Tag: philosophy

Posterity: TK vs VD

As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and united States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.

Tom Kratman, as part of his series on Civic Nationalism, took a very different stance in an essay entitled Ourselves and Our Posterity. He claims that in this particular case, “our posterity” means nothing more than “succeeding generations”. Read the whole thing, it’s not an incompetent case, merely an incorrect one. Not only that, but he also claims that the alternative definition to which I subscribe, “actual legal descendants and heirs”, is “utter nonsense”. He wrote:

I’m not sloppy Vox, you’re just wrong, your genetically based posterity argument utter nonsense, start to finish.


He also added, rather confidently, that he can match me IQ point for IQ point.


Vox, since you set store by it, I can match you IQ point for IQ point. Yes, I can… Once again. you have a word in the preamble which doesn’t carry it’s own definition. The dictionaries of the day do not help you, because they use three definitions. Within the document, itself, you have clear, absolutely unambiguous evidence that they intended immigration and naturalization because they provided from immigrants to eventually, within their lifetimes, be able to hold any elective office in the land but one. You have the 1790 act, which is commentary on the intent, but not actually necessary because the constitution itself, as mentioned above, provides for the ability of naturalized citizens to become senators and reps. ANd then there is the problem of omission. I mentioned Hobbes in my first post in this thread. Why? I mentioned it because he had translated Thucydides 148 or so years before the revolution; they had that in their libraries, and so they knew about more restrictive – genetic posterity-based – rules for citizenship and neglected to use them. Would have been easy. Didn’t bother. Did, once again, put in provisions for non-genetically based citizens in the highest office.

Now, I don’t mind people calling me out. It adds a certain flavor to the discourse. The problem, however, is that one’s ability to match me in the decathalon is irrelevant when the contest concerned is the 100-meter dash. This is particularly relevant if you happen to know that I can’t pole vault over my own height. As I warned Tom, his case is an eminently reasonable one, but it is a purely logical argument of the sort preferred by lawyers, the very sort of argument that reliably fails when the relevant evidence is examined. As with many an economic model, Tom’s case relies upon imputing a false rationality and coherence to the behavior of all-too-often irrational and self-contradictory human beings. I could come up with a dozen alternative explanations to his logical conundrum, but I won’t bother, because I have a considerably more effective response to offer.

The question is this: how do we determine which of the three definitions of posterity should correctly apply to the term “posterity” as it is used in “ourselves and our posterity”? The answer, as I previously suggested, is straightforward. To understand how the term was meant to be understood in the Preamble, we must look at how the same people using it were using it in their other writings. Fortunately, there are more than a few mentions of “posterity” in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers which are discussing the very constitution in question. There are seven instances in the Federalist Papers.

