Simplistic explain-all unfalsifiable theories have the ability to turn idiots into fanatical drones.
This was written about marxism and psychoanalysis but could as well apply to nazism/stormfaggotry (DA JOOS) and various other diseases: >These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment. >The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation—which revealed the class bias of the paper—and especially of course what the paper did not say.
These explain-all unfalsifiable theories that can fit any evidence are the causes of some of the greatest ills of the last century. How do we stop them?
>The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations >Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it Thanks for the example.
Sebastian Williams
Not him,but this is a good example. These toxic ideas have a method of critique avoidance. (See every cult ever)
Ian Hill
Yep. An idea becomes truly totalitarian when it incorporates a way to rationalize criticisms of it without having to deal with the substance of the criticism. For marxism it's false consciousness or class interest, for psychoanalysis it's repression, for stormfaggotry it's jewish or "bluepill" accusations. It's pretty effective, hence the question. I see them spreading like cancer.
Leo Hughes
Sounds like kike shit tbqh
Caleb Jones
I'm not a Marxist/commie, but to be quite honest our media/newspapers/whatever do confirm a lot of their worldview simply by the fact of its target audience. People who want to know what's going on in the world who do not posses the time or the means to properly understand or analyze it.
The issue is that a lot people either prescribe solutions to these ills without the proper thought, or organization OR they become ideologues (read:worthless and philosophically dead).
The trick to stopping these "falsifiable theory cults" from popping up or gaining traction is for people as a whole, including the media to recognize the current ills of our society.
For example: Our current technological progress/use is socially and psychologically damaging.
The cultish ideologue, in this case the anarcho-primitive, would prescribe abolition of technology. Which is absurd and "explain all".
The smart thing to do would be for the media to actually start talking about the effects of technology and get your average person to start thinking about and discussing it. But at long as they hold out and keep bending over for tech companies, people will claim they have more ill will than they actually do. And this will confirm their cultish tendencies.
The medias refusal to do yellow journalism, and ACTUAL reporting is what confirms 99% of ideologues theories. Because in practice they are covering up the truth.
Josiah Phillips
the medias refusal to stop yellow journalism and do ACTUAL reporting****
Isaac Richardson
>our media/newspapers/whatever do confirm a lot of their worldview simply by the fact of its target audience. i agree very much. like i read the nyt but the amount of articles about gay people and trans people makes me fucking sick because its way out of proportion to their numbers and is a waste of resportage space imo. it's quite literally a gay agenda though
Dominic Stewart
...
Luke Myers
This post is ironic, right?
Kayden Moore
>infallibility is bad because it offends my ideology
Samuel Mitchell
How do you get that from the OP exactly?
Henry Allen
No ideology is infallible, the idea of a Grand Unified Theory is a mememememe if an ideology is infallible then it is wrong
Aaron Cruz
I uphold Evolian and Hermetic thought, but my main law is to remain passive in voicing my assumptions. The world is purer when men are silent.
Hudson Fisher
...
Isaiah Myers
>if an ideology is infallible then it is wrong t. reddit > the idea of a Grand Unified Theory t. doesn't understand antisystematics
Gavin Perry
I'm not sure I get this criticism. These theories are invalid because they're readily confirmed? That's fucking stupid. Marxist history wound up being highly influential in sociology, even separated from the economic theories of it. Marx himself wasn't an invalid thinker because totalitarian