Serious Truth or Trust - what is the best basis for the Blackpill ?

[K9Otaku]

This conversation started with this post on another thread:

A Blackpill Order of Monkcels - Should we create one?

Inceldom is already a quasi-religion. We have saints and we bicker like true religious people about orthodoxy (what counts as Inceldom) and about excommunications (who should be banned). Why not got the full distance and create a full-blown order of Monkcels. It's over anyways. This thread is...

incels.is

Please read it and the responses to it before responding here

 

[BummerDrummerOG]

Holy shit my asshole is sputtering so much liquid dihharea right now like my asshole has the anal version of Parkinson’s disease

 

[kikecel]

FUCK TRUTH AND TRUST, I NEED TO THRUST

 

[K9Otaku]

First, you have to define what "normie religion" is.

What I mean by this is Wokeism and all that preceded it: feminism, critical race theory, Deconstruction (Derrida), Foucault, Deleuze, The Frankfurt school. In the US, Standford is the Vatican of all this. And the US is the Vatican of the world.

I believe that all this constitute a religion based on a supernatural tenet: the belief in "Truth". Truth is a metaphysical (i.e. supernatural) construct that cannot be seen or touched. Its existence has been debunked repeatedly: Kant, Berkley, Wittgenstein and others.

I reckon that Trust is not a metaphysical construct. It can be experimented with every day. Thus, Trust is a better foundation for the Blackpill than "Truth". More explanations about this claim below.

What is it that we stand for? Who is we, precisely? Incels are not a monolithic group.

That is correct. But we all have the same experiences (inability to have relations with foids) and we suffer from this inability in a similar manner.

In particular, we all agree that the Wokeist religion (and in particular feminism) has made our situation intolerable.

A philosopher, or philosophy itself, is not something you "trust." You observe the reasoning and the arguments.

I disagree. Philosophy is not mathematics. In math, no trust is needed indeed. But philosophy is part of the humanities. It is a "discourse". Hence trust comes into play like for any other kind of discourse.

Logic doesn't need to be trusted, it simply needs to be consistent, followed and understood.

That is the position of a very narrow (and mostly rejected) school of philosophy: Logical Positivism. Wittgenstein was a follower (some would say a founder) of this school in his youth. But he completely rejected this position in his mature philosophy. Almost everyone agrees that his rejection of LP was decisive.

As I just said, if what they say is valid and sound, their ideological baggage is irrelevant. If a homeless man gives you the same financial advice as the successful multimillionaire, you will reject it because of the source? If you do, that's not very wise. Take things on their own merits.

This is the typical "truth" fallacy. If you need financial advice, it means you are not an expert in Finance. Therefore, you are not able to determine the merits of the advice you are receiving. Otherwise you would not need advice in the first place. This means that you will have to choose what advice you follow based on the credibility of the one who gives it. Who is more credible in that context? A wealthy man who made his fortune on the stock market or a beggar? You will not even ask the beggar because none of what he could say would be credible.

Kant's nuomena argues that we cannot fully know the thing in itself. This is valid, but from this you cannot make the inference and logically deny the truth of the thing in question, or that the truth of it exists in the first place, merely because of the gap between it and our perception of it.

Kant does not deny that the truth might exist somewhere. He just says we will never have access to it. For us, the truth does not exist.

Yes, the best we can hope for is a close, best approximation,

Which is exactly where Trust enters the picture. How do you know which one is "the best" approximation? You don't and you never will for sure. This is why there are paradigm shifts in science. Such things occurs when a former paradigm goes bankrupt (it looses credibility) and is replaced by a new one that is more trusted by scientists. Thomas Kuhn, followed by epistemologists like Bruno Latour have conclusively established that paradigm shifts are social phenomena within the scientific community. They are tectonic shifts in the structure of trust. "Truth" does not enter into the picture at all because no experiment establishes it for certain. It only adds a quantum of trust in one direction or the other.

but this natural limitation does not justify disposing the concept of truth altogether in favor of trust,

It does according to Kuhn and the anthropologists of science like Latour.

... in favor of trust, which is by far flimsier.

Trust is flimsier than truth. Ok. But oops, Truth does does not exist at all. Who is flimsier now.

Preferring truth over trust is like saying that a magic wand from World of Warcraft is a better weapons than, say, a crossbow. Ok, let us meet on the field, me with the crossbow, you with the wand. See what happens.

Truth is a magic, supernatural thing. Plato was clear on the subject, by the way. He clearly said you could only access Truth through mystical ways (remembering your past lives) At least he was honest.

If truth is limited by perception (because our biology won't allow us to cross the subjective-objective chasm), then trust is limited even further by the previous fact as well as an empirical requirement of the history of the object to which trust is assigned, which itself can be changed in the future, meaning that it's less stable (read: reliable) than truth.

Same as above. Truth would be nice, if we could know it. But we can't. So we have to make do with trust. Of course trust is full of issues. But at least it exists. We can work with it.

Wittgenstein himself was a philosopher of language and he argued that mystical truths cannot be meaningfully expressed in language.

No, that is not what he says. His attack on truth is far more general than that. What he says is that even the meaning of the words we use is defined in an irreducibly fuzzy manner. As a result, translating the statement into a logical expression is impossible and therefore so is assigning a truth value to it.

The notion of "accepting truth" vs "rejecting truth" is absurd. How are you even arguing this? The important thing in the linked entry are theories of truth. Philosophical Investigations didn't introduce a new theory, it commented on the difference between "truth" and "truthfulness" as it pertains to its language representation in propositional calculus. He didn't reject truth.

You are confusing the Tractatus (in which W. supports Logical Positivism, hence Truth) with the Philosophical Investigations, in which he rejects all of it.

The emotional objection is noted.

This is not an "emotional" objection. It is just an example of how Trust is earned or, in this case, lost.

Berkley should have conversed more with scientists, builders, and engineers.

Berkley is well respected in modern philosophy. This is why the "brain in a vat argument' has been built to reformulate his position in more modern terms. The brain in a vat argument is the strongest attack against truth there is. Here is how it goes. You put someone's brain in a vat where all the neural connections are hooked to as computer which simulates the exact same neural inputs that the brain would receive if it was connected to a body. If the brain is in the vat from birth (like in the Matrix) what becomes of any claim to "know the truth"? It is quite obvious that no one can be sure whether or not his brain is in a vat.

This is my point. There exist truths that are independent of nature.

The only "truths" of that type are the theorems of Mathematics. These, Wittgenstein prefers to call "tautologies" because they are all ultimately reducible to 1=1 and the like (axioms). This is not what we are talking about here, which is the "truth" of statements about objects in the world.

Many of these truths can be obtained through the scientific method and are classified as empirical facts.

No. Mathematical "truths" (tautologies) cannot be obtained empirically. And there are no other "truths that are independent of nature"

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-​

Truth is the ultimate gaslighting tool. If you believe in it, you can always be told "Such and such scientific study demonstrates that everyone can have a fruitful relationship with the other sex provided he improves his personality. Because it is scientific, it is the truth"

If the powers that be control your access to information, there is no way you can check anything about how the above statement was arrived at. Your only mental defense is "I do not trust it because I do not trust the person who says it" (let us suppose it is Anthony Fauci or Al Gore).

However, if we want to have something that we can call "the Black pill" we have to base it on some statements. If we distrust everything, we have nothing. How do we do this? By identifying the weak signals that are still coming from individuals which have not yet completely been forced to toe the line of the Wokeist religion. The reason we can still do that is because the shift towards Wokeism is still relatively recent. In the past. most people were far less cucked than today. There are still a great many traces of this in old published documents, many of which are still on the Internet. For example, there were many psychiatrists from the 1940s and 50s that clearly said that women had hypergamic behaviors. Even Wikipedia still contains a lot of traces like that (especially about events that took place before 1950) Therefore, we can build a "trust map" of these older sources and correlate them with the more recent ones that still agree with them. That gives us an indication that these newer sources, which generally disagree with Wokeist orthodoxy, are credible. If we keep working on this "trust map" we can arrive at a reasonable picture of what we can call "the black pill". By contrast, if we put our faith in "truth" (however strange that sounds) we put ourselves in perpetual danger of being gaslighted again by someone who has managed to hijack the means of communications through which the labelling of statements as "true" is being effected.

Holy shit my asshole is sputtering so much liquid dihharea right now like my asshole has the anal version of Parkinson’s disease

Mr. Stormfrontcel, may I remind you that Nazism is an ideolgy based on Trust, while Communism, its sworn enemy, is based on "Truth"

SS daggers bore the inscription : "Meine Ehre ist mein Treue", which means: "My honor is my fidelity" i.e. "My honor is my trustworthiness". The furehrerprinzip (leadership principle) has the same meaning: You trust the fuehrer.

FUCK TRUTH AND TRUST, I NEED TO THRUST

The question is: who do you trust to help you thrust?

 

[based_meme]

What I mean by this is Wokeism and all that preceded it: feminism, critical race theory, Deconstruction (Derrida), Foucault, Deleuze, The Frankfurt school. In the US, Standford is the Vatican of all this. And the US is the Vatican of the world.

OK. I wouldn't call that religion, but secular ideology, instead. It doesn't matter, though, the classification is moot.

I believe that all this constitute a religion based on a supernatural tenet: the belief in "Truth". Truth is a metaphysical (i.e. supernatural) construct that cannot be seen or touched. Its existence has been debunked repeatedly: Kant, Berkley, Wittgenstein and others.

You're positing this construct called "truth" and claiming that it is supernatural (and thus unobservable and unreachable), but you're not arguing for how it's supernatural. Maybe you're conflating ideal with supernatural. Truth is a number of things, but supernatural it isn't. Nobody you quoted has said that it is and "debunked" it. Kant argued for moral law (as a truth in reasoning, so that's not a rejection of it). Berkley was an idealist, and in his world truth was relative to the perceiver, but it was present. I'll get to Wittgenstein later.

I reckon that Trust is not a metaphysical construct. It can be experimented with every day. Thus, Trust is a better foundation for the Blackpill than "Truth". More explanations about this claim below.

Trust a property of relationships between people. The black pill exists mostly as a collection of scientific facts that support and correlate with the experiences of many men. How is "trust" is supposed to be a foundation for the black pill?

That is correct. But we all have the same experiences (inability to have relations with foids) and we suffer from this inability in a similar manner.

In particular, we all agree that the Wokeist religion (and in particular feminism) has made our situation intolerable.

We can share the same experiences and all agree that "Wokeism" has made our net situation worse, but what do "we stand for"?

I disagree. Philosophy is not mathematics. In math, no trust is needed indeed. But philosophy is part of the humanities. It is a "discourse". Hence trust comes into play like for any other kind of discourse.

Well, in that sense, then, it's the person you would trust. The only things that two parties would need to trust each other with when in discourse are to clearly define your terms when you introduce them (so that there is no miscommunication or potential for fallacious arguments), and to argue in good faith (no sophistry and political tactics). There may be more that I haven't mentioned, but these two are most important.

That is the position of a very narrow (and mostly rejected) school of philosophy: Logical Positivism. Wittgenstein was a follower (some would say a founder) of this school in his youth. But he completely rejected this position in his mature philosophy. Almost everyone agrees that his rejection of LP was decisive.