  1. To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
  2. In framing a government for posterity as well as ourselves, we ought, in those provisions which are designed to be permanent, to calculate, not on temporary, but on permanent causes of expense. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
  3. This dependence, and the necessity of being bound himself, and his posterity, by the laws to which he gives his assent, are the true, and they are the strong chords of sympathy between the representative and the constituent. (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
  4. WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America. (TBD)
  5. No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, or to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act. (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
  6. …upon Congress, as they are now constituted; and either the machine, from the intrinsic feebleness of its structure, will moulder into pieces, in spite of our ill-judged efforts to prop it; or, by successive augmentations of its force an energy, as necessity might prompt, we shall finally accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty, and thus entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived. (TBD)
  7. Whence could it have proceeded, that the Athenians, a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, and who required no other proof of danger to their liberties than the illustrious merit of a fellow-citizen, should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected? (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
Note that the distinction between “posterity”, used in the sense of future history, and “his posterity” and “their posterity”, used in the sense of direct genetic descendants. This suggests that “our posterity” is also meant to be understood in the case of the latter. Also note that none of the seven examples are clearly instances of Definition 2: succeeding generations with the possible exceptions of 2 and 6. But there is considerably more evidence to consider. Now let’s turn to the Anti-Federalist Papers.
  • Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security. — You are then under a sacred obligation to provide for the safety of your posterity, and would you now basely desert their interests, when by a small share of prudence you may transmit to them a beautiful political patrimony, that will prevent the necessity of their travelling through seas of blood to obtain that, which your wisdom might have secured. -Anti-Federalist No. 5, 
  • The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this, and you will find this state more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. – Anti-Federalist No. 34, The Problem of Concurrent Taxation
  • Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power. For if Congress will do these things in the dry tree when their power is small, what won’t they do when they have all the resources of the United States at their command? – Anti-Federalist No. 13, The Expense of the New Government
Notice in No. 34 the way a distinction is made between Virginia’s posterity and the posterity of the 12 other States. This makes it very clear that “our posterity” refers, specifically and solely, to direct genetic descendants and no one else. Furtheremore, there are other relevant examples from the era that underline the same point.
  • We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.  – DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS JULY 6, 1775
  • They were governed by counts, sent them by the kings of Oviedo and Leon, until 859, when finding themselves without a chief, because Zeno, who commanded them, was made prisoner, they rose and took arms to resist Ordogne, son of Alfonsus the Third, whose domination was too severe for them, chose for their chief an issue of the blood-royal of Scotland, by the mother’s side, and son-in-law of Zeno their governor, who having overcome Ordogne, in 870, they chose him for their lord, and his posterity, who bore afterwards the name of Haro, succeeded him, from father to son, until the king Don Pedro the Cruel, having put to death those who were in possession of the lordship, reduced them to a treaty, by which they united their country, under the title of a lordship, with Castile, by which convention the king of Spain is now lord of.  – John Adams, Letter IV, Biscay
  • That mankind have a right to bind themselves by their own voluntary acts, can scarcely be questioned: but how far have they a right to enter into engagements to bind their posterity likewise? Are the acts of the dead binding upon their living posterity, to all generations; or has posterity the same natural rights which their ancestors have enjoyed before them? And if they have, what right have any generation of men to establish any particular form of government for succeeding generations? The answer is not difficult: “Government,” said the congress of the American States, in behalf of their constituents, “derives its just authority from the consent of the governed.” This fundamental principle then may serve as a guide to direct our judgment with respect to the question. To which we may add, in the words of the author of Common Sense, a law is not binding upon posterity, merely, because it was made by their ancestors; but, because posterity have not repealed it. It is the acquiescence of posterity under the law, which continues its obligation upon them, and not any right which their ancestors had to bind them. – BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 1803
First, posterity is directly tied to “ancestors”. Therefore, it means “descendants”. Second, “his posterity” means succession from “father to son” of men bearing the same name. Therefore, it means “descendants”. Third, posterity is again directly tied to ancestors and it is specifically distinguished from “succeeding generations”. In fact, the former is used as potential justification for the latter. Therefore, again, posterity means “descendants”. In fact, it is the first definition of posterity, which Tom incorrectly described as “utter nonsense, start to finish”, that is the only possible definition applicable. Therefore, my case for “ourselves and our posterity” referring solely to direct genetic descendants is not merely correct, it is conclusive.

Finally, Tom appealed to the fact that the Founding Fathers had Hobbes in their libraries. But they had John Locke in their libraries as well. And Locke’s reference to posterity not only underlines my case, but deals a fatal blow to the false notion that immigrants and invaders and other pretenders can ever stake a rightful claim to the Blessings of Liberty intended by the American Revolutionaries for their direct genetic descendants.

  • No damage therefore, that men in the state of nature (as all princes and governments are in reference to one another) suffer from one another, can give a conqueror power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished, and turn them out of that inheritance, which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations. The conqueror indeed will be apt to think himself master: and it is the very condition of the subdued not to be able to dispute their right. But if that be all, it gives no other title than what bare force gives to the stronger over the weaker: and, by this reason, he that is strongest will have a right to whatever he pleases to seize on. – John Locke, Of Conquest, Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690

Mailvox: Breivik: saint or monster?

A Norwegian asks about St. Breivik:

What I still not have clear for me, is your standing concerning AB Breivik, and that actually troubles me somehow. I am self a Norwegian, I live in Oslo, and what happened 22/7/11 made a deep and difficult impression on my mind. Breivik shot down in cold blood 69 people on that island, and the majority of the victims were  teenagers (children, I could say), which «guilt» was to be an offspring of a member of the social democrat party (Arbeiderpartiet). I have indirectly heard an eyewitness reporting about a child scared to death, and with blood pouring from a wound in the throat while slowly dying.

