
Yes, people do. Once again, the two books I cited are full of citations from credentialed scientist and enginers who do just that.
We’ll see. But, that is just a small sampling. I don’t get the feeling it is representative. I’m excited about the prospect of reading it though.
It seems you are the one who is dogmatic here and are trying to say that science is bunk while religion and faith are the True path to understanding. You are the one who mosts fits the charges you are levying.
Not “religion” sir. A specific religion. The religion that grounds and enables us to have faith in induction. The religion that allows to question the operation of the heavens.
I am dogmatic about many things. Mostly in the realm of theology, but sometimes in the realm of philosophy (although there is broad overlap between the two subjects in my mind). However, I am open to discussing the issues. I enjoy it.
Read about what happened to a somewhat prominent HIV/AIDS skeptic: Bruce Charlton Affair
Yes, it will be most efficient to simply get and read the books. Also the ones listed in the bibliography. This will provide a good point of departure for you on all of your questions, including those on Newton and what I am speaking of when I bring up Calculus and infinities and unbounded concepts.
I am currently working on degrees in Chemistry and Mathematics, and I plan on continuing the work in Chemistry to doctoral level knowledge. And it is the University of Kentucky in Lexington.
The reason we appear to be in conflict is what I suspected from the beginning, and is common. You are coming at this from the angle a philosopher comes.
At any rate, I think you will like Hogan’s books and writing. Here is his website, too:
http://www.jamesphogan.com/index.php
You will find the section entitled, “bulletin board” of interest maybe. The Links, too.
“Calculus is just math.”
And no, it is not just math., and it did mark the beginning of another era as I describe. This is not trivial. As I stated, Hogan gives a good and comprehensive treatment of this matter.
The reason we appear to be in conflict is what I suspected from the beginning, and is common. You are coming at this from the angle a philosopher comes.
That’s because it is indispensable.
I am currently working on degrees in Chemistry and Mathematics, and I plan on continuing the work in Chemistry to doctoral level knowledge. And it is the University of Kentucky in Lexington.
Good on yeah. We need more of your type. I’m going the math route after I finish my philosophy and law degrees. My father-in-law studied under Pauling so I get my chemistry second-hand from him and I’ve had enough to deter me from further, “official” study.
And no, it is not just math., and it did mark the beginning of another era as I describe. This is not trivial. As I stated, Hogan gives a good and comprehensive treatment of this matter.
Yes it is. It is important math, but math none the less. Just as important as algebra and geometry were, but no more so in my opinion.
It certainly wasn’t trivial and I wasn’t implying that. It is “just math” wasn’t meant to denigrate it. It is certainly in my ordering of goods, just not at the top of the list.
Thanks for the recommendation.
“Yes it is. It is important math, but math none the less. Just as important as algebra and geometry were, but no more so in my opinion. ”
We’ll discuss this after you are about three years into further math studies. For a start, Calculus is NOT math. Not exactly.
Startling comment, eh? But I assure you it is so.
Also, and to my point about the significance of Calculus, it allowed algebra and geometry to extend beyond the bounds of the finite and bounded. And that change in approach and thinking is what led to what really set the white European man apart in this world.
Also, and to my point about the significance of Calculus, it allowed algebra and geometry to extend beyond the bounds of the finite and bounded. And that change in approach and thinking is what led to what really set the white European man apart in this world.
Brutus, we could make the argument that what really set the white European man apart was this, or that, or that. You know what I’m getting at? Richard Weaver blames nominalism for the fervor with which we engaged in technological progress and others don’t blame put praise this process and attribute it to other factors. Some people divide the calendar based on the birth of Christ! I’m not trying to minimize the importance of calculus, but there are plenty of other arguments, most somewhat valid and most containing some truth, that we could make about what spurred us on to great heights. Most of the arguments themselves don’t even agree on what was great about the heights or how high they were.
Let us say I grant the validity of your premise. Everybody has calculus now and we still aren’t the same. How could it be merely mathematics that sets us apart? Or what if one argued that we would have never achieved the level of calculus if not for Christianity?
It is a complex issue. Perhaps even I was oversimplifying.
