DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
*****************************************************
#Post#: 714--------------------------------------------------
Truth =/= knowledge
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 9, 2020, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OLD CONTENT
A common mistake is to believe that a civilization that values
knowledge is the same thing as a civilization that values truth.
Leftists who hold this mistaken belief often find it difficult
to perceive the inferiority of Western civilization, since they
see how Western civiliation has massively increased knowledge in
the world and hence (wrongly) presume it serves the cause of
truth. Only by highlighting the difference between truth and
knowledge can this mistake be satisfactorily eliminated.
Truth is a qualitative concept. An informative statement is
either true or false. The lower the % of false statements a
civilization makes, the more truthful it is. A civilization that
values truth is opposed to false statements. Under this value
scheme, X which makes 20/20 true statements would be considered
superior to Y which makes 30/60 true statements. Furthermore, Z
which makes 60/60 true statements would be considered no better
than X at best, and (explanation below) indeed possibly worse.
Knowledge is a quantitative concept. The larger the number of
true statements a civilization possesses, the more knowledgeable
it is. A civilization that values knowledge wants to accumulate
the number of true statements it possesses. Under this value
scheme, Y would be considered superior to X, and Z further
superior to Y.
Western civilization fundamentally values knowledge, and values
truth only on account of its utility in maximizing knowledge. It
therefore considers itself superior to all other civilizations
based on its demonstrably greater output (usually measuring from
the Renaissance onwards) of allegedly true statements. The False
Left has disagreed with this based almost entirely on (sometimes
reasonable, sometimes contrived) scepticism towards the alleged
Western output of true statements compared to non-Western
output, thereby revealing if nothing else that its own value
scheme remains Western at its core.
The True Left which genuinely values only truth (and not
knowledge), in contrast, finds it easy to reject the claim of
Western superiority, and indeed to confidently assert Western
inferiority, via rejecting the Western value scheme itself. The
key is to recognize the following:
Every statement made has a possibility of being false, therefore
a civilization that makes more statements in total has greater
potential to be an untruthful civilization than a civilization
that makes fewer statements in total.
Thus a civilization that makes more statements than are
necessary tends to be inferior. Rational statements can at least
be logically proven to be true, and therefore are theoretically
non-dangerous to truth (though in practice erroneous proofs may
be accepted until the error is spotted). Empirical statements,
on the other hand, cannot be proven to be true, thus
structurally endanger truth just by existing (especially when
they are assumed to be true). Moreover, in many subject areas,
each additional statement made - even if itself true - enables
derivative statements (which may or may not be true) to
subsequently be made, thereby further increasing the potential
for falsehood to slip in somewhere down the line. Overall, the
cause of truth is best served by making no more statements than
are necessary. Western civilization, of course, attempts to make
as many statements (albeit, to be fair, statements which it
would prefer to be true) as it can, in as wide a variety of
subject areas as it can come up with. Thus Western civilization
should be considered the most inferior civilization in the world
by all who value truth. (Indeed it is trivially obvious by
inspection that the complex society created by Western
civilization offers vastly greater possibilities for deception
in every aspect of life.)
So how much knowledge can be considered necessary for a
civilization? We would answer: no more than is required for the
correct functioning of the various practical aspects of the
lifestyle of that civilization. The simpler its lifestyle,
generally the less knowledge a civilization can afford to be
dependent on, and hence the more superior it is in its loyalty
to truth. We fundamentally view knowledge as a burden which
should ideally be lightened as much as possible by
simplification of lifestyle. This is part of asceticism, which
underlies the True Left worldview.
Finally, when competing civilizations exist, knowledge is often
power. As such, necessary knowledge must (sadly) also include
(at least temporarily) as much knowledge is needed for the
spontaneously simpler civilizations to successfully destroy the
spontaneously more complex civilizations, which must occur
before the former can safely return to simplicity. (In this case
alone can Z be considered superior to X, if its extra knowledge
pertains to defeating spontaneously more complex civilizations.)