For me, Breivik doesn’t represent any positive and decent quality, and he neither represent any legitimate way of doing resistance against a fallen political class and elite. Maybe I have misunderstood, but if you somehow make a hero out of Breivik, that makes it so difficult for me to do what I much would like to do: to make you one of several good teachers in my life.

Somehow I can look at Breivik (and other terrorists) as (almost impersonal) expressions of tidal waves in our history. But simultaneously, I can do nothing else than look at their actual actions as utterly horrific. As I see it (and feel it), no one devout to God would never ever could have done what Breivik did, and no one would neither could defend his actions.

First, let me say that I have family members who are a) devout Christians, b) good men, and c) are responsible for killing considerably more people than Anders Breivik. I also have a number of friends whose confirmed kills are in double-digits. Nor am I at all persuaded by the notion that the God who loved David, who slew “his ten thousands”, or the Jesus who praised the faith of the Roman centurion, is anywhere nearly as appalled by war as most men would like to believe.

From a philosophical perspective, I tend to regard the Norwegians, and the “Norwegians”, killed by Breivik as having been more culpable on average than the average Japanese, Korean, or Chinese infantryman were. And don’t forget, the Viet Cong were no more professional soldiers than were the Quisling Youth on Utoya, and most of them were even younger.

Breivik did not target innocents. He didn’t attack teenagers at a pop concert or families enjoying a night out on a public promenade. He struck a highly effective blow against the political machine that is still actively engaged in attacking his people and attempting to eradicate them. If you don’t believe violence is a legitimate way of resisting invasion, if you don’t think that making war on those making war on you is permissible, that’s your prerogative, but your opinion is both ahistorical and irrelevant.

The fact is that Anders Breivik not only gave up his freedom to strike back at the quislings who are actively seeking to destroy your nation and your people, but he did so alone, and in the full knowledge that he would be hated for it by many of the very people he sought to save.

You may recall that someone once said something about the quality of the love that such a self-sacrifice requires. Can you honestly say that it was nothing but simple hatred that inspired him?

Of course, those who are not religious cannot fathom that kind of love, which is why they simply deem him mad, and a monster, and try to avoid thinking about the future. I don’t expect you to simply accept my perspective, but it might give you some food for further thought. While he did a terrible thing, it is far more terrible that he was put into a position where he felt the need to do it in the first place. Focus your anger, and your disgust, for those who knowingly created the untenable situation.

In any event, my expectation is that if the West, and Norway, survive the ongoing clash of civilizations, Breivik will be considered its first hero. And if it does not, well, then Breivik will be regarded in much the same way that Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard are presently regarded in New Orleans, as an evil monster who was “on the wrong side of humanity.”

And just to be clear for the excessively slow, although I am not a Catholic, I am aware that Mr. Breivik has not died, been beatified, or canonized. Nor do I believe in praying to intercessors.

UPDATE: It is clear to me that a few readers here simply do not understand what war is. I direct your attention to Clausewitz and ask you this: was Breivik practicing “politics by other means” or not?

The ugliness of reality

And the logical gibberish of the anti-intelligent:

“No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.”

And they wonder why they’re so reliably wrong. You can certainly fight science, reason, and observation with “ethical principle” if you like, but it’s not going to work very well. Nor is it going to convince anyone with the intellectual ability to penetrate your rhetoric and understand the irrelevance of your ethical principles.

The idea that Chinese people are not smarter on average than Africans because the idea is ugly is like a programmer insisting that his code works correctly, despite the constant crashing of the program, because it is more elegantly written than the code that actually functions. Sometimes, indeed, very often, reality is ugly, or at least falls well short of what our aesthetic preferences would wish it to be.

Paglia and pro-life morality

Camille Paglia is interviewed about her new book, Free Women, Free Men:

You say in the abortion chapter in your new book that pro-lifers have the “moral high ground” in trying to protect the innocent. Yet you’ve also argued that overcoming nature is a moral imperative and that we should “thwart nature’s procreative compulsions” through activities like abortion. How do you reconcile those two views?

In ethics, one of the many branches of philosophy invented by the ancient Greeks, we are usually faced not with a simple, reassuring scheme of right versus wrong but rather an often painfully conflicted choice between morally mixed options. I stated in Vamps & Tramps (1994): “Women’s modern liberation is inextricably linked to their ability to control reproduction, which has enslaved them from the origin of the species.” However, as an atheist who nevertheless respects religion, I see and respect the contrary position. As I went on to say: “We career women are arguing from expedience: it is personally and professionally inconvenient or onerous to bear an unwanted child. The pro-life movement, in contrast, is arguing that every conception is sacred and that society has a responsibility to protect the defenseless.”

