Monday, April 9, 2018

It's Always Such Fun To Find Out That The Sci-Rangers Don't Know The Difference Between Science and Scientism - Hate Mail

Having your sockpuppet "Zod" try to pull the science card on me is rather stupid as I doubt "either of you" could calculate your way through a basic formula more complex than finding the area of a simple geometric object, if that.   Though there are big-name atheist-scientists who only do the same thing on the level of logical coherence.

Scientism isn't science, it's your faith that all knowledge is a product of science.   It's a belief that isn't only not scientific, it can't even withstand the first level of logical testing, that it be internally consistent.   The statement of scientism is not a scientific statement so it not only can be known to be false, on the basis of what it claims it MUST be false.  It can only be true if it is false.  I've found that in everything from that statement, to statements from celebrity scientist atheists, from Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking that the universe created itself out of "nothing" or that because there is a law of gravity that the universe must have created itself out of nothing, which would require that there be a law of gravity before there was any matter which is a basic requirement for there to be gravity. 

Atheism isn't any great help to science, being an ideology, when it rules the behavior and claims of scientists, it inevitably leads to them saying the most incredibly stupid things.   Their fanboys have the excuse of ignorance and, in your case, TV based stupidity, but that's not really much of an exoneration.   I do think it's related to the point I made yesterday about the amorality which is a consequence of scientistic, materialist, atheism, if you don't believe the truth matters you're unlikely to have much use for logical coherence for which, in a very basic way, you have to believe that some truth actually matters and is of some consequence and necessary to have any coherent grasp of reality.


  1. No slight on you, but you're arguing with someone who pisses on Habermas because he's incapable of understanding any concept more complex than 2+2=4 (and don't try to tell him Russell spent years working out the reasoning that supported that formula, or why it took Russell years to do it).

    Dullards, in other words. You might as well try to convince Trump that Amazon isn't cheating the USPS on shipping rates.

    1. It is a waste of time in most ways but I have found that making the arguments in different ways helps to fill out an appreciation of how really vacuous that central dogma of the Modern-Industrial-Scientific Model that so many alleged liberals totally buy but they don't understand that it's the same thing that undergirds the vulgar materialist-fascists.

      I have come to appreciate how academic materialists such as Alex Rosenberg or Paul and Patricia Churchland who have thought farther into the consequences of the naive materialism of the celebrity scientists, who claim, on the basis of their materialism and scientism and the current form of that in neuroscience, that even our minds, the capacity for distinguishing truth from falsity, even the capacity for sentences containing meaning, are in such a radical contradiction because they, nonetheless, depend on the truth of the logical predicates their conclusions are based in which, by their own ideological framing cannot have the quality of truth.

      I don't think I'd have arrived at the conclusion that materialism, by reason of its monistic claims, has to count as the most degenerate and decadent product of human intellectual activity because of its inevitable internal inconsistency. It's like making bricks out of the straw in their heads, I guess.

    2. There is that. I'm just amazed at the vacuity of thought presented by the "opposition."

      The decay in reasoning at the old haunt is rather frightening, but I've come to see it as inevitable where there are no institutional controls. The liberty of the internet leads inevitably to decay and dissolution, in thought if not in morals.

      And yeah, celebrity scientists are the worst at being, as Auden put it in another context, in love with the smell of their own farts. Their ability to reason is really quite truncated and superficial. A first-year philosophy student could run rings around them, a clever lawyer could have them for breakfast. They remind me of Pound's "winged with awe, inviolable" returnees, except they don't recognize the portrait.

  2. "Having your sockpuppet "Zod" try to pull the science card on me is rather stupid"

    You're actually still claiming that I'm Zod? And you're accusing me of being stupid?




    1. Anytime "Zod" wants to prove he's not you he's welcome to post something that isn't as stupid as something you'd say.

      I notice you aren't complaining that you, in fact, could handle a formula more complex than calculating the area of a simple geometric figure. Funny, neither has "Zod".

      As to the possibility of "Zod" not being you, well, that's what happens when you get associated with a known and exposed sock puppeteer.