We’ll discuss this after you are about three years into further math studies. For a start, Calculus is NOT math. Not exactly.
Maybe. Who knows if’ll I’ll ever make it back to math like I want to. I’ll keep you in mind though. I have just started math all over again to get ready for it though. So I am preparing for it if it does happen. I found a pretty nice algebra book. They teach it so much differently then they did when I was in junior high. Or maybe it is just because I have a college level textbook this time?
As Steve Jobs noted recently, nobody reads anymore. Instead of a community a community infoshop would be a better use of resources.
Why Brutus?
Is that your name? Or do you wanna kill Caesar?
As Steve Jobs noted recently, nobody reads anymore. Instead of a community a community infoshop would be a better use of resources.
How much do those black bandana wearing boys pay for that anarchist bookstore over by Haight/Ashbury? I bought a few books in there.
It is NOT the Calculus, it is the revolutionary change that produced Calculus: That is, we moved beyond the finite and bounded concepts of what was then the past.
It is no coincidence that in that period is when Europeans became world explorers and went beyond the horizon to chart new course and discover new continents on a scale that lasted, and when our mathematics and science began to realize the universe was not a small place, but an almost if not infinite place, and so we looked out further and strove to understand this infinity. Prior to this, we lived in a “box,” so to speak and for the most part confined our thinking to a smaller scale.
This change in conceptual thinking was revolutionary and led to the opening and expansion of all frontiers, even music changed and became an exposition of woodwinds and strings exploring and exalting the infinite and limitless and boundless.
“Why Brutus?
Is that your name? Or do you wanna kill Caesar?”
LOL!
Wrong Brutus. It is the one from the old Popeye cartoon of the 60s. Brutus was powerful and often overwhelming. So I like my points and aruments to be.
That is, we moved beyond the finite and bounded concepts of what was then the past.
I’m sorry. Are you asserting that there was no concept of infinity before this time period, or, that it worked its way through society pervasively?
It is no coincidence that in that period is when Europeans became world explorers and went beyond the horizon to chart new course and discover new continents on a scale that lasted, and when our mathematics and science began to realize the universe was not a small place, but an almost if not infinite place, and so we looked out further and strove to understand this infinity. Prior to this, we lived in a “box,” so to speak and for the most part confined our thinking to a smaller scale.
We were in America, China, South Africa, et al. around 150 or 175 years before Newton’s birth. Regardless, you’ve shifted to goalposts. Now we are talking about philosophy and in a much broader context and much larger period of time then we were initially. There isn’t anything wrong with that, but the discussion is evolving here. I can’t really contribute much more tonight though, I have some studying to do.
Wrong Brutus.
So you wanna kill Popeye you sonnuva bitch? 🙂
danielj says:
June 8, 2010 at 11:10 am
Do you consider that deductive logic is certain?
Yes.
That the rest of math is as certain as deductive logic?
Math is a form of deduction. The are necessary truths.
==
Do you accept proof by contradiction? Its use in math? Combined with the infinite? Do you consider proofs by contradiction and constructive proofs to be equally certain?
At the point of accepting or rejecting proof by contradiction, there is a branch between constructive math and standard math. Constructive math does not accept proof by contradiction. So that this point, you have the issue of whether this branch point is a matter of belief or behavior. Constructivists might say that standard mathematicians have a religion and constructivists have math.
Another issue are the set theory paradoxes and related paradoxes in logic. These lead to the Russell and other approaches to resolve them. That leads to the Godel theorems.
In standard math, one can accept the axiom of choice or not. But this is quite different. Constructivists of course, do not.
You can not prove standard math follows form constructivist math. Bishop in the 1960’s showed that constructive math could go along way in achieving what standard math does in calculus.
Standard mathematicians sometimes consider constructivists a cult, but that is beginning to go away because so much has been achieved in constructive math.
Thanks OAL. I knew somebody would go there.
Do you accept proof by contradiction? Its use in math? Combined with the infinite? Do you consider proofs by contradiction and constructive proofs to be equally certain?
I don’t understand constructive mathematics anywhere near enough to even begin to discuss the issue. I’ll get back to you in a few years 🙂