What does that statement of mine have to do with some defunct philosophical movement? To say that logic needs consistency to be followed is simply a natural observation of it, else it's illogic.

This is the typical "truth" fallacy. If you need financial advice, it means you are not an expert in Finance. Therefore, you are not able to determine the merits of the advice you are receiving. Otherwise you would not need advice in the first place. This means that you will have to choose what advice you follow based on the credibility of the one who gives it. Who is more credible in that context? A wealthy man who made his fortune on the stock market or a beggar? You will not even ask the beggar because none of what he could say would be credible.

This is a fair point. The example was bad because it presupposed foreknowledge of the observer as the participant. In other words I would (from the outside) know that the advice of the beggar and the wealthy man is the same, but the person in the moment wouldn't.

Which is exactly where Trust enters the picture. How do you know which one is "the best" approximation? You don't and you never will for sure. This is why there are paradigm shifts in science. Such things occurs when a former paradigm goes bankrupt (it looses credibility) and is replaced by a new one that is more trusted by scientists. Thomas Kuhn, followed by epistemologists like Bruno Latour have conclusively established that paradigm shifts are social phenomena within the scientific community. They are tectonic shifts in the structure of trust. "Truth" does not enter into the picture at all because no experiment establishes it for certain. It only adds a quantum of trust in one direction or the other.

The scientific method already gives us the best available approximation of the truth (about reality), and it slowly advances towards greater refinement and accuracy of that approximation. There is no differing between scientists in the method, which is why repeatability is so important.

It does according to Kuhn and the anthropologists of science like Latour.

Show me where Kuhn "disposes" of truth, and does so in favor of trust.

Trust is flimsier than truth. Ok. But oops, Truth does does not exist at all. Who is flimsier now.

You mean what. What is flimsier, not who. You repeatedly assert this claim that truth doesn't exist and that it's a metaphysical construct, and you've erroneously appealed to select philosophers as support for this claim, but you've yet to make an argument for this yourself. Why doesn't truth exist?

Preferring truth over trust is like saying that a magic wand from World of Warcraft is a better weapons than, say, a crossbow. Ok, let us meet on the field, me with the crossbow, you with the wand. See what happens.

This an analogy is entertaining, but it's a false equivalence. We either both meet in a game server with digital weapons or a physical field with physical weapons. This isn't accounting for the fact that you've yet to show that truth is inexistent.

Truth is a magic, supernatural thing. Plato was clear on the subject, by the way. He clearly said you could only access Truth through mystical ways (remembering your past lives) At least he was honest.

What truth was Plato talking about, and what truth are you talking about? You keep name-dropping like it's supposed to be an argument by itself. It's not. You're supposed to make arguments yourself and then use somebody's name when your arguments or uses of concept draw parallels to (or mirror) existing ones by those you name.

Same as above. Truth would be nice, if we could know it. But we can't. So we have to make do with trust. Of course trust is full of issues. But at least it exists. We can work with it.

What the hell is this even supposed to mean? Explain all of this to me in practice. Let's suppose everybody throws out "truth" because we just assume it doesn't exist like you do, or--as a second best--we settle on the fact that our perception of reality is an approximation of reality and thus discard all truths.

OK. Now what? What's step 1, 2, .... , n?

No, that is not what he says. His attack on truth is far more general than that. What he says is that even the meaning of the words we use is defined in an irreducibly fuzzy manner. As a result, translating the statement into a logical expression is impossible and therefore so is assigning a truth value to it.

But that's all completely bollocks, because then nothing is true or false. But formal logic already exists, coherently and consistentely, independent of assigned meanings. We take p's and q's all of the time. We don't say what they are, but we do say that if p is such and such, then q must be such and such. We take this to another level in mathematics when we very clearly define things and then derive theorems i.e., true statements (not all, because Gödel showed that, but more than enough to be useful) that are reducible to the axioms.

You are confusing the Tractatus (in which W. supports Logical Positivism, hence Truth) with the Philosophical Investigations, in which he rejects all of it.

No, I'm talking about Investigations. Show me where he "rejects truth." Don't be lazy and say "all of it is a rejection." Here's the book.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54889e73e4b0a2c1f9891289/t/564b61a4e4b04eca59c4d232/1447780772744/Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.pdf

Berkley is well respected in modern philosophy. This is why the "brain in a vat argument' has been built to reformulate his position in more modern terms. The brain in a vat argument is the strongest attack against truth there is. Here is how it goes. You put someone's brain in a vat where all the neural connections are hooked to as computer which simulates the exact same neural inputs that the brain would receive if it was connected to a body. If the brain is in the vat from birth (like in the Matrix) what becomes of any claim to "know the truth"? It is quite obvious that no one can be sure whether or not his brain is in a vat.

Yes, that old argument is well-known. Even on the face of it, if you suppose that you are brain in a vat or in a simulation or what have you, you're already presupposing an existing reality or "truth" i.e., the "true" existence. The claim that this is the strongest attack on truth is self-defeating. You're using an argument in support of skepticism about "the truth" against "truth" itself, but the argument inherently assumes that there is some objective "truth." This isn't even accounting for the fact that it fails to escape infinite regress.

In other words that's not saying anything against "truth."

The only "truths" of that type are the theorems of Mathematics. These, Wittgenstein prefers to call "tautologies" because they are all ultimately reducible to 1=1 and the like (axioms). This is not what we are talking about here, which is the "truth" of statements about objects in the world.

Are we now we're introducing types of truth when it's convenient to do so? The existence of axioms self-evidently demonstrates the existence of "truth" in some form or another.

No. Mathematical "truths" (tautologies) cannot be obtained empirically.

Right, that's by design. Such truths are derived a priori. Also, they're not tautological. Wittgenstein claimed this in the Tractatus, which you reject, so why are you saying this here? Also, when I was referring to "these truths" I meant all truths, not mathematical truths.

And there are no other "truths that are independent of nature"

There are logical truths. Is logic a part of nature? I'm not being facetious. If truths are not independent of nature, then they must be dependent on nature.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-​

Truth is the ultimate gaslighting tool. If you believe in it, you can always be told "Such and such scientific study demonstrates that everyone can have a fruitful relationship with the other sex provided he improves his personality. Because it is scientific, it is the truth"

If the powers that be control your access to information, there is no way you can check anything about how the above statement was arrived at. Your only mental defense is "I do not trust it because I do not trust the person who says it" (let us suppose it is Anthony Fauci or Al Gore).

However, if we want to have something that we can call "the Black pill" we have to base it on some statements. If we distrust everything, we have nothing. How do we do this? By identifying the weak signals that are still coming from individuals which have not yet completely been forced to toe the line of the Wokeist religion. The reason we can still do that is because the shift towards Wokeism is still relatively recent. In the past. most people were far less cucked than today. There are still a great many traces of this in old published documents, many of which are still on the Internet. For example, there were many psychiatrists from the 1940s and 50s that clearly said that women had hypergamic behaviors. Even Wikipedia still contains a lot of traces like that (especially about events that took place before 1950) Therefore, we can build a "trust map" of these older sources and correlate them with the more recent ones that still agree with them. That gives us an indication that these newer sources, which generally disagree with Wokeist orthodoxy, are credible. If we keep working on this "trust map" we can arrive at a reasonable picture of what we can call "the black pill". By contrast, if we put our faith in "truth" (however strange that sounds) we put ourselves in perpetual danger of being gaslighted again by someone who has managed to hijack the means of communications through which the labelling of statements as "true" is being effected.

What are you trying to do here? Effectively, all that's going to happen in the mind of the average person is a semantic shift in language. Phrases like "that's true" or "what he's saying is true" will be changed with "that's trustworthy" or "what he's saying is trustworthy." It changes words, but the 2-valued logic of "true" or "false" would remain present and merely be relabeled as "trustworthy" and "untrustworthy." People are still going to be functionally operating as if "true" and "false" are the paradigm.

You would discarding a developed (and still developing), established, and tested method of understanding reality and the facts about it, that has been controlled by an orthodoxy for an orthodoxy of your own based on the tenet of "just trust me bro, I'm trustworthy. I'm a black pilled monk, I GOT THIS." Maybe I'm being harsh, but you need to flesh this out and make sense of it.

 

[K9Otaku]

What are you trying to do here? Effectively, all that's going to happen in the mind of the average person is a semantic shift in language. Phrases like "that's true" or "what he's saying is true" will be changed with "that's trustworthy" or "what he's saying is trustworthy." It changes words, but the 2-valued logic of "true" or "false" would remain present and merely be relabeled as "trustworthy" and "untrustworthy." People are still going to be functionally operating as if "true" and "false" are the paradigm.

Trust is not a 2-valued system like logic. It is based on a continuous valuation of credit from 0 to 1. To be precise, the interval is [0, 1[. Perfect credit is never reached. This is exactly what everybody does in practical life. No one ever fully trust anybody else. Moreover, trust valuations are constantly revised.

... then nothing is true or false. But formal logic already exists, coherently and consistently, independent of assigned meanings.

Logic exists like mathematics exists, inside of our brains. It is consistent there but what is at stake here is whether you can apply it to real world situations. What happened in AI is a good example of an attempt at that failing. In the 80s, AI research was mostly about logic-based systems. It did not work. No so-called "expert system" ever proved usable. Then there was the so called "AI winter". Recently, AI has been revived, but based on Neural Networks (the so called "deep leaning" algorithms). These use continuous valuations from 0 to 1, not two-valued logic.

I have never seen a credible application of formal logic except to mathematics itself.

You're positing this construct called "truth" and claiming that it is supernatural. But you're not arguing for how it's supernatural.

In Plato it is clearly supernatural. "Truth" is a property of a statement that is in exact correspondence with the ideal forms, which cannot be perceived with the senses. Thus, an appraisal of the truth requires extra-sensory perception. For Plato himself, this involves reminiscence, the remembrance of past lives until you reach the moment before the Demiurge created the material world, when the souls were floating around among the pure forms.

Plato is honest. His is the only account of Truth that is consistent with the idea that you can have statements (or thoughts) which coincide with ultimate reality.

Every truth-monger after Plato is dishonest; trying to keep the appealing aspects of truth (security, certainty) while downplaying the supernatural aspects.

This started with Aristotle, who in fact developed a theory of trust while still using the word "truth". That is why he could come up with an account of kinetics (constant force = constant speed) that was not very good by our standards, but was validated by experience that was accessible to him: carts pulled by oxen, sailboat pushed by wind. This account could be trusted, until something better came along.

Eventually, we reached the completely absurd situation we have today, with "theories of trust" which retain the word but describe something that is totally unrelated to its meaning. The most egregious example is the "deflationary" theory of truth in which in fact "truth" is rejected.

The meaning of "truth" is the correspondence theory of truth; the idea that a statement "coincides" with "reality". That is the sense in which everybody who is not a philosopher uses the word. This is also how people can be manipulated, because it gives them the impression that the one wielding the word, the "scientist", has access to ultimate reality. This is how Fauci or Al Gore are able to swindle people into doing their bidding.

Then you have a few remaining honest people, like Whitehead who said that all "philosophy" (he means all accounts of "truth") are footnotes to Plato. He is right. The only honest such account is Plato's, which baldly admits that truth is supernatural; that it "belongs to the gods"

The scientific method already gives us the best available approximation of the truth (about reality)

As soon as you are using the word "approximation", you are in fact implying a continuous valuation from 0 to 1. In effect, you are talking about trust, not truth.