Contemporary American feminism has distorted and desensitized itself by its inability or refusal to recognize the ethical weight of the pro-life position, which it routinely mischaracterizes as “anti-woman.” In contrast, I wrote (again in Vamps & Tramps): “Modern woman has become an agent of Darwinian triage. It is or should be ethically troubling: abortion pits the stronger against the weaker, and only one survives.” The inflammatory abortion issue has consumed far too much of feminism, to the point of monomania. I used to be a contributing member of Planned Parenthood, until I realized that it had become a covert arm of the Democratic party. If Planned Parenthood is as vital to American women’s health as feminist leaders claim, then why can’t it be removed from the violent political arena altogether and fully funded by wealthy liberal donors? Let the glitterati from Hollywood to Manhattan step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are.

One of the reasons I have always admired Camille Paglia, despite the plethora of my disagreements with her policy positions, is that she is a proper ethicist. Even when she comes down on the wrong side of the moral equation, at least she understands that there is a moral equation involved.

Like Umberto Eco, Paglia represents the best intellectual aspects of the noble post-Christian. However, it must be understood that they were produced by Christian societies, and are neither indicative of, nor can be replicated by, any post-Christian society.

Anyhow, read the whole interview, it’s rather better than the run-of-the-mill book launch interview.

That settles that

In last night’s Darkstream, I addressed the question of whether it is acceptable for a man to wear a shirt with another man’s face on it. Considering that my CERNOVICH shirt is on the way to me, my position is pretty obvious. And as far as I’m concerned, Boh settled the matter once and for all by playing this solo while wearing a shirt with Takayoshi Ohmura’s face on it while standing right next to Takayoshi Ohmura.

No matter how cool you might think you are, you are not as cool as the God of Bass. Not even close.

When rhetoric doesn’t work

As I pointed out in SJWAL, the best rhetoric is based in truth. Conversely, the worst and least effective rhetoric is based in falsehood and posturing to uphold an obviously false narrative. In light of which observation, the following exchange on The Zman’s blog struck me as more than a little amusing.

First, a wounded libertarian tried to play a rhetorical fast one by striking a superior pose and resorting to a common meme:

I’ve reading some of your anti-libertarian rants lately. And the phrase that comes to mind is:

“show me on the doll where the mean libertarian touched you”.

Seriously – pretty much every person you’ve ascribed libertarian leanings to in your recent columns – with the exception of Charles Murray – is somebody I have NEVER heard of before , and I’ve been reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now.

I’m starting to think this whole ascribing “libertarian” leanings to a bunch is another episode of that long running mini-series: “Look at me – I’m a conservative and I don’t know what the &%$! conservatism is”.

Previous seasons have given us a bunch of conservatives who filled up the Republican party with Neo-conservatives.

Apparently nobody went to look up what “neo” means.

Looks like we might be playing the same game again – except this time we’ve got a bunch of liberals calling themselves libertarians. Apparently because the words begin with “lib” everybody stopped thinking it out and thinks they’re one and the same.

The Zman didn’t need to respond, because the commenter’s pretensions were punctured, and his rhetoric was destroyed, by a single question from another commenter.


You’ve never heard of Reason magazine and Nick Gillespie?


That made me laugh. What sort of “libertarian” who has been “reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now” is unfamiliar with the #1 libertarian magazine and what was ranked the #4 libertarian site back in 2012. Of course, the sad state of libertarianism can probably be best understood by the realization that this very site was ranked #51 that year. Or by simply reflecting upon the last two Libertarian presidential campaigns.

It’s over. Let reason – and Reason – be silent when observation and experience gainsay its theories.

What libertarians need to ask themselves are these two questions: One, is my ideal of maximizing liberty in my society, the human society in which I actually live, presently dependent upon the core libertarian ideas of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Sovereign Individual? And, two, at this particular moment in history, do those core libertarian dogmas tend to expand or to reduce human liberty in my society?

The strength of an argument

In a recent article, well-known strength guru Mark Rippetoe quoted my recent comments about the known unreliability of science in light of the recent series of scandals concerning fraudulent peer review. This generated a modicum of, if not hilarity, at least hysteria.