In other words, Western civilization must die.
---
“In this case alone can Z be considered superior to X, if its
extra knowledge pertains to defeating spontaneously more complex
civilizations.”
So basically Western civilization is only useful insofar as it
can be used to destroy itself.
---
(With regard to the impact of the colonial era on empiricism,
which is what it sounded like you wanted to discuss, individual
advocates of empiricism did exist in non-Western civilizations
prior to the colonial era, but it is definitely true that the
prestige of empiricism in non-Western countries today is a
consequence of deference more towards Western empiricism
(introduced during the colonial era) than towards any of the
non-Western empiricists. On the other hand, the False Left
approach is to emphasize these non-Western empiricists as a way
to show that non-Western civilizations are not inferior. This
merely further reinforces the prestige of empiricism as a whole.
The True Left must challenge empiricism itself.)
---
"On the other hand, the False Left approach is to emphasize
these non-Western empiricists as a way to show that non-Western
civilizations are not inferior."
Yes. The Carvakas are an example of this. Empiricists will often
cite that "science" (i.e. empirical science) is not "Western"
because it is merely the belief in the scientific method, but
this can be disproved by showing how the scientific method
itself originated in Aristotelean Greece and Enlightenment Era
Europe. After this, the empiricists will bring up the
non-Western empiricists. How do you propose we refute this? To
show that belief in the superiority of empiricism* is ultimately
a Western concept, and therefore Eurocentric?
*Also, I find it particularly irritating that empiricists tend
to conflate Enlightenment empiricism with rationalism, referring
to themselves as "rationalists", when in fact they are only
empiricists.
---
"the empiricists will bring up the non-Western empiricists. How
do you propose we refute this? To show that belief in the
superiority of empiricism* is ultimately a Western concept, and
therefore Eurocentric?"
While there certainly existed individual empiricists arising in
non-Western countries, those countries did not adopt empiricism
owing to their influence. Rather, those countries eventually
adopted empiricism only after contact with Western civilization
during the colonial era. In other words, empiricism on its own
was not persuasive to them; instead it was the machines
possessed by the colonial powers that convinced them that
empiricism (which enabled such machines to be invented) equalled
worldly might, and hence had to be incorporated as a matter of
self-defence given that an empiricist civilization was currently
colonizing them.
It was Westerners alone who adopted empiricism without being
under attack from an existing empiricist civilization with more
advanced machines.
"I find it particularly irritating that empiricists tend to
conflate Enlightenment empiricism with rationalism, referring to
themselves as "rationalists", when in fact they are only
empiricists."
In the old days, telling someone you are a rationalist was
understood to imply that you are not an empiricist.....
By the way, have you noticed how recent crime fiction has become
increasingly empiricist, emphasizing forensic analysis and other
material elements? This is in contrast with the more rationalist
Counterculture era crime fiction which was mostly about spotting
contradictions in testimonials, which of course is much more
entertaining for the viewer! Empiricism ruins art!
---
For sure!
Are you aware of the "Encyclopedia Brown" book series? I used to
read them when I was a kid:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_Brown
The books specifically focused on detecting anomalies in crime
stories, which, incidentally, was what led me to further
investigate things such as 9/11.
Nowadays, I rarely pay attention to whatever new crime drama is
airing on television. It seems as though the predominance of
material analysis is specifically tailored to cater to the
sensibilities of Westerners, who seek sensory stimulation at
every end.
---
I have probably seen it around the library, but I did not follow
the series. There were many similar series during the
Counterculture era, mostly with children as the detectives. Some
even tried to show children being better detectives than adults
precisely because they had less knowledge and/or experience of
the world and thus made fewer assumptions when initially
studying a case. Also, because the criminals were usually
adults, when covering their tracks they only accounted for what
other adults were likely to notice, and would often miss
something that adults would not notice but is obvious to
children.
---
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNCRnlKfQXc
I wish we could go back to talking about these types of subjects
again...