What constitute "the best" theory is in fact the result of a vote among scientists (which Kuhn and science anthropologists describe). The result of this vote is again a vote of confidence; an expression of trust.

... and it slowly advances towards greater refinement and accuracy of that approximation. There is no differing between scientists in the method, which is why repeatability is so important.

It does not advance "slowly". It advance in revolutions; in sharp breaks. The scientific method is similar to the code of criminal procedure. It has its rules about evidence (repeatability), its due process (peer review) and its trials (paradigm shifts). Like the judicial process, it is a method to weigh trust, not establish "truth". Real scientists never say that their theories are "true". They say that they are "best experimentally confirmed", which means "most trusted at the moment"

Show me where Kuhn "disposes" of truth, and does so in favor of trust.

See above.

This an analogy is entertaining, but it's a false equivalence. We either both meet in a game server with digital weapons or a physical field with physical weapons.

Or we can meet in a physical field with one real crossbow and what one of the contenders thinks is a magic wand (but is in fact a foam replica like those used by cosplayers) See what the result would be ?

Explain all of this to me in practice. Let's suppose everybody throws out "truth" because we just assume it doesn't exist like you do, we settle on the fact that our perception of reality is an approximation of reality and thus discard all truths.

OK. Now what? What's step 1, 2, .... , n?

1. Get out of bed
2. Eat corn-flakes for breakfast (trusting that Kellogs is not trying to poison you)
3. Take public transport (trusting that the bus goes where it is said it does and that the driver knows what he is doing)
4. Go to work (trusting that your employer will pay you at the end of the month)
5. Deposit your pay in a bank account (trusting that the bank will give it back to you when you need it)
6. ...

Oh wait. Many Incels cannot do that because they are suffering from a breakdown of trust (a fully justified one). That is the issue we are facing as incels: how can we have trust back to sustain our lives?

The impression of many incels is that it is impossible and they reach a reasonable conclusion as a result: without trust, life is not worth living. And they rope.

We will never know for sure whether Kellogs is not trying to poison us (or whether some psycho put some cyanide in our box of corn flakes). Eating cornflakes, like absolutely everything we do is an act of trust. "truth" never enters into our daily decisions. If we tried to wait before we knew the "truth", we would die of starvation (or even asphyxiation, who knows if there is not a poison in the air?) before we can complete a single action.

This is the ultimate role of the Blackpill: rebuilding trust on top of the mistrusted ruins of our world. It is that or we all rope.

NB: I did not answer your question about LW's PI because there is no space here. Your question is a PhD subject. It requires a PhD-length answer.

 

[Tenshi]

can we even trust each other? I'm pretty sure many men here would stab me for a chance with a girl.

 

[K9Otaku]

can we even trust each other? I'm pretty sure many men here would stab me for a chance with a girl.

That is why we rope. You cannot live without trust. And it is not a matter of feelings only. You cannot materially live without trust. Incel life today inevitably leads to suicide; either by rope or by starvation.

People who let themselves die are wrong. That is the judgement of Darwin's theory of evolution

But we don't think we are wrong (I don't think so) so it means we are assuming there must be a way out of mistrust

 

[K9Otaku]

1. Get out of bed
2. Eat corn-flakes for breakfast (trusting that Kellogs is not trying to poison you)
3. Take public transport (trusting that the bus goes where it is said it does and that the driver knows what he is doing)
4. Go to work (trusting that your employer will pay you at the end of the month)
5. Deposit your pay in a bank account (trusting that the bank will give it back to you when you need it)
6. ...

One additional remark, @based_meme. This is not a joke. In many third-world countries, none of the steps above can be taken for granted. Food is often poisonous, public transport is haphazard, employers pay their employees irregularly and banks disappear with their depositors money.

We have forgotten the enormous amount of trust that is required to make all these simple steps we take each day seem as unproblematic as they appear to us.

In macro terms, rebuilding trust is an enormous endeavor. It requires a lot of small steps over a very long period. If you really want to discuss this, I suggest you read the book discussed in this thread:

Credit Masturbation - Have you heard of it?

Last week, I was in Dubai with my folks and I met a curry guy who showed me this thing that is sort of half a book, half a website. I read through some of it and it looks pretty based. It can be accessed in website form here or as a stand-alone PDF document. It is like novel and it explains how...

incels.is

I was already thinking along those lines before I came across that book. But I would not have been able to put them in writing as well as it does.
Yet another idea to discuss.

Here is an example of how religion solved the problem of inceldom in the past, through trust:
This is plate 6 of the "industry and Idleness" series of engravings by William Hogarth. It depicts an apprentice who started poor marrying his boss's daughter after he has proved himself trustworthy over the years (apprentices started young)

It shows how a ton of Incels were getting wives in the past: by winning the trust of a father who would then give them his daughter in marriage. This worked both with the father and the foid, because the welfare state did not exist and having a reliable provider as a husband was the best bet for survival.

Foids have 2 main instincts:

• Hypergamy,
• Risk aversion.

In the past, religions managed to combat the first by playing up the second. Trust was key because it is the only thing that can satisfy risk-aversion. Many an ugly man got a decent foid that way, when Christianity reigned supreme in the West.

Of course, there is no way to go back to Christianity. It is broken beyond repair. However, we can try to understand how it worked and emulate its success with the tools of our time. That is what the blackpill should stand for, I believe.
In the above message, the image did not load properly. Here is a link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus..._Time,_&_Married_to_his_Master's_Daughter.png
... Sorry, the whole post is a mess now. Please disentable it before responding. The second post started at "Yet another idea to discuss"
... and the image was below "Here is an example ..."
Fucking forum gobbled up my image and then does not allow me to edit the post.

 

[K9Otaku]

Hello ? I put a lot a of work in these answers, after you begged me to continue the discussion ...

By consulting your profile, I cam see that since I last posted here you have posted at least 15 times instead of answering. What does that say about you?

 

[based_meme]

Hello ? I put a lot a of work in these answers, after you begged me to continue the discussion ...

By consulting your profile, I cam see that since I last posted here you have posted at least 15 times instead of answering. What does that say about you?

I haven't forgotten. I will respond. Sometimes it's important to step back and think.

 

[K9Otaku]

I haven't forgotten. I will respond. Sometimes it's important to step back and think.

Fair enough, but you could have DMd me to say that

 

[K9Otaku]

I haven't forgotten. I will respond. Sometimes it's important to step back and think.

Okay, now your thought process is really starting to appear a little slow ...

But that's all right. Take your time

 

[proudweeb]

Holy shit my asshole is sputtering so much liquid dihharea right now like my asshole has the anal version of Parkinson’s disease

this guy gets it

 

[based_meme]

Okay, now your thought process is really starting to appear a little slow ...

But that's all right. Take your time

You know I don't owe you a reply, right?

Hello ? I put a lot a of work in these answers, after you begged me to continue the discussion ...

By consulting your profile, I cam see that since I last posted here you have posted at least 15 times instead of answering. What does that say about you?

By the way, asshole, I didn't beg you. So, if you're going to be petty, at least be honest.

 

[based_meme]

Trust is not a 2-valued system like logic. It is based on a continuous valuation of credit from 0 to 1. To be precise, the interval is [0, 1[. Perfect credit is never reached. This is exactly what everybody does in practical life. No one ever fully trust anybody else. Moreover, trust valuations are constantly revised.

Trust is not a primary mode of reasoning. It's an inductive shortcut of sorts, based on previous experiences that are built up, that serve as time and energy savers. I don't need to check my toaster's circuit board and connect the transistors to a computer to check that the programming is in order and that it will eject at the right time every single time, before I insert a couple slices of bread and press the button. I just insert the damn thing and press the button, while making coffee, and I don't give it a single extra more complex than that thereafter.

Logic exists like mathematics exists, inside of our brains.

No, it exists in the world without your conscious activity of it. But I'm not really interested in discussing the metaphysics of logic.

It is consistent there but what is at stake here is whether you can apply it to real world situations.

Read Eugene Wigner's famous essay.

What happened in AI is a good example of an attempt at that failing. In the 80s, AI research was mostly about logic-based systems. It did not work. No so-called "expert system" ever proved usable. Then there was the so called "AI winter". Recently, AI has been revived, but based on Neural Networks (the so called "deep leaning" algorithms). These use continuous valuations from 0 to 1, not two-valued logic.

You obviously don't understand computer systems, let alone neural networks. All computers are based on binary logic (true or false, 0 or 1).

I have never seen a credible application of formal logic except to mathematics itself.

ALL SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING IS APPLIED FORMAL LOGIC.

JFL

In Plato it is clearly supernatural. "Truth" is a property of a statement that is in exact correspondence with the ideal forms, which cannot be perceived with the senses. Thus, an appraisal of the truth requires extra-sensory perception. For Plato himself, this involves reminiscence, the remembrance of past lives until you reach the moment before the Demiurge created the material world, when the souls were floating around among the pure forms.

Well, I don't care about "in Plato," and I don't care about souls. Stop trying to insert "truth" into some supernatural framework to try and make it convenient and easy for yourself to attack.

Plato is honest. His is the only account of Truth that is consistent with the idea that you can have statements (or thoughts) which coincide with ultimate reality.

Like you said, Plato's accounting of truth is a direct correspondence to ideal forms, which, according to him, is unreachable through subjective, conscious sense perception. That doesn't make him "honest," it just makes him consistent within his own framework.

Every truth-monger after Plato is dishonest; trying to keep the appealing aspects of truth (security, certainty) while downplaying the supernatural aspects.

OK, cool. Thanks for your opinion bro.

This started with Aristotle, who in fact developed a theory of trust while still using the word "truth". That is why he could come up with an account of kinetics (constant force = constant speed) that was not very good by our standards, but was validated by experience that was accessible to him: carts pulled by oxen, sailboat pushed by wind. This account could be trusted, until something better came along.

Facts of reality are contained within the set of "truth." If we can never have to all of the elements in the complete set for whatever reasons, then so be it--we'll do as much as possible. His account of elementary physics (which wasn't so elementary at the time) was an incomplete picture of classical mechanics at the time. We have more facts now than we did back then. This doesn't translate to "we TRUST science today more than we TRUST Aristotle's personal account of kinematics back then." This is PRECISELY why the scientific method was developed: so that we don't have to rely on TRUSTING the accounts of persons A, B or C, regardless of how trustworthy they are.

You want us to go back thousands of years and throw all of this away. I'd ask you if you're being serious, but you've already told us you are.

Eventually, we reached the completely absurd situation we have today, with "theories of trust" which retain the word but describe something that is totally unrelated to its meaning. The most egregious example is the "deflationary" theory of truth in which in fact "truth" is rejected.

You got that right, buddy boyo. Now remind me again why you have such a raging boner for TRUST over truth? Oh, right. It's "supernatural."

The meaning of "truth" is the correspondence theory of truth; the idea that a statement "coincides" with "reality". That is the sense in which everybody who is not a philosopher uses the word. This is also how people can be manipulated, because it gives them the impression that the one wielding the word, the "scientist", has access to ultimate reality. This is how Fauci or Al Gore are able to swindle people into doing their bidding.