The blogger Vox Day in his recent column makes an excellent point about published “science” and the peer-review process that generates it. In the field of the “exercise sciences” in particular we find an astonishing paucity of truly useful information with which to improve human performance. Instead, we rely on what is essentially an “engineering” approach – the application of physiology (the general-kind, not the exercise-kind), arithmetic, logic, analysis, and experience tempered by observation and constant adjustment for process optimization to the problem of how to improve human performance. The application of these engineering principles to the problem of human performance has yielded the Starting Strength Method, which is testable, reliable science.

One thing that many people, both scientists and uncredentialed laymen fail to understand is that science is not, fundamentally, about knowledge. It primarily concerns understanding. What Rippetoe is saying here is that in the field of exercise science, men like him know what works and what doesn’t. The paucity of “truly useful information” to which he refers is the deeper scientific understanding required to further improve upon what is already known.

The primary utility of science is not being able to say that something works, much less to make something work, but rather, to explain why it works. Or, conversely, to explain why something should work if the theory is put into application. This, of course, is why it is so easy for non-scientists to detect scientific fraud; when the theory is put into application and it fails, this is fairly strong evidence that the theory, i.e. the science, is incorrect.

Engineering is the acid test of science.

However, as I said, many people don’t understand what science is, or comprehend its limits. To them, it is simply a form of secular magic that must be completely trusted or it will stop working. Which, one presumes, might explain the hysterical reaction from several of Rippetoe’s readers to the mention of my name like a vampire unexpectedly encountering garlic.

Vox Day? Who is this clown and how does he have an opinion about the peer review process for publishing scientific articles? Many journals publish reviewer comments as well as the author response. If you want to understand peer review without actually doing science and going through the publishing process, look at the reviews for an article in an open source journal. Here is an example: https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e20797 (scroll down to ‘Decision letter’ and ‘Author response’). Vox Day wouldn’t understand a single sentence of this correspondence, so his criticism of the peer-review process as well as his interpretation of the distinction between science and engineering is useless. Science is not about ‘credentials’; it is about experimental DATA! The real currency of science is data—a Nobel Laureate’s theory can be proven wrong by a first-year grad student with data. 

That all sounds very nice in theory, but like every other human endeavor, science is given to corruption and fraud. Nor does his handwaving refute anything that I said, or anything that the article to which I linked – and which he obviously did not read – said. Furthermore, his statement that science is about DATA, not credentials, is precisely why my terms for the different aspects of science are necessary. Scientody may concern data, but one won’t get very far in scientistry without credentials these days.

It’s also telling that while he feigns not knowing who I am, he seems to have a surprisingly strong opinion on the limits of my understanding. Of course, we all know what the real issue is for the science fetishists. As always, they prove my point about the intrinsic unreliability of any human endeavor:

Vox Day is a really really bad example (or good, in the sense that he is extremely informative). Look at his stance on evolutionary biology — something I know a little about (not my field of science, I am a mathematician and computer scientist, but I’ve dabbled around). Because some people make errors in peer review, he sees this as *evidence* that the world was created 6000 years ago or so. (I may be misrepresenting and overstating his stance; this is for the purpose of illustrating his logic). Quoting a person who — by my humble opinion — is in dire need of psychiatric intervention is a bit of a disappointment to me.

The problem with his “logic” is that not only is that not my stance on evolutionary biology, but I don’t believe there is any evidence that the world was created 6,000 years ago. I am not a Young Earth Creationist, I have never subscribed to Bishop Ussher’s estimate for the age of the Earth, and the so-called “logic” being illustrated has literally nothing to do with me or my simple observation that professional science is riddled with fraud and corruption. It’s really rather remarkable how these fetishists can work the Scopes Trial into anything that so much as tangentially references any aspect of science.

It’s even more remarkable that, on the mere basis of “dabbling around”, this gentlemen feels capable of assuming his own expertise in the very different fields of both evolutionary biology and psychiatry. But then, just as laymen seldom understand the limits of science, scientists seldom understand how foolish they look when they venture forth from the boundaries of their little specialties. No more so than when they unwisely, and apparently without even realizing it, wander into the realm of philosophy.