Looking back, it seems as though back then racism was so
foreign, so alien to my mind that I could not even comprehend
what a racist world would look like. Little did I know what was
in store for me in a decade....
---
Scientific Proof Is A Myth:
www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof
-is-a-myth/#7b843b942fb1
---
Leave it to westerners and they'll measure everything
eventually, or die trying, until nothing in the universe has not
been touched and measured by their hand.
---
Sam Harris (Jew) claims "science" can answer moral questions:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
---
All he is doing is a word substitution:
"well-being"/"flourishing"/etc. in place of "moral good" and
then spuriously acting as though there already exists consensus
(at least among the audience) on what
"well-being"/"flourishing"/etc. is, thereby avoiding any serious
discussion of morality while getting away with pretending that
he is discussing morality.
A simple question to expose his bullshit would be: who deserves
"well-being"?
The main point is that in his whole talk Harris only ever talks
about quantitatively maximizing "well-being" etc. without ever
considering that that could include giving it to those who do
not deserve it - a huge moral red flag, yet one that Harris does
not address, proving he is inherently not a moral thinker.
I remember another talk by Harris (though I can't seem to find
the video now) where he starts by asking his audience to imagine
a world in which everyone is suffering the worst pain
imaginable. According to him, no one should dispute that this
would be the worst possible world. But it was trivially obvious
to me that a worse world would be one in which only the good
people suffer the worst pain imaginable while the evil people
enjoy themselves. Indeed, I would consider the world Harris
describes to be better than where we are now, since over there
at least the evil people are getting what they deserve, and the
good people should prefer suffering along with the evil people
than letting the evil people get away unpunished! And that
Harris apparently never looked at it this way reveals again that
he is not a moral thinker.
#Post#: 1113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 11, 2020, 4:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
False Leftists will keep getting badly humiliated by rightists
so long as they keep trying to claim credit for Western
knowledge, since the very attempt to do so is an affirmation of
the value of the knowledge being claimed:
HTML https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/52731/VDARE-sailer-math.png
Only the True Left approach of despising Western knowledge can
defeat rightism. Instead of trying to claim calculus as of
non-Western origin, we should be pointing out that it was
calculus that made possible the engineering required for the
Industrial Revolution (which, predictably enough, arose from the
same civilization that invented calculus, duh!) which everyone
already knows has irreparably harmed the environment:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
Thus we turn the fact of calculus being a Western discovery into
an attack on Western civilization.
In general, knowledge is power. The drive of Western
civilization to endlessly accumulate knowledge (and to always
seek practical applications for it) is nothing more than a
reflection of its desire for increasing its power. This is why
Western civilization is uniquely dangerous:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
#Post#: 1114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: rp Date: September 11, 2020, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention calculus takes a longer time to learn. This is
not to say that it is necessarily more difficult than other
types of mathematics (it isn't), it is just extremely tedious
and its purpose (i.e. creating complex machinery) is immediately
evident upon studying it.
Although I would say some False Leftists who claim Calculus as
having non-Western origins are redeemable, as they are merely
trying to repudiate the hubris of Westerners, who claim
intellectual "superiority". This is especially humiliating if
one cannot thouroughly rebut the arguments, and thus has to
concede the Western standards of "superiority". I recall when on
ProBoards I was venting about this subject, I was more or less
hinting at these False Leftists.
#Post#: 1185--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 16, 2020, 3:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"they are merely trying to repudiate the hubris of Westerners,
who claim intellectual "superiority"."
Yes, but by doing so in their way, they are implying that if
calculus is owed to Western civilization, then even they would
agree that Western civilization is intellectually superior.