Don't throw science under the bus of politics. People are manipulated mostly because they're misinformed, but also because they're not experts. Well, the experts sometimes are bought and paid for, and serve as political shills and mouthpieces for politicians. But that's a tangent discussion.

Then you have a few remaining honest people, like Whitehead who said that all "philosophy" (he means all accounts of "truth") are footnotes to Plato. He is right. The only honest such account is Plato's, which baldly admits that truth is supernatural; that it "belongs to the gods"

Here we go again with calling people's philosophies we agree with "honest."

As soon as you are using the word "approximation", you are in fact implying a continuous valuation from 0 to 1.

Absolutely true. That valuation, however, is not from false to true (0 to 1). It's "how much do we know now" aka "how close are we to a complete picture at this point in time" aka "how close are we to the truth about x today."

In effect, you are talking about trust, not truth.

Absolutely false. The "trust" you're talking about is not having to reinvent the wheel with regards to the chain of inductive reasoning, because "the scientific method" was developed for this exact reason: so that you don't have to start everything from the top every single time, you just continue onward from the last point. In doing so you "trust" (not the best concept, at least in the way in which you're characterizing it) that the previous works were done properly and correctly.

What constitute "the best" theory is in fact the result of a vote among scientists (which Kuhn and science anthropologists describe). The result of this vote is again a vote of confidence; an expression of trust.

Ego, careers, reputation, and politics aside, it's not a vote, it's a consensus. When ten experts get together and seven of them agree on theory A being the strongest candidate over theory B to describe a set X of phenomena, they're generally doing so with strong reasons and evidence (again, minus all of the human bullshit I mentioned in the previous sentence).

It does not advance "slowly". It advance in revolutions; in sharp breaks.

It's really both. The peaks are revolutionary breakthroughs that are game-changers. In between the breakthroughs is a gradual, cumulative progress that collectively contributes to the next breakthrough (if there is one).

The scientific method is similar to the code of criminal procedure. It has its rules about evidence (repeatability), its due process (peer review) and its trials (paradigm shifts). Like the judicial process, it is a method to weigh trust, not establish "truth". Real scientists never say that their theories are "true". They say that they are "best experimentally confirmed", which means "most trusted at the moment"

You're grossly mischaracterizing and patronizing the entire scientific process. When a scientist "trusts" his data it is absolutely not remotely in the same realm as "trusting someone's word." In many cases the scientist collects more data or repeats a process if the results are completely unexpected. In rare cases these unexpected results culminate in the breakthroughs, which opens the door for further investigation. When a scientist forges their data, and it's discovered that they did, through repeated experiments by others it's a big pretty fucking deal. That's why the paradigm of "trust" doesn't operate as primary mode of reasoning there. Yeah, you "trust" a scientist's results (more like you "trust that they followed proper procedures"), but you still check the work and see if you get the same results.

Or we can meet in a physical field with one real crossbow and what one of the contenders thinks is a magic wand (but is in fact a foam replica like those used by cosplayers) See what the result would be ?

1. Get out of bed
2. Eat corn-flakes for breakfast (trusting that Kellogs is not trying to poison you)
3. Take public transport (trusting that the bus goes where it is said it does and that the driver knows what he is doing)
4. Go to work (trusting that your employer will pay you at the end of the month)
5. Deposit your pay in a bank account (trusting that the bank will give it back to you when you need it)
6. ...

We all already operate this way. We trust our experts to be correct and our machines to operate as intended. There's nothing "magical about truth" there. But that trust is not blind trust. There are systems behind it which build up that trust and allow us to carry on throughout our days without having to stop do every little single thing by ourselves.

Oh wait. Many Incels cannot do that because they are suffering from a breakdown of trust (a fully justified one). That is the issue we are facing as incels: how can we have trust back to sustain our lives?

The lack of trust is of the societal system, reinforced by the fact that culture and governments work hard to maintain that system that is harming us.

The impression of many incels is that it is impossible and they reach a reasonable conclusion as a result: without trust, life is not worth living. And they rope.

Fucking WHAT? Wait, so you mean to tell us that it's not because of years of being bullied, rejected and socially tormented? It's not the realization that there's no hope left and that their lives have lost all meaning, because they're unable to fulfil basic human needs and desires? It's just a lack of TRUST?

@gymletethnicel hey bro, it's not really over for you. You just need to trust society and foids to regain your happiness, and trust that it's not your looks and female hypergamous nature in this shit gynocentric society.

We will never know for sure whether Kellogs is not trying to poison us (or whether some psycho put some cyanide in our box of corn flakes). Eating cornflakes, like absolutely everything we do is an act of trust. "truth" never enters into our daily decisions. If we tried to wait before we knew the "truth", we would die of starvation (or even asphyxiation, who knows if there is not a poison in the air?) before we can complete a single action.

Already discussed earlier above.

This is the ultimate role of the Blackpill: rebuilding trust on top of the mistrusted ruins of our world. It is that or we all rope.

The black pill's role is very simple and straightforward: to provide context for the experiences of the majority of men in the social, romantic, and even professional domains, and to provide them a collection of scientific facts and results that help explain those experience in a more formal and rigorous way.

(@Gymcelled what's your take on this characterization of the black pill?)

NB: I did not answer your question about LW's PI because there is no space here. Your question is a PhD subject. It requires a PhD-length answer.

That's a cheap cop-out. Anybody can easily claim that any difficult question for them requires a doctoral paper to answer (or like how Dennett jokes about how a philosopher points out something, but then raises his hands and says I'm not an expert in that field when further asked about it). Wittgenstein's supposed "rejection of truth" is central to your main argument. Of course, you have to be able to defend that. That's on you, brocel. If somebody else has already done the work, then just point me in that direction. You can't just blanketly claim "Wittgenstein said this, therefore that." Moreover, who the fuck cares what Wittgenstein thinks? What do YOU think and why is that relevant here? That's what matters. I'll remind you to forget the name-dropping when making a point, unless you need to reference something specific.

 

[Dregster]

Holy shit my asshole is sputtering so much liquid dihharea right now like my asshole has the anal version of Parkinson’s disease

 

[Gymcelled]

Trust is not a primary mode of reasoning. It's an inductive shortcut of sorts, based on previous experiences that are built up, that serve as time and energy savers. I don't need to check my toaster's circuit board and connect the transistors to a computer to check that the programming is in order and that it will eject at the right time every single time, before I insert a couple slices of bread and press the button. I just insert the damn thing and press the button, while making coffee, and I don't give it a single extra more complex than that thereafter.


No, it exists in the world without your conscious activity of it. But I'm not really interested in discussing the metaphysics of logic.


Read Eugene Wigner's famous essay.


You obviously don't understand computer systems, let alone neural networks. All computers are based on binary logic (true or false, 0 or 1).


ALL SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING IS APPLIED FORMAL LOGIC.

JFL


Well, I don't care about "in Plato," and I don't care about souls. Stop trying to insert "truth" into some supernatural framework to try and make it convenient and easy for yourself to attack.


Like you said, Plato's accounting of truth is a direct correspondence to ideal forms, which, according to him, is unreachable through subjective, conscious sense perception. That doesn't make him "honest," it just makes him consistent within his own framework.


OK, cool. Thanks for your opinion bro.

Facts of reality are contained within the set of "truth." If we can never have to all of the elements in the complete set for whatever reasons, then so be it--we'll do as much as possible. His account of elementary physics (which wasn't so elementary at the time) was an incomplete picture of classical mechanics at the time. We have more facts now than we did back then. This doesn't translate to "we TRUST science today more than we TRUST Aristotle's personal account of kinematics back then." This is PRECISELY why the scientific method was developed: so that we don't have to rely on TRUSTING the accounts of persons A, B or C, regardless of how trustworthy they are.

You want us to go back thousands of years and throw all of this away. I'd ask you if you're being serious, but you've already told us you are.


You got that right, buddy boyo. Now remind me again why you have such a raging boner for TRUST over truth? Oh, right. It's "supernatural."


Don't throw science under the bus of politics. People are manipulated mostly because they're misinformed, but also because they're not experts. Well, the experts sometimes are bought and paid for, and serve as political shills and mouthpieces for politicians. But that's a tangent discussion.


Here we go again with calling people's philosophies we agree with "honest."


Absolutely true. That valuation, however, is not from false to true (0 to 1). It's "how much do we know now" aka "how close are we to a complete picture at this point in time" aka "how close are we to the truth about x today."


Absolutely false. The "trust" you're talking about is not having to reinvent the wheel with regards to the chain of inductive reasoning, because "the scientific method" was developed for this exact reason: so that you don't have to start everything from the top every single time, you just continue onward from the last point. In doing so you "trust" (not the best concept, at least in the way in which you're characterizing it) that the previous works were done properly and correctly.


Ego, careers, reputation, and politics aside, it's not a vote, it's a consensus. When ten experts get together and seven of them agree on theory A being the strongest candidate over theory B to describe a set X of phenomena, they're generally doing so with strong reasons and evidence (again, minus all of the human bullshit I mentioned in the previous sentence).


It's really both. The peaks are revolutionary breakthroughs that are game-changers. In between the breakthroughs is a gradual, cumulative progress that collectively contributes to the next breakthrough (if there is one).


You're grossly mischaracterizing and patronizing the entire scientific process. When a scientist "trusts" his data it is absolutely not remotely in the same realm as "trusting someone's word." In many cases the scientist collects more data or repeats a process if the results are completely unexpected. In rare cases these unexpected results culminate in the breakthroughs, which opens the door for further investigation. When a scientist forges their data, and it's discovered that they did, through repeated experiments by others it's a big pretty fucking deal. That's why the paradigm of "trust" doesn't operate as primary mode of reasoning there. Yeah, you "trust" a scientist's results (more like you "trust that they followed proper procedures"), but you still check the work and see if you get the same results.





We all already operate this way. We trust our experts to be correct and our machines to operate as intended. There's nothing "magical about truth" there. But that trust is not blind trust. There are systems behind it which build up that trust and allow us to carry on throughout our days without having to stop do every little single thing by ourselves.


The lack of trust is of the societal system, reinforced by the fact that culture and governments work hard to maintain that system that is harming us.


Fucking WHAT? Wait, so you mean to tell us that it's not because of years of being bullied, rejected and socially tormented? It's not the realization that there's no hope left and that their lives have lost all meaning, because they're unable to fulfil basic human needs and desires? It's just a lack of TRUST?

@gymletethnicel hey bro, it's not really over for you. You just need to trust society and foids to regain your happiness, and trust that it's not your looks and female hypergamous nature in this shit gynocentric society.

Already discussed earlier above.


The black pill's role is very simple and straightforward: to provide context for the experiences of the majority of men in the social, romantic, and even professional domains, and to provide them a collection of scientific facts and results that help explain those experience in a more formal and rigorous way.

(@Gymcelled what's your take on this characterization of the black pill?)


That's a cheap cop-out. Anybody can easily claim that any difficult question for them requires a doctoral paper to answer (or like how Dennett jokes about how a philosopher points out something, but then raises his hands and says I'm not an expert in that field when further asked about it). Wittgenstein's supposed "rejection of truth" is central to your main argument. Of course, you have to be able to defend that. That's on you, brocel. If somebody else has already done the work, then just point me in that direction. You can't just blanketly claim "Wittgenstein said this, therefore that." Moreover, who the fuck cares what Wittgenstein thinks? What do YOU think and why is that relevant here? That's what matters. I'll remind you to forget the name-dropping when making a point, unless you need to reference something specific.