Vox Day’s comment makes it clear that he forms and expresses strong opinions about topics on which he has very limited, superficial knowledge—a quick ‘google scholar’ search shows that he has never published a scientific article. He didn’t even provide evidence or examples for any of his claims. He is the pretty much the exact opposite of the type of person I respect.

The science fetishist always values evidence, valid or not, over mere truth. Which is ironic, given that the very metric upon which he relies, is, as was pointed out in the original post, not just intrinsically flawed, but known to be susceptible to fraud. What value is it to have published a scientific article when they are, statistically speaking, about as likely to be credible as a coin toss?

In any event, Rippetoe was having none of it, and indeed, seemed to be amused by the weird and feeble protests being offered.

I have huge admiration for Rip and was crushed to seem him propagate an anti-science message.

Here is the quote from the evil arch-nemesis of science Vox Day I used to introduce the piece:

All of the arguments about the presumed reliability of science are ridiculous and easily shown to be false. Science is no more “self-correcting” than accounting. Peer review is more commonly known as “proofreading” by the rest of the publishing industry and is not even theoretically a means of ensuring accuracy or correctness. And scientists are observably less trustworthy than nearly anyone except lawyers, politicians, and used car salesmen; at least prostitutes are honest about their pursuit of “grants” and “funding.” These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professional, credentialed scientists. And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is “engineering.”

What is it about this entirely accurate summary of the situation within the vast majority of the academic/governmental science establishment that leads you to be “crushed” by my use of this as analogy to what we’re doing in contrast to the ExFizz people?

I don’t need to read a peer-reviewed scientific article to know that Mark Rippetoe knows whereof he speaks. Nor do I need to publish a peer-reviewed scientific article to speak the truth. These science fetishists are committing an all-too-common philosophical error when they try to substitute the measure of a thing for the thing itself.

Of course, those who have read SJWAL know perfectly well what was actually being communicated beneath all the rhetoric as well as the purpose for it. This was merely an impromptu divide-and-discredit campaign meant to prevent the more dangerous party from being “qualified” by the more popular party.

Marketing matters

Nice to see three of the four other Kami members show up for Ohmura’s solo show.

There is an important lesson here. Same four guys that took the stage together with Su, Moa, and Yui two months before at the Tokyo Dome. Same mind-blowing talent… and in fact, Boh’s bass solo is a little more relaxed, but is longer and even more impressive than the one he plays for Twilight of the Metal Gods on Red Night.

And there are about 54,000 fewer people in attendance.

This should dismiss the notion, once and for all, that mere talent ever suffices.

Binary thinkers

Even Daniel Dennett, whose grasp of basic logic can best be described as “questionable”, finds himself struggling with binary thinkers:

Dennett waited until the group talked itself into a muddle, then broke in. He speaks slowly, melodiously, in the confident tones of a man with answers. When he uses philosophical lingo, his voice goes deeper, as if he were distancing himself from it. “The big mistake we’re making,” he said, “is taking our congenial, shared understanding of what it’s like to be us, which we learn from novels and plays and talking to each other, and then applying it back down the animal kingdom. Wittgenstein”—he deepened his voice—“famously wrote, ‘If a lion could talk, we couldn’t understand him.’ But no! If a lion could talk, we’d understand him just fine. He just wouldn’t help us understand anything about lions.”

“Because he wouldn’t be a lion,” another researcher said.

“Right,” Dennett replied. “He would be so different from regular lions that he wouldn’t tell us what it’s like to be a lion. I think we should just get used to the fact that the human concepts we apply so comfortably in our everyday lives apply only sort of to animals.” He concluded, “The notorious zombie problem is just a philosopher’s fantasy. It’s not anything that we have to take seriously.”

“Dan, I honestly get stuck on this,” a primate psychologist said. “If you say, well, rocks don’t have consciousness, I want to agree with you”—but he found it difficult to get an imaginative grip on the idea of a monkey with a “sort of” mind.

If philosophy were a sport, its ball would be human intuition. Philosophers compete to shift our intuitions from one end of the field to the other. Some intuitions, however, resist being shifted. Among these is our conviction that there are only two states of being: awake or asleep, conscious or unconscious, alive or dead, soulful or material. Dennett believes that there is a spectrum, and that we can train ourselves to find the idea of that spectrum intuitive.