What we need is a different standard of judging intellectual
superiority. Seriously, what is so intellectually superior about
recklessly discovering stuff, especially without looking ahead
and predicting the potential consequences of doing so (as
Western civilization has failed to do every time)? Is not the
clarity to refrain from unnecessary discovery (and,
preliminarily, the ability to discern what is unnecessary) the
true mark of intellectual superiority? We need to start looking
at accumulation of knowledge the same way we look at
accumulation of consumer products. The smart shopper is not the
compulsive shopper who spends all their time browsing and who
cannot resist buying (probably paying using credit cards)
everything that catches their eye (but who is never satisfied by
what is bought, instead only moving on to thinking about what to
buy next), but the one who spends as little time and money as
possible to buy strictly what is really needed (and is satisfied
with this). Why should it be any different with knowledge?
Perhaps we should describe Westerners as compulsive discoverers?
Our enemy Duchesne agrees with me about this, though of course
he spins it positively:
HTML https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/09/slovenian-magazine-interviews-ricardo-duchesne.html
[quote]In Faustian Man I expanded on the importance of Spengler
in our understanding of the West. Spengler believed that Western
civilization was driven by an unusually dynamic and expansive
psyche, by a personality driven to go beyond the known and
master the unknown, reach new territorial frontiers, new
frontiers of knowledge, transcend all possibilities and reach
the highest peaks of achievement. I used the example of
exploration as an endeavour that could clearly bring out the
essence of this Faustian spirit. A standard explanation for the
unsurpassed European drive to explore every corner of the earth
is that Europeans were just more rapacious in their thirst for
wealth and domination of lands. But I argued that the history of
exploration during and after the Enlightenment era offered us
with an opportunity to apprehend the essence of this Faustian
soul. For while it is difficult to disentangle the pursuit of
economic goals, gold and lands, in the earlier explorations of
the Portuguese and Spaniards, for example, we can clearly
apprehend the non-economic, purely spiritual nature of this soul
in the explorations that Europeans carried from about the 1700s
onward, because from this point on we can see explorers who had
no interest in wealth, but were driven by a will to discover, to
be the first to climb that mountain, to cross that dessert, to
reach the center of Antarctica, irrespective of the economic
costs, the possibilities of trade, or even the scientific
knowledge to be gained. My point is not that only in the
unadulterated desire to explore do we witness the Faustian soul.
The urge to accumulate wealth and advance knowledge may exhibit
this Faustian will just as intensively. The difference is that
in the desire to explore for its own sake we can see the West’s
psyche striving to surpass the mundane preoccupations of
ordinary life, comfort and liberal pleasantries, proving what it
means to be a man of aristocratic character.[/quote]
I of course utterly disagree with his use of the term
"aristocratic character". The correct term is hubris. True
aristocratic character is asceticism. We could even use the term
intellectual asceticism to refer precisely to consciously
refraining from unnecessary discovery/invention. Thus true
intellectual superiority is intellectual asceticism.
#Post#: 5018--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: rp Date: March 21, 2021, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Going back to this article:
HTML https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=2c9e4aae2fb1
This paragraph says it all:
[quote]
This doesn’t mean it’s impossible to know anything at all. To
the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most
“real” knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world . But
in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt .
If something is not proven, how can it be accepted as truth?
#Post#: 5029--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: rp Date: March 22, 2021, 9:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dumbass empiricist Richard Dawkins (Jew) refers to himself as a
"rationalist" in the title of his latest book:
Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate
Rationalist.
HTML https://books.google.com/books/about/Science_in_the_Soul.html?id=ZpkrDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1
How long does he think he can fool us?
#Post#: 6164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: Zea_mays Date: May 5, 2021, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To offer some additional thoughts, beyond mere knowledge, I
think Western Civilization is obsessed with expanding the amount
of information in existence. More and more people seem to be
satisfied merely by someone believing a statement is accurate
knowledge, rather than having actual evidence to demonstrate a
statement is likely to be accurate and therefore contribute to
knowledge.
Today, generation of additional information is primarily done
through "novel" research in academic institutions and private
companies. "Novel research" from experimentation and other
empirical methods is not even the only way to obtain knowledge.