I aint reading all that flamewar tbh

But imo the blackpill is pure unadulterated truth: no bias, no emotions, no wishful thinking, no intentions etc. The blackpill also doesn't directly tell you what you should do with your life. It's simply about describing our reality, explaining why things are the way they are etc

This often devolves into genetic determinism but that's only because it's what hurts and scares people the most, it's what people dodge or lie about, so that's where the blackpill is most sorely needed

 

[BummerDrummerOG]

Trust is not a primary mode of reasoning. It's an inductive shortcut of sorts, based on previous experiences that are built up, that serve as time and energy savers. I don't need to check my toaster's circuit board and connect the transistors to a computer to check that the programming is in order and that it will eject at the right time every single time, before I insert a couple slices of bread and press the button. I just insert the damn thing and press the button, while making coffee, and I don't give it a single extra more complex than that thereafter.


No, it exists in the world without your conscious activity of it. But I'm not really interested in discussing the metaphysics of logic.


Read Eugene Wigner's famous essay.


You obviously don't understand computer systems, let alone neural networks. All computers are based on binary logic (true or false, 0 or 1).


ALL SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING IS APPLIED FORMAL LOGIC.

JFL


Well, I don't care about "in Plato," and I don't care about souls. Stop trying to insert "truth" into some supernatural framework to try and make it convenient and easy for yourself to attack.


Like you said, Plato's accounting of truth is a direct correspondence to ideal forms, which, according to him, is unreachable through subjective, conscious sense perception. That doesn't make him "honest," it just makes him consistent within his own framework.


OK, cool. Thanks for your opinion bro.

Facts of reality are contained within the set of "truth." If we can never have to all of the elements in the complete set for whatever reasons, then so be it--we'll do as much as possible. His account of elementary physics (which wasn't so elementary at the time) was an incomplete picture of classical mechanics at the time. We have more facts now than we did back then. This doesn't translate to "we TRUST science today more than we TRUST Aristotle's personal account of kinematics back then." This is PRECISELY why the scientific method was developed: so that we don't have to rely on TRUSTING the accounts of persons A, B or C, regardless of how trustworthy they are.

You want us to go back thousands of years and throw all of this away. I'd ask you if you're being serious, but you've already told us you are.


You got that right, buddy boyo. Now remind me again why you have such a raging boner for TRUST over truth? Oh, right. It's "supernatural."


Don't throw science under the bus of politics. People are manipulated mostly because they're misinformed, but also because they're not experts. Well, the experts sometimes are bought and paid for, and serve as political shills and mouthpieces for politicians. But that's a tangent discussion.


Here we go again with calling people's philosophies we agree with "honest."


Absolutely true. That valuation, however, is not from false to true (0 to 1). It's "how much do we know now" aka "how close are we to a complete picture at this point in time" aka "how close are we to the truth about x today."


Absolutely false. The "trust" you're talking about is not having to reinvent the wheel with regards to the chain of inductive reasoning, because "the scientific method" was developed for this exact reason: so that you don't have to start everything from the top every single time, you just continue onward from the last point. In doing so you "trust" (not the best concept, at least in the way in which you're characterizing it) that the previous works were done properly and correctly.


Ego, careers, reputation, and politics aside, it's not a vote, it's a consensus. When ten experts get together and seven of them agree on theory A being the strongest candidate over theory B to describe a set X of phenomena, they're generally doing so with strong reasons and evidence (again, minus all of the human bullshit I mentioned in the previous sentence).


It's really both. The peaks are revolutionary breakthroughs that are game-changers. In between the breakthroughs is a gradual, cumulative progress that collectively contributes to the next breakthrough (if there is one).


You're grossly mischaracterizing and patronizing the entire scientific process. When a scientist "trusts" his data it is absolutely not remotely in the same realm as "trusting someone's word." In many cases the scientist collects more data or repeats a process if the results are completely unexpected. In rare cases these unexpected results culminate in the breakthroughs, which opens the door for further investigation. When a scientist forges their data, and it's discovered that they did, through repeated experiments by others it's a big pretty fucking deal. That's why the paradigm of "trust" doesn't operate as primary mode of reasoning there. Yeah, you "trust" a scientist's results (more like you "trust that they followed proper procedures"), but you still check the work and see if you get the same results.





We all already operate this way. We trust our experts to be correct and our machines to operate as intended. There's nothing "magical about truth" there. But that trust is not blind trust. There are systems behind it which build up that trust and allow us to carry on throughout our days without having to stop do every little single thing by ourselves.


The lack of trust is of the societal system, reinforced by the fact that culture and governments work hard to maintain that system that is harming us.


Fucking WHAT? Wait, so you mean to tell us that it's not because of years of being bullied, rejected and socially tormented? It's not the realization that there's no hope left and that their lives have lost all meaning, because they're unable to fulfil basic human needs and desires? It's just a lack of TRUST?

@gymletethnicel hey bro, it's not really over for you. You just need to trust society and foids to regain your happiness, and trust that it's not your looks and female hypergamous nature in this shit gynocentric society.

Already discussed earlier above.


The black pill's role is very simple and straightforward: to provide context for the experiences of the majority of men in the social, romantic, and even professional domains, and to provide them a collection of scientific facts and results that help explain those experience in a more formal and rigorous way.

(@Gymcelled what's your take on this characterization of the black pill?)


That's a cheap cop-out. Anybody can easily claim that any difficult question for them requires a doctoral paper to answer (or like how Dennett jokes about how a philosopher points out something, but then raises his hands and says I'm not an expert in that field when further asked about it). Wittgenstein's supposed "rejection of truth" is central to your main argument. Of course, you have to be able to defend that. That's on you, brocel. If somebody else has already done the work, then just point me in that direction. You can't just blanketly claim "Wittgenstein said this, therefore that." Moreover, who the fuck cares what Wittgenstein thinks? What do YOU think and why is that relevant here? That's what matters. I'll remind you to forget the name-dropping when making a point, unless you need to reference something specific.

Oh my god this nigga wrote a whole book dis cracka ass expects me to read all dat hell na honkey

Shitty post for a shitty thread

 

[Dregster]

Shitty post for a shitty thread

 

[based_meme]

I aint reading all that flamewar tbh

That's not what it is.

 

[K9Otaku]

You know I don't owe you a reply, right?

By the way, asshole, I didn't beg you. So, if you're going to be petty, at least be honest.

Lol. When I want an answer, I know that stinging people's pride works best.

 

[K9Otaku]

Trust is not a primary mode of reasoning.

What?! It is THE mode of reasoning EVERYONE uses on a daily basis, including you. It is a mode of reasoning used inside of a courtroom. It is the mode of reasoning used by bankers and other financiers and it is the source of the latter's power and wealth.

You live inside a philosophical bubble where reality is no longer perceived.

No, it exists in the world without your conscious activity of it. But I'm not really interested in discussing the metaphysics of logic.

Show it to me. I have never seen it. Except inside a philosophy class.

Read Eugene Wigner's famous essay.

Name dropping

You obviously don't understand computer systems, let alone neural networks. All computers are based on binary logic (true or false, 0 or 1).

I have a PhD in Theoretical Computer Science. You just chose to punch the wrong guy.

ALL SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMING IS APPLIED FORMAL LOGIC.

That is why computers are so dumb and it is why we are just as far as ever from making one pass the Turing test.

You can use normal font size btw. I can hear you just fine. Making it bigger will not make any statement more convincing. In fact it does just the opposite.

Well, I don't care about "in Plato," and I don't care about souls. Stop trying to insert "truth" into some supernatural framework to try and make it convenient and easy for yourself to attack.

I did not insert it there myself. Plato did. And "the rest of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato". So yeah "Truth" is a supernatural unicorn that no one has ever seen. No one has ever done anything to change that. Modern advocates of Truth just try to play it down. But they still suck Plato's dick, when given the chance

Like you said, Plato's accounting of truth is a direct correspondence to ideal forms, which, according to him, is unreachable through subjective, conscious sense perception. That doesn't make him "honest," it just makes him consistent within his own framework.

That is the meaning of the word "honesty"

Facts of reality are contained within the set of "truth."

I have never seen "reality". I just have the testimony of my senses. I could be a brain in a vat and I will never know how "reality" looks like.

I have never seen "facts", let alone what is "contained' in them. "reality", "facts" and their "contents" are supernatural entities that the sect of truth-mongers believe in.

If we can never have to all of the elements in the complete set for whatever reasons, then so be it--we'll do as much as possible. His account of elementary physics (which wasn't so elementary at the time) was an incomplete picture of classical mechanics at the time.

It was not more "incomplete" than quantum mechanics. It has just proven to be less trustworthy based on the testimony of experimenters. The trust we now have in quantum mechanics is very likely to prove just as unfounded eventually, when we have something better at our disposal.

We have more facts now than we did back then.

We have more testimonies.

This doesn't translate to "we TRUST science today more than we TRUST Aristotle's personal account of kinematics back then."

According to Kuhn and anthropologists of Science, it does.

This is PRECISELY why the scientific method was developed: so that we don't have to rely on TRUSTING the accounts of persons A, B or C, regardless of how trustworthy they are.

This is a pre-scientific (superstitious) understanding of science. All scientists since the middle of the XXth century agree that scientific progress is a succession of theories that are more trusted than the previous one. Bohr, in particular, won his fight with Einstein over this idea. "shut up and calculate" is the motto of scientists after that. What they mean by that is "shut up about 'truth' or 'reality'; just use the theory you trust at the moment and calculate the outcome it predicts"

You want us to go back thousands of years and throw all of this away. I'd ask you if you're being serious, but you've already told us you are.

It is you, along with other truth-mongers, which are stuck 2000 years in the past. You think like Neo-Platonists who were doing magic rituals (theurgy) in order to summon spirits so that they can "learn the truth" from them.

Don't throw science under the bus of politics. People are manipulated mostly because they're misinformed,

People are manipulated because they are superstitious; because they believe in supernatural entities. This is how people have been hoodwinked since for ever.

but also because they're not experts.

By definition, nobody can be an expert about everything. The definition of "an expert about X" is "someone who is generally trusted about X"

The word "expert" expresses trust. That is why experts are called to testify at trials. They are "trusted by default" witnesses (although they are sometimes discredited in the course of a trial).

Well, the experts sometimes are bought and paid for, and serve as political shills and mouthpieces for politicians. But that's a tangent discussion.

It is the chief issue about any individual expert: "can you trust him?"

Here we go again with calling people's philosophies we agree with "honest."

What is wrong with that? "honest" is the word I use when I trust someone. For that matter, many people use this word in the same way.

Absolutely true.

Neither "absolutely" nor "true"

That valuation, however, is not from false to true (0 to 1).

0.0, 0.0001, 0.0002 ... like in probability, or in statistics when you calculate a score for granting a loan.

It's "how much do we know now" aka "how close are we to a complete picture at this point in time" aka "how close are we to the truth about x today."

How do you know how much you know? If you don't know ultimate reality (which you don't claim you do) how can you know how close you are to it?