“If you think there’s a fixed meaning of the word ‘consciousness,’ and we’re searching for that, then you’re already making a mistake,” Dennett said.

I think Dennett is essentially correct; his spectrum approach is not dissimilar to my own probability perspective. The fact that we don’t have enough information to correctly calculate those probabilities and identify them doesn’t mean that it is not a more useful heuristic than reducing everything to Abelardian binary.

The exchange with the primate psychologist reminds me a little of my mostly failed attempt to explain the IQ delta between very high intelligence and ultra high intelligence to people who are essentially limited to the smart-normal-dumb spectrum. The talking lion can’t speak meaningfully about the experience of dumb lions. The UHIQ can’t speak any more meaningfully about the experience of midwits than the midwit can describe what it is like to have an IQ of 50.

It shouldn’t be hard to grasp the concept that different minds process information differently, and yet, the guy who firmly believes he’s wicked smart because he had a 105 IQ in a classroom full of sub-95 IQs quite often assumes the guy with a 140 IQ must be stupid because he can’t understand him.

To quote my old sensei, mind the gap.

Also, I’m with Chalmers. I suspect if Dennett spent more time with technology in general, and AI in particular, he’d better grasp the fundamental weakness of his position.

On vulgarity

I am getting more than a little tired of the unending stream of vulgarity pouring out of a) some of the newer commenters and b) the usual suspects. First, my occasional use of the same does not constitute permission for you. Second, it is particularly unacceptable when directed at fellow commenters. Third, it makes me want to stop paying attention to the blog, so I can only imagine how it affects the casual readers. There is a reason I and many of the long-time commenters have increasingly disengaged from the comments; I have no interest in attempting to communicate with people who emote rather than think before they speak.

Seriously, get a grip. “TRUMP HAS CUCKED AND BETRAYED US ALL, THE END IS NIGH AND REICHSFUHRER KRISTOL REIGSN UBER ALLES!” doesn’t make you look clever, or smart, or even sane. There is not only no need for you to announce your opinion of every zig and zag of foreign policy, but the unpredictability of the God-Emperor all but guarantees that you’re going to look like a complete buffooon within days, if not hours, regardless of what you say.

On a tangential note, I note that, as I anticipated, virtually no one has acknowledged that I correctly observed, from the very start, the way in which the Syrian cruise missile attack was primarily about China and North Korea. So, next time, don’t ask me to make my predictions on this sort of thing public if I have chosen to withhold them for one reason or another. There is literally no reason for me to do so. When I get it wrong like everyone else, I hear about it for years. And when I am very nearly the only one to get it more or less right, everyone either ignores it or simply pretends it was obvious in retrospect.  Now, I’m not annoyed, I expected this, and I’m simply taking the opportunity to remind those of you who asked me to share my interpretation on the day of the missile attacks that I will not pay any heed to such requests in the future.

Anyhow, the moderators and I are going to start deleting comments containing vulgarity on sight and spamming those who refuse to moderate their language. Nor am I interested in any discussion of what words are acceptable and what are not. If you’re going to play the childish game of “let’s see how close to the line I can dance”, I’m just going to delete your comment for being tedious and immature. If your comment is nothing but an insult directed at me or someone else, it’s instant spam. And remember, these are Google comments and any spamming will affect your account across all Google products.

I don’t blog for the comments. I don’t get a rush out of seeing lots of comments. I’d much rather have five intelligent comments than 400 comments when most of them consist of idiots escalating rhetorical hostilities and talking past each other. While it’s fine to criticize, disagree, and utilize rhetoric, you’re going to have to learn how to do so without resorting to the insults and vulgarities that many of you have been using in the recent past.

There is no point in asking for clarification or trying to argue for the benefits of free speech here. The comments exist as a courtesy I extended in response to requests from my readers. If they annoy me sufficiently, I will simply turn them off and continue to blog as before. So, if you happen to want to have this particular microphone available to you, please treat it with more care and respect.

And for God’s sake, stop touching the poop! It’s not that hard. You’re not the poop police. And you’re not helping. Unless you have deletion powers, you are not part of the cleanup process, you’re part of the problem.

UPDATE: From a longtime reader:

I appreciate the vulgarity crackdown.  I had indeed been spending less
time on your site, and, especially, less time reading the comments,
because of the language used.

I had sensed as much. I probably should have done it right after the election, but better late than never.