Other ways include curation of existing information and
synthesis/integration of existing information. In contrast to
the preferred Western method, both of these contribute to
knowledge by REDUCING the amount of information in circulation.
(However, as I will mention, although these methods are useful,
they do not guarantee truthfulness).
Curation involves collecting, organizing, and often providing a
summary/commentary on the information for reference purposes.
Knowledge is not of much use if people seeking it are unable to
know about its existence in the first place, and if is is not
shared with those who need/benefit from it.
The curator reduces the amount of knowledge in circulation by
refusing to include low-quality information in the collection.
(Although they would increase access to knowledge, via the act
of organizing everything into a collection). In addition, they
reduce the amount of redundant information circulating by
collecting similar information and grouping it by theme/topic,
etc. This reduces information because, generally, the core
collection would only retain whichever information is the most
knowledgeable and the best examination of a topic (rather than
including EVERYTHING ever written on a topic).
Curators generally do not produce additional "novel" knowledge.
Instead, they prefer to gain a broader understanding of the
massive amount of information already in existence, which is
more than any person could possibly learn in a single lifetime.
Examples of curators include librarians and collectors of art,
coins, etc. (who delve deeper into the subject by studying
existing art, etc., rather than sharing new material).
The librarian/curator may not directly contribute to the
understanding of the truth, but they can serve as a resource to
point a dedicated truth-seeker in a meaningful direction. (To go
on a tangent, curators can also point truth-seekers in the WRONG
direction. Mainstream/Alternative media (curators of information
regarding current events) can lie by omission, report on a very
biased selection/curation of events in order to shape people's
views, etc. So, curation is not a way to obtain truth in and of
itself, but merely a tool which can help if used sincerely).
By Western academic standards, I think curation is rarely
considered a "novel" project, and therefore little is invested
in it. Unless it can be used to serve as a database for further
empirical investigations. (But even in these cases, there are so
many redundant projects, because the database managers don't
work together to curate things and reduce the complexity of
existing databases!)
Then, there is the synthesis of existing information. Broadly,
individuals who do this are subject matter experts who dig
deeply into existing knowledge. There is more information in
circulation than any human can possibly read/view in a single
lifetime. Subject matter experts specialize in a topic and (1)
integrate the most important knowledge into a cohesive treatise
or summary (so other people don't need to spend a lifetime
reading all the same things just to get a rigorous understanding
of the topic!) and (2) convey the value of the knowledge and the
purpose of why someone would want to bother to learn it in the
first place.
Examples of this would be when a film critic watches hundreds of
films and then is able to review them by recommending
high-quality ones and telling us to not waste our time with the
low-quality ones. Historians would be another good example of
this--they go through countless old records in order to
integrate them into a narrative. But in the Western academic
system, even historians are generally expected to produce
additional "novel" information, rather than simply making an
expert synthesis of already-existing topics and knowledge.
Ancient historians are even better, since instead of focusing on
producing novel knowledge, they focused on _paring down_ the
amount of extraneous details and also focusing on ethical
lessons.
The biggest criticism of students learning history are usually
"why do we have to learn this" and "what's the point in
memorizing this list of names and dates". Pedagogues of the
Western system can never give a satisfactory answer to these
questions. The ancient historians answer by saying: here's why
it is worthwhile to learn this story/legend/myth, and I will
present only the details necessary for understanding the story.
(To go on another tangent, enemy agents posing as impartial
subject-matter experts, such as historians, can attempt to
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION IN CIRCULATION. They
are dangerous, because in order to effectively control the
narrative they genuinely do have to be experts in the subject
they are deployed in. So, like curators, subject-matter experts
provide knowledge, and may not always present impartial and
fully truthful information.)
I think another important function of integrating already
existing knowledge is that there is a ton of "old" research,
opinions, and information that are actually still insightful
today. By Western academic standards, studying "old" knowledge
(e.g. generally academic papers older than 20+ years or so) is
frown upon as a waste of time. Yet these academics will praise
people like Newton or Darwin for being foundational for a field,
and few have actually read their works.