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE (according to your own standards) to come up with a valuation of "how close are we to the truth about x today.". But it IS possible to come up with a valuation of how much you trust someone: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust this man to sell you a used car" (Results: Nixon --> 0.0 / Some local dealership that my family and I have known for 30 years: .95 / a random dude --> .3 / a random dude with a morning shadow --> .1)

In science it is the same: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust theory X to predict the photoelectric effect ?" (Results: Einstein's hidden variables theory --> .01 / Quantum Mechanics --> .999) There is always the possibility that the next experiment will diverge from QM's predictions. We cannot even be certain that physical "laws" remain constant over time. We have been doing physics for a very short time.

Scientists NEVER think in terms of "closeness to truth". Only truth-mongering theurgists do.

Absolutely false.

Neither "absolutely" nor "false"

... you just continue onward from the last point. In doing so you "trust" (not the best concept, at least in the way in which you're characterizing it) that the previous works were done properly and correctly.

See, it is starting to come more naturally to you.

Ego, careers, reputation, and politics aside, it's not a vote, it's a consensus.

A consensus IS a vote with a large majority. There are always dissenters, though.

When ten experts get together and seven of them agree on theory A being the strongest candidate over theory B to describe a set X of phenomena, they're generally doing so with strong reasons and evidence (again, minus all of the human bullshit I mentioned in the previous sentence).

That is exactly what I am talking about. In your example, experts are voting (7 to 3) on what they trust. Trust is evidence-based of course. And it is reasonable too.

You perception of "trust' is tarnished by the calumnies of truth-mongers which have painted it as "irrational" or "based on feelings, not evidence", etc. It is anything but.

What you describe above is how a trial works. Is a trial "irrational"? Is it not based on "evidence", including expert witness? Yet a trial is not about "truth"; it is aimed at jurors reaching a "belief beyond a reasonable doubt". Justice is a trust-evaluation institution. That is why there are appeals. That is why any verdict can ALWAYS be overturned if new evidence emerges.

You're grossly mischaracterizing and patronizing the entire scientific process. When a scientist "trusts" his data it is absolutely not remotely in the same realm as "trusting someone's word."

How does the theoretician trust the experimenter? Or how is experimenter A trusting experimenter B in a repeatability test? Are they not literally "trusting someone's word."?

The reason you want the trust the scientist has in his data (i,e. his senses) to be "absolutely not remotely in the same realm as 'trusting someone's word.'" is because you want science to be supernaturally true; you want it to be supramundane. Science is not magic. It is just like any other human activity, It follows the same guiding principles.

The sense of cleavage you express when you use the expression "absolutely not remotely in the same realm" is exactly how a belief in the supernatural feels subjectively. The believer in the supernatural feels there is a separation between different "realms"; the realm of mundane ordinary stuff and the realm of superior stuff he craves to have access to through magic.

In many cases the scientist collects more data or repeats a process if the results are completely unexpected.

Scientists never work in isolation. Modern physics papers have dozens of authors. Were they not literally "trusting someone's word." when they cooperated on that paper?

Is not the guy at CERN who is in charge of a particular part in a particular instrument not trusting all the other guys who are in charge of all the other parts?

Yeah, you "trust" a scientist's results (more like you "trust that they followed proper procedures"), but you still check the work and see if you get the same results.

See, you are getting used to that word. A little more effort and you will drop the scare quotes.

Checking is not the opposite of trust. It is how trust is built and then maintained over time. That is why you have audits in Accounting, repeatability tests in Science and Judicial review of trials.

We all already operate this way. We trust our experts to be correct and our machines to operate as intended. There's nothing "magical about truth" there. But that trust is not blind trust. There are systems behind it which build up that trust and allow us to carry on throughout our days without having to stop do every little single thing by ourselves.

See, no scare quotes anymore. You are getting used to it.

"blind trust" is a straw man. Trust is rarely blind. You do need "blind trust" in certain time-sensitive situations like when firemen battle a fire together. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Trust is best built slowly, through a painstaking, highly reasonable, highly evidence-based process of track-record evaluation, exactly like in science.

The impression of many incels is that it is impossible and they reach a reasonable conclusion as a result: without trust, life is not worth living. And they rope.

Fucking WHAT? Wait, so you mean to tell us that it's not because of years of being bullied, rejected and socially tormented? It's not the realization that there's no hope left and that their lives have lost all meaning, because they're unable to fulfil basic human needs and desires? It's just a lack of TRUST?

Yes. That is what it is. Trust is vital to us and that is why we suffer so much when it is broken.

We Incels suffer because we have been made to trust in bullshit promises and we discover on a daily basis that these promises are being routinely broken.

If we had been honestly told from day 1 that sex was only for Chad and that this is what foids want, we would suffer much, much, less. It would not be nice but it would be far less painful. Above all we would not be isolated and lonely as we are now. The reason we are that way is because the breakdown of trust has made us distrust everyone (for good reasons). We are also rejected because we distrust what normies still want to believe in. This is trust dysfunction at its worse. Trust has broken down so much that we cannot even talk without triggering hysteria. We congregate here because, on this forum at least, there is enough trust to let us talk together.

Many of us may not realize that broken trust is the cause of their suffering. But it is the case nonetheless. One reason that they do not realize it, btw, is because of truth-mongers like you who pooh-pooh what is most vital to us (trust). Your responsibility is also involved in all this as everyone's is. Trustworthiness is a collective endeavor. Anyone who can be made to realize the cause of his suffering will suffer less. That was the fundamental insight of Buddhism. It is still valid.

 

[JayGoptri]

What?! It is THE mode of reasoning EVERYONE uses on a daily basis, including you. It is a mode of reasoning used inside of a courtroom. It is the mode of reasoning used by bankers and other financiers and it is the source of the latter's power and wealth.

You live inside a philosophical bubble where reality is no longer perceived.


Show it to me. I have never seen it. Except inside a philosophy class.


Name dropping


I have a PhD in Theoretical Computer Science. You just chose to punch the wrong guy.


That is why computers are so dumb and it is why we are just as far as ever from making one pass the Turing test.

You can use normal font size btw. I can hear you just fine. Making it bigger will not make any statement more convincing. In fact it does just the opposite.


I did not insert it there myself. Plato did. And "the rest of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato". So yeah "Truth" is a supernatural unicorn that no one has ever seen. No one has ever done anything to change that. Modern advocates of Truth just try to play it down. But they still suck Plato's dick, when given the chance


That is the meaning of the word "honesty"


I have never seen "reality". I just have the testimony of my senses. I could be a brain in a vat and I will never know how "reality" looks like.

I have never seen "facts", let alone what is "contained' in them. "reality", "facts" and their "contents" are supernatural entities that the sect of truth-mongers believe in.


It was not more "incomplete" than quantum mechanics. It has just proven to be less trustworthy based on the testimony of experimenters. The trust we now have in quantum mechanics is very likely to prove just as unfounded eventually, when we have something better at our disposal.


We have more testimonies.


According to Kuhn and anthropologists of Science, it does.


This is a pre-scientific (superstitious) understanding of science. All scientists since the middle of the XXth century agree that scientific progress is a succession of theories that are more trusted than the previous one. Bohr, in particular, won his fight with Einstein over this idea. "shut up and calculate" is the motto of scientists after that. What they mean by that is "shut up about 'truth' or 'reality'; just use the theory you trust at the moment and calculate the outcome it predicts"


It is you, along with other truth-mongers, which are stuck 2000 years in the past. You think like Neo-Platonists who were doing magic rituals (theurgy) in order to summon spirits so that they can "learn the truth" from them.


People are manipulated because they are superstitious; because they believe in supernatural entities. This is how people have been hoodwinked since for ever.


By definition, nobody can be an expert about everything. The definition of "an expert about X" is "someone who is generally trusted about X"

The word "expert" expresses trust. That is why experts are called to testify at trials. They are "trusted by default" witnesses (although they are sometimes discredited in the course of a trial).


It is the chief issue about any individual expert: "can you trust him?"


What is wrong with that? "honest" is the word I use when I trust someone. For that matter, many people use this word in the same way.


Neither "absolutely" nor "true"


0.0, 0.0001, 0.0002 ... like in probability, or in statistics when you calculate a score for granting a loan.


How do you know how much you know? If you don't know ultimate reality (which you don't claim you do) how can you know how close you are to it?

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE (according to your own standards) to come up with a valuation of "how close are we to the truth about x today.". But it IS possible to come up with a valuation of how much you trust someone: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust this man to sell you a used car" (Results: Nixon --> 0.0 / Some local dealership that my family and I have known for 30 years: .95 / a random dude --> .3 / a random dude with a morning shadow --> .1)

In science it is the same: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust theory X to predict the photoelectric effect ?" (Results: Einstein's hidden variables theory --> .01 / Quantum Mechanics --> .999) There is always the possibility that the next experiment will diverge from QM's predictions. We cannot even be certain that physical "laws" remain constant over time. We have been doing physics for a very short time.

Scientists NEVER think in terms of "closeness to truth". Only truth-mongering theurgists do.


Neither "absolutely" nor "false"


See, it is starting to come more naturally to you.


A consensus IS a vote with a large majority. There are always dissenters, though.


That is exactly what I am talking about. In your example, experts are voting (7 to 3) on what they trust. Trust is evidence-based of course. And it is reasonable too.

You perception of "trust' is tarnished by the calumnies of truth-mongers which have painted it as "irrational" or "based on feelings, not evidence", etc. It is anything but.

What you describe above is how a trial works. Is a trial "irrational"? Is it not based on "evidence", including expert witness? Yet a trial is not about "truth"; it is aimed at jurors reaching a "belief beyond a reasonable doubt". Justice is a trust-evaluation institution. That is why there are appeals. That is why any verdict can ALWAYS be overturned if new evidence emerges.


How does the theoretician trust the experimenter? Or how is experimenter A trusting experimenter B in a repeatability test? Are they not literally "trusting someone's word."?

The reason you want the trust the scientist has in his data (i,e. his senses) to be "absolutely not remotely in the same realm as 'trusting someone's word.'" is because you want science to be supernaturally true; you want it to be supramundane. Science is not magic. It is just like any other human activity, It follows the same guiding principles.

The sense of cleavage you express when you use the expression "absolutely not remotely in the same realm" is exactly how a belief in the supernatural feels subjectively. The believer in the supernatural feels there is a separation between different "realms"; the realm of mundane ordinary stuff and the realm of superior stuff he craves to have access to through magic.


Scientists never work in isolation. Modern physics papers have dozens of authors. Were they not literally "trusting someone's word." when they cooperated on that paper?

Is not the guy at CERN who is in charge of a particular part in a particular instrument not trusting all the other guys who are in charge of all the other parts?


See, you are getting used to that word. A little more effort and you will drop the scare quotes.

Checking is not the opposite of trust. It is how trust is built and then maintained over time. That is why you have audits in Accounting, repeatability tests in Science and Judicial review of trials.


See, no scare quotes anymore. You are getting used to it.

"blind trust" is a straw man. Trust is rarely blind. You do need "blind trust" in certain time-sensitive situations like when firemen battle a fire together. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Trust is best built slowly, through a painstaking, highly reasonable, highly evidence-based process of track-record evaluation, exactly like in science.


Yes. That is what it is. Trust is vital to us and that is why we suffer so much when it is broken.

We Incels suffer because we have been made to trust in bullshit promises and we discover on a daily basis that these promises are being routinely broken.

If we had been honestly told from day 1 that sex was only for Chad and that this is what foids want, we would suffer much, much, less. It would not be nice but it would be far less painful. Above all we would not be isolated and lonely as we are now. The reason we are that way is because the breakdown of trust has made us distrust everyone (for good reasons). We are also rejected because we distrust what normies still want to believe in. This is trust dysfunction at its worse. Trust has broken down so much that we cannot even talk without triggering hysteria. We congregate here because, on this forum at least, there is enough trust to let us talk together.

Many of us may not realize that broken trust is the cause of their suffering. But it is the case nonetheless. One reason that they do not realize it, btw, is because of truth-mongers like you who pooh-pooh what is most vital to us (trust). Your responsibility is also involved in all this as everyone's is. Trustworthiness is a collective endeavor. Anyone who can be made to realize the cause of his suffering will suffer less. That was the fundamental insight of Buddhism. It is still valid.

@based_meme
Been following this very long discourse aka "Truth or Trust" and I have to admit, I'm rooting for Trust now !

 

[based_meme]

Lol. When I want an answer, I know that stinging people's pride works best.

You know the only reason I'm replying is because I think your idea is retarded, right? I don't yet think you're retarded, which is why I'm still here, but you're doing a very good job of convincing me otherwise.

I already said way back that we won't ever see eye to eye, so there wasn't much to be gained from the get-go, and there hasn't. Bro, you proposed your idea to us, meaning you have to justify it. We don't have to do anything but sit back and pick it apart. Me replying to you is a courtesy. Remember that when you sniff your own farts.

What?! It is THE mode of reasoning EVERYONE uses on a daily basis, including you. It is a mode of reasoning used inside of a courtroom. It is the mode of reasoning used by bankers and other financiers and it is the source of the latter's power and wealth.

Nobody cares about what's true in a courtroom. They only care about what you can prove. A fucking stoner watching one episode of Law and Order can tell you that.

You live inside a philosophical bubble where reality is no longer perceived.

Coming from the guy who wants to discard the scientific method as a way of getting closer to truth.

This is too rich.

Show it to me. I have never seen it. Except inside a philosophy class.

Maybe try a physics class.

Name dropping

Your wilful ignorance is your loss only. He does a better job than I ever could of explaining how it applies in real world.

I have a PhD in Theoretical Computer Science. You just chose to punch the wrong guy.

Top fucking KEK. I knew this would get good.

It's the internet, buddy boyo. Anyone can larp as anything. You sound like that one pompous philosophy undergrad who thinks he's cracked the code. There's always one.

That is why computers are so dumb and it is why we are just as far as ever from making one pass the Turing test.

Way to go ignoring how your dumb statement got suplexed on the pavement. Who said anything about how dumb computers are and the Turing test? You said something profoundly retarded about never having seen a real life example of applied formal logic and I just gave you the prime example of it. A computer scientist would never say anything that stupid. Nor would he want to throw away the scientific method in favor of some backwards paradigm that discards the scientific method.

Bro, my bullshit meter fucking blared alarms and broke when you said that.

Wait a minute, you have to be mensaIQcel's alt. Fucking KEK. There's just no other way.

You can use normal font size btw. I can hear you just fine. Making it bigger will not make any statement more convincing. In fact it does just the opposite.

It's done for maximum emphasis.

I did not insert it there myself. Plato did. And "the rest of philosophy is just footnotes to Plato". So yeah "Truth" is a supernatural unicorn that no one has ever seen.

According to him. OK, so you didn't. it doesn't matter who did, it's still just there convenient for you. You want to tell us you're just cherry picking what he said as if it supports your bizarre idea somehow. It doesn't. Even supposing that it did, you still have to close the gap from that to what you're suggesting, instead of blindly making the leap "because Plato said this one thing bro."

No one has ever done anything to change that. Modern advocates of Truth just try to play it down. But they still suck Plato's dick, when given the chance

You mean like how you're sucking his dick right now? Why else would you keep bringing him up and mention that crap about souls or the demirurge?

That is the meaning of the word "honesty"

I don't view logical consistency as a character virtue, but OK.

I have never seen "reality". I just have the testimony of my senses. I could be a brain in a vat and I will never know how "reality" looks like.

Yeah bro, you really drank the Kool-Aid on that one. It's just a thought exercise.

I have never seen "facts", let alone what is "contained' in them. "reality", "facts" and their "contents" are supernatural entities that the sect of truth-mongers believe in.

I really would be just fine here packing it up and calling it a wrap, but I have a feeling this is going to get better.

Here's a simple fact for you: a water molecule is two parts hydrogen for every one part oxygen.

It was not more "incomplete" than quantum mechanics. It has just proven to be less trustworthy based on the testimony of experimenters. The trust we now have in quantum mechanics is very likely to prove just as unfounded eventually, when we have something better at our disposal.

Fucking right away, it got better.

Hold up. Is this the part where you tell us you got a second PhD in theoretical physics?

We have more testimonies.

No, smart guy. What we have is centuries of data and experiments. If you don't "trust" the "testimony," then you do the science yourself and try to repeat the experiment.

According to Kuhn and anthropologists of Science, it does.

I don't care what philosophers and anthropologists say about about science. I care about the actual fucking science done by scientists.

This is a pre-scientific (superstitious) understanding of science. All scientists since the middle of the XXth century agree that scientific progress is a succession of theories that are more trusted than the previous one. Bohr, in particular, won his fight with Einstein over this idea. "shut up and calculate" is the motto of scientists after that. What they mean by that is "shut up about 'truth' or 'reality'; just use the theory you trust at the moment and calculate the outcome it predicts"

That's all very interesting, but I'll let you do the hair splitting.

It is you, along with other truth-mongers, which are stuck 2000 years in the past. You think like Neo-Platonists who were doing magic rituals (theurgy) in order to summon spirits so that they can "learn the truth" from them.

You've equated science with superstition. You just went full retard at warp 10.

People are manipulated because they are superstitious; because they believe in supernatural entities. This is how people have been hoodwinked since for ever.

Hoodwinked by science, right?

By definition, nobody can be an expert about everything. The definition of "an expert about X" is "someone who is generally trusted about X"

No, you idiot. They're experts about a specific thing.

You're playing a stupid semantic game. We "trust" in the process that makes the person an expert. I "trust" that the expert heart surgeon who aced his medical courses knows what he's doing, because I "trust" in the school's standards to produce a highly competent surgeon. Those standards aren't based on trust, they're based on hard science.

The word "expert" expresses trust. That is why experts are called to testify at trials. They are "trusted by default" witnesses (although they are sometimes discredited in the course of a trial).

Already covered this.

It is the chief issue about any individual expert: "can you trust him?"

I trust my mechanic to fix my car, but I wouldn't trust him to do my root canal.

What is wrong with that? "honest" is the word I use when I trust someone. For that matter, many people use this word in the same way.

You "trust" what he says when what he's saying is in agreement and accordance with your beliefs, ideas, and preconceived notions, and "distrust" him otherwise.

That's what's wrong with it. And that's the paradigm you want to eceryone we should go by.

JFL

Neither "absolutely" nor "true"

Interesting argument.

How do you know how much you know? If you don't know ultimate reality (which you don't claim you do) how can you know how close you are to it?

When you can answer any fundamental why question.

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE (according to your own standards) to come up with a valuation of "how close are we to the truth about x today.".

Of course, you don't know how close or how far away from it you are if you don't have the complete picture. You're not saying anything new here. What matters is that you're a step closer.

But it IS possible to come up with a valuation of how much you trust someone: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust this man to sell you a used car" (Results: Nixon --> 0.0 / Some local dealership that my family and I have known for 30 years: .95 / a random dude --> .3 / a random dude with a morning shadow --> .1)

This kind of reasoning already exists. People do it qualitatively every day and estimate, and statisticians do it quantitatively. You're trying to reinvent the wheel.

That "trust" you're talking about is based on certain facts and truths about the person's situation. It's not faith-based trust.

In science it is the same: "On a scale of one to ten, how much do you trust theory X to predict the photoelectric effect ?" (Results: Einstein's hidden variables theory --> .01 / Quantum Mechanics --> .999) There is always the possibility that the next experiment will diverge from QM's predictions. We cannot even be certain that physical "laws" remain constant over time. We have been doing physics for a very short time.

You go by the data and the math. You don't go by somebody's word.

Scientists NEVER think in terms of "closeness to truth".

OK, so check this out. This this thing called the ToE. Now, I'm sure you're resourceful and intelligent enough to read through it, since, you know, you've done your PhD in computer science and everything. A bit of light reading shouldn't be a problem for you.

Only truth-mongering theurgists do.

The way you're characterizing science as "truth-mongering theurgy" is so comical that if you're not trolling, you have to be interdimensionally retarded.

Neither "absolutely" nor "false"

Interesting argument.

See, it is starting to come more naturally to you.

Just trust your local shaman like you would a scientific theory theory.

A consensus IS a vote with a large majority. There are always dissenters, though.

There's no fucking council that authoritatively decides what theory is "TRUE." Consensus here simply means that if you were to independently ask a group of scientists, the majority if their answers would tend towards something. It's not a fucking ballot box or a roundtable committee discussion on what the prevailing theory must be.

For fuck's sake.

That is exactly what I am talking about. In your example, experts are voting (7 to 3) on what they trust. Trust is evidence-based of course. And it is reasonable too.

And it's exactly what I'm NOT taking about.

You perception of "trust' is tarnished by the calumnies of truth-mongers which have painted it as "irrational" or "based on feelings, not evidence", etc. It is anything but.

What the fuck is this word burrito supposed to be?

There is no "perception of trust." That's not a thing you "perceive," it's the level of confidence you have in a person or a thing.

"Calumnies of truth-mongers which have painted it as "irrational" or "based on feelings, not evidence"..."

You want to tell us that people in favor of truth and science want to slander "trust" because it's feelings based, and then want to claim that trust is based on evidence, while throwing away the one thing that historically seeks evidence. I guess Galileo should have just trusted the Roman Catholic church and threw away his scientific research, and today the sun would be circling the earth instead of the other way around.

Bro, do you even read the shit you write?

What you describe above is how a trial works. Is a trial "irrational"? Is it not based on "evidence", including expert witness? Yet a trial is not about "truth"; it is aimed at jurors reaching a "belief beyond a reasonable doubt". Justice is a trust-evaluation institution. That is why there are appeals. That is why any verdict can ALWAYS be overturned if new evidence emerges.

Imagine comparing a court room decision to an experimental result.

JFL

How does the theoretician trust the experimenter? Or how is experimenter A trusting experimenter B in a repeatability test? Are they not literally "trusting someone's word."?

No. They're trusting the process and the system behind that process to produce the experimenter, so that they don't have to rely on trusting some random unknown who comes in and says, "just trust me, bro, I know what I'm doing."

The reason you want the trust the scientist has in his data (i,e. his senses) to be "absolutely not remotely in the same realm as 'trusting someone's word.'" is because you want science to be supernaturally true; you want it to be supramundane. Science is not magic. It is just like any other human activity, It follows the same guiding principles.

This is becoming physically painful at this point.