In my own study of 125-year-old bio-anthropology works, I
discovered these old scientists had better arguments against
ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no mainstream
biologists and sociologists seem to know about this because they
never bother to dig deeply into the knowledge that already
exists! How wasteful to have to reinvent the wheel every
generation because people are addicted to generating piles of
new information.
Especially with the tendency to view history as a "march of
progress", they view it as below them to examine "outdated",
"backwards", and "crude" information from the past. In their
egotistical pursuit of producing their own "novel" knowledge,
they ignore all the knowledge that has already been generated.
Even for academics who aren't so egotistical, they simply don't
have time to read it all when they have dedicated all their
energy to producing new knowledge. Ironically, by continuing to
produce "novel" knowledge regardless of its quality or purpose,
they compound the problem by producing so much new information
that it becomes difficult even for subject matter experts to
study old information when they get buried by all the new
information being produced.
Meanwhile, in pre-Renaissance academic circles, a small handful
of treatises written by subject matter experts were sometimes
used for over a thousand years with minimal changes. In terms of
truth, it is easier to demonstrate and do damage control on the
falsehoods from a small collection of information that is not
growing rapidly, compared to the deluge of information pumped
out by the Western academic system. During the effort it takes
to demonstrate a single thing to be a untrue, a hundred more
pieces of information take its place.
In fact, the Western academic system has become so obsessed with
producing massive quantities of additional "novel" information,
that they have even stopped following the scientific method
(which requires _repeated_ experiments/observations on the same
specific topic in order to provide enough evidence for something
to be considered accurate knowledge)! In other words, if the
Renaissance caused the mere quantity of knowledge (generated via
empiricism/scientific method) to eclipse the importance of
truth, at some point along the line Western civilization began
to value the sheer QUANTITY OF INFORMATION CREATED over even
accurate knowledge itself.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
Any thoughts on this?
There is probably a decent amount of overlap between what a
curator and "subject-matter expert" do, but I think we can
summarize it by saying a curator collects/gathers the existing
data together and gives it some order/organization. They
understand things broadly, but not necessarily in exhaustive
depth. (For example, if you ask a librarian if they have
information on X topic, they would be able to point you in the
correct direction for the information you're looking for, even
if they've never read much on that topic. A museum curator would
have a good grasp on history and different cultures and how they
all relate together in terms of time period and geography, but
they wouldn't necessarily be a world-renown expert in any
specific culture).
The subject-matter expert would typically consult multiple
curated collections (in addition to doing their own searches
through raw and uncurated data) in order to find information to
further pare down. If the subject-matter expert is a sincere
truth-seeker, the amount of extraneous knowledge in existence
can be safely phased out (which is what ancient historians did
by passing history into mythology). Future generations of
truth-seekers would then consult the work of previous
subject-matter experts when learning information, although they
would have to conduct their own examination of it to verify it
is indeed accurate and truthful. Blindly trusting previous
subject-matter experts merely because they were
recognized/designated as subject-matter experts is just
traditionalism! Moreover, simply because they were experts
sincerely seeking the truth doesn't mean they got EVERYTHING
correct. We acknowledge their mistakes and attempt to correct
them where they went wrong.
Any thoughts on how to discover and what to do if the
subject-matter expert is actually a propagandist trying to
obscure the truth? I guess one of the first steps could be to
examine the character/ideological views of the individual. If it
appears they have some ulterior motives or ignoble worldview, we
would have to scrutinize their claims through different
techniques. Maybe this is too much of an epistemological
question.
#Post#: 6183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: 90sRetroFan Date: May 6, 2021, 1:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"The curator reduces the amount of knowledge in circulation by
refusing to include low-quality information in the collection."