The sense of cleavage you express when you use the expression "absolutely not remotely in the same realm" is exactly how a belief in the supernatural feels subjectively. The believer in the supernatural feels there is a separation between different "realms"; the realm of mundane ordinary stuff and the realm of superior stuff he craves to have access to through magic.

No. It's just so mindnumbingly basic that it doesn't warrant elaboration. A paranoid schizophrenic, who isn't sure if their hallucinations are even real, could tell the difference between "trusting a person" and "trusting an instrument."

Scientists never work in isolation. Modern physics papers have dozens of authors. Were they not literally "trusting someone's word." when they cooperated on that paper?

No. For the nth time, it's not the person's word they're trusting. It's their scientific training that they're trusting.

Is not the guy at CERN who is in charge of a particular part in a particular instrument not trusting all the other guys who are in charge of all the other parts?

Now this is some bottom-tier logic. Trusting that a co-worker is doing their job is nothing like trusting that a particular instrument is showing the proper reading.

Why the fuck am I even entertaining this stupidity?

See, you are getting used to that word. A little more effort and you will drop the scare quotes.

Don't suck your own dick too hard, bro. I was ignoring the quotes for expediency's sake.

Checking is not the opposite of trust. It is how trust is built and then maintained over time. That is why you have audits in Accounting, repeatability tests in Science and Judicial review of trials.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

"blind trust" is a straw man. Trust is rarely blind. You do need "blind trust" in certain time-sensitive situations like when firemen battle a fire together. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Trust is best built slowly, through a painstaking, highly reasonable, highly evidence-based process of track-record evaluation, exactly like in science.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

Yes. That is what it is. Trust is vital to us and that is why we suffer so much when it is broken.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

We Incels suffer because we have been made to trust in bullshit promises and we discover on a daily basis that these promises are being routinely broken.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

If we had been honestly told from day 1 that sex was only for Chad and that this is what foids want, we would suffer much, much, less. It would not be nice but it would be far less painful. Above all we would not be isolated and lonely as we are now. The reason we are that way is because the breakdown of trust has made us distrust everyone (for good reasons). We are also rejected because we distrust what normies still want to believe in. This is trust dysfunction at its worse. Trust has broken down so much that we cannot even talk without triggering hysteria. We congregate here because, on this forum at least, there is enough trust to let us talk together.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

Many of us may not realize that broken trust is the cause of their suffering. But it is the case nonetheless. One reason that they do not realize it, btw, is because of truth-mongers like you who pooh-pooh what is most vital to us (trust). Your responsibility is also involved in all this as everyone's is. Trustworthiness is a collective endeavor. Anyone who can be made to realize the cause of his suffering will suffer less. That was the fundamental insight of Buddhism. It is still valid.

But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

 

[K9Otaku]

@based_meme Your last post has just turned into a disconnected rant full of expletives and formulaic repetitions. I am not going to answer that. There is no point.

 

[based_meme]

@based_meme Your last post has just turned into a disconnected rant full of expletives and formulaic repetitions. I am not going to answer that. There is no point.

There was no point one thread ago. I warned as much, before you even started this thread. I've seen this kind of shit play out too often.

And I didn't have any expectations of you answering anything. You demonstrated that already when you hand-waived having to defend your claim that Wittgenstein rejects truth, and said the answer would be too long and that it requires a fucking PhD level response. What a load of bullshit. JFL. That's when I stopped taking you seriously.

You didn't even present any argument for it or supporting evidence from someone else's work. You just keep appealing to what other people said and then not showing how any of it supports what you're arguing. I'm surprised this lasted for as long as it did.

Keep coping with this trust paradigm, though. It's dumb, but I won't hate on another bro's cope.

 

[JayGoptri]

You know the only reason I'm replying is because I think your idea is retarded, right? I don't yet think you're retarded, which is why I'm still here, but you're doing a very good job of convincing me otherwise.

I already said way back that we won't ever see eye to eye, so there wasn't much to be gained from the get-go, and there hasn't. Bro, you proposed your idea to us, meaning you have to justify it. We don't have to do anything but sit back and pick it apart. Me replying to you is a courtesy. Remember that when you sniff your own farts.


Nobody cares about what's true in a courtroom. They only care about what you can prove. A fucking stoner watching one episode of Law and Order can tell you that.


Coming from the guy who wants to discard the scientific method as a way of getting closer to truth.

This is too rich.


Maybe try a physics class.


Your wilful ignorance is your loss only. He does a better job than I ever could of explaining how it applies in real world.


Top fucking KEK. I knew this would get good.

It's the internet, buddy boyo. Anyone can larp as anything. You sound like that one pompous philosophy undergrad who thinks he's cracked the code. There's always one.


Way to go ignoring how your dumb statement got suplexed on the pavement. Who said anything about how dumb computers are and the Turing test? You said something profoundly retarded about never having seen a real life example of applied formal logic and I just gave you the prime example of it. A computer scientist would never say anything that stupid. Nor would he want to throw away the scientific method in favor of some backwards paradigm that discards the scientific method.

Bro, my bullshit meter fucking blared alarms and broke when you said that.

Wait a minute, you have to be mensaIQcel's alt. Fucking KEK. There's just no other way.


It's done for maximum emphasis.


According to him. OK, so you didn't. it doesn't matter who did, it's still just there convenient for you. You want to tell us you're just cherry picking what he said as if it supports your bizarre idea somehow. It doesn't. Even supposing that it did, you still have to close the gap from that to what you're suggesting, instead of blindly making the leap "because Plato said this one thing bro."


You mean like how you're sucking his dick right now? Why else would you keep bringing him up and mention that crap about souls or the demirurge?


I don't view logical consistency as a character virtue, but OK.


Yeah bro, you really drank the Kool-Aid on that one. It's just a thought exercise.

I really would be just fine here packing it up and calling it a wrap, but I have a feeling this is going to get better.

Here's a simple fact for you: a water molecule is two parts hydrogen for every one part oxygen.


Fucking right away, it got better.

Hold up. Is this the part where you tell us you got a second PhD in theoretical physics?


No, smart guy. What we have is centuries of data and experiments. If you don't "trust" the "testimony," then you do the science yourself and try to repeat the experiment.


I don't care what philosophers and anthropologists say about about science. I care about the actual fucking science done by scientists.


That's all very interesting, but I'll let you do the hair splitting.


You've equated science with superstition. You just went full retard at warp 10.


Hoodwinked by science, right?


No, you idiot. They're experts about a specific thing.

You're playing a stupid semantic game. We "trust" in the process that makes the person an expert. I "trust" that the expert heart surgeon who aced his medical courses knows what he's doing, because I "trust" in the school's standards to produce a highly competent surgeon. Those standards aren't based on trust, they're based on hard science.


Already covered this.


I trust my mechanic to fix my car, but I wouldn't trust him to do my root canal.


You "trust" what he says when what he's saying is in agreement and accordance with your beliefs, ideas, and preconceived notions, and "distrust" him otherwise.

That's what's wrong with it. And that's the paradigm you want to eceryone we should go by.

JFL


Interesting argument.


When you can answer any fundamental why question.


Of course, you don't know how close or how far away from it you are if you don't have the complete picture. You're not saying anything new here. What matters is that you're a step closer.


This kind of reasoning already exists. People do it qualitatively every day and estimate, and statisticians do it quantitatively. You're trying to reinvent the wheel.

That "trust" you're talking about is based on certain facts and truths about the person's situation. It's not faith-based trust.


You go by the data and the math. You don't go by somebody's word.


OK, so check this out. This this thing called the ToE. Now, I'm sure you're resourceful and intelligent enough to read through it, since, you know, you've done your PhD in computer science and everything. A bit of light reading shouldn't be a problem for you.


The way you're characterizing science as "truth-mongering theurgy" is so comical that if you're not trolling, you have to be interdimensionally retarded.


Interesting argument.


Just trust your local shaman like you would a scientific theory theory.


There's no fucking council that authoritatively decides what theory is "TRUE." Consensus here simply means that if you were to independently ask a group of scientists, the majority if their answers would tend towards something. It's not a fucking ballot box or a roundtable committee discussion on what the prevailing theory must be.

For fuck's sake.


And it's exactly what I'm NOT taking about.


What the fuck is this word burrito supposed to be?

There is no "perception of trust." That's not a thing you "perceive," it's the level of confidence you have in a person or a thing.

"Calumnies of truth-mongers which have painted it as "irrational" or "based on feelings, not evidence"..."

You want to tell us that people in favor of truth and science want to slander "trust" because it's feelings based, and then want to claim that trust is based on evidence, while throwing away the one thing that historically seeks evidence. I guess Galileo should have just trusted the Roman Catholic church and threw away his scientific research, and today the sun would be circling the earth instead of the other way around.

Bro, do you even read the shit you write?

Imagine comparing a court room decision to an experimental result.

JFL


No. They're trusting the process and the system behind that process to produce the experimenter, so that they don't have to rely on trusting some random unknown who comes in and says, "just trust me, bro, I know what I'm doing."


This is becoming physically painful at this point.


No. It's just so mindnumbingly basic that it doesn't warrant elaboration. A paranoid schizophrenic, who isn't sure if their hallucinations are even real, could tell the difference between "trusting a person" and "trusting an instrument."


No. For the nth time, it's not the person's word they're trusting. It's their scientific training that they're trusting.


Now this is some bottom-tier logic. Trusting that a co-worker is doing their job is nothing like trusting that a particular instrument is showing the proper reading.

Why the fuck am I even entertaining this stupidity?


Don't suck your own dick too hard, bro. I was ignoring the quotes for expediency's sake.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.


But let's throw out truth, though, right? Because that makes all of the sense in the world.

@based_meme

There's some trash talk and garbage to sift through between the back and forth you both are having but...

After doing so I can say the following:

You seem to believe in "Science" because you think that it has some sort of intrinsic connect with "the Truth", but unfortunately it doesn't. I used to think this way until I found this out. Without trust based reasoning there is no Truth. And you say "Science" as though it's a fixed god who we can pray to for goodies and desserts. It's not like this at all. People following academic science and humanities know that most of these idiots are just playing with words now days to get credit for being "successful" and to either build their life (around women, like the ones who reject you and me) or to lie about what their achievements are.

It's not their "scientific training" that people trust, it's their performance over a long period of time and how others recommend them. In the real world Practice has only some correlation with what school you went to. In hard science, today most of the people who are doing "Big Science" are just a bunch of masturbating talking heads who are building castles in the sky and meanwhile getting nothing useable done. Big Science has been stagnant like this for a long time now. Instead it's just another semi-Chad-Stacy tool. It's corresponds to absolutely nothing of value. Ok, maybe Elon Musk sent a rocket up and made a badass car but, it's not that special when you consider all the horseshit theoretical gooblie-gock which clogs up History and Discovery channel. Each day some fucking idiot talking about what it's like to walk through a wormhole, meanwhile stopping the cultural decay long enough to pull off maned space missions is stuck? Why the fuck do I care that there is a sun-grazzing exoplanet 29352KRB-1 IF my culture and it's people are so dead that we are making a forum to discuss the evilness if women?

Why are you hear? Because if Science is badass, surely you wouldn't be stick in this hellhole?

Yeah right...Science & Truth ! Lol

Just look at the horseshit Science behind Covid! They tanked the economy and so many people's futures because they want to just self stimulate about "Science" and it was and still has consewuences which lead to a tumultuous ride from hell.