Curation is the accurate term for the process that present-day
rightists wrongly refer to as "censorship" (as done by private
organizations, which by definition is not censorship). We should
use this word more! Every time rightists claim that they are
being "censored" by [insert platform here], we can tell them
they are in fact being curated ;D
"There is more information in circulation than any human can
possibly read/view in a single lifetime."
This is a very important point. A long time ago, I proved that
it is generally impossible for any two communicating people to
fully understand each other unless both are exposed to
essentially the same subset of information. This is because, as
soon as two people are exposed to different subsets of
information, it is generally impossible to determine with
certainty whether a disagreement between them on a given issue
is due solely to difference in personality, solely to difference
in the information they possess on that issue, or some
particular combination of the two.
This is why civilizations which Westerners would call "less
knowledgeable" actually enabled people to engage in
higher-quality communication. Having less information in
circulation, communicators could much more quickly diagnose the
source of any disagreements. Westernization, in injecting so
much more information into circulation, ensured this was no
longer possible. People today are still aware that they
disagree, but are no longer able to easily figure out why.
(Instead, they are merely advised to be "tolerant".)
"I discovered these old scientists had better arguments against
ethno-tribalism than present-day biologists. Yet no mainstream
biologists and sociologists seem to know about this"
Please present these somewhere when you have time.
"Especially with the tendency to view history as a "march of
progress", they view it as below them to examine "outdated",
"backwards", and "crude" information from the past."
We could even argue a parallel between this and its counterpart
in finance where savings are devalued over time by an utterly
insane phenomenon called "inflation". What you are describing
could be called informational inflation.
"In their egotistical pursuit of producing their own "novel"
knowledge"
This is driven by the ultimate Western academic prestige of
getting a theory/equation/method/etc. named after oneself, thus
having one's name immortalized. We could call this academic
Achilleanism.
"Ironically, by continuing to produce "novel" knowledge
regardless of its quality or purpose, they compound the problem
by producing so much new information that it becomes difficult
even for subject matter experts to study old information when
they get buried by all the new information being produced.
...
In terms of truth, it is easier to demonstrate and do damage
control on the falsehoods from a small collection of information
that is not growing rapidly, compared to the deluge of
information pumped out by the Western academic system. During
the effort it takes to demonstrate a single thing to be a
untrue, a hundred more pieces of information take its place."
This is one of the recurring themes of Western civilization!
"Any thoughts on how to discover and what to do if the
subject-matter expert is actually a propagandist trying to
obscure the truth?"
Self-proclaimed subject-matter experts should only be recognized
as subject-matter experts if their treatises accurately
represent all requested opposing arguments to the narrative they
themselves favour. Intellectually dishonest experts tend to
include strawman opposing arguments while either ignoring or
misrepresenting arguments that are actually dangerous to their
narrative. But if those who do this are called out on it, they
must either respond by incorporating accurately the opposing
argument offered or else fail to be taken seriously.
#Post#: 6208--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: guest5 Date: May 7, 2021, 9:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm also reminded of Western legalese after reading the above
comments, and laws and bills introduced in Western style
parliamentary governments that occupy thousands upon thousands
of pages that no one ever has the time to read by themselves. As
an example, wasn't the actual Obama Care bill over 10,000 pages
long? I've always believed that if a lawmaker cannot write a law
onto 10 or less pages that anyone can understand and read then
that law should be scrapped and never be brought into existence
in the first place.
HTML https://www.quantified.ai/hs-fs/hubfs/blog-files/Clarity%20-%20Legalese.png?width=768&name=Clarity%20-%20Legalese.png
[img width=1077
height=1280]
HTML https://dottedandcrossed.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/AdobeStock_142617792-1400x1664.jpeg[/img]
#Post#: 6229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Truth =/= knowledge
By: guest5 Date: May 8, 2021, 10:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This belongs here as well I think as a reminder considering
Judeo-Freemasonry is a Western construct:
HTML https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4f/d8/c9/4fd8c96071d63a6f0fa99cfe413cf57b.jpg
Note, not the "pursuit of truth" but of "knowledge"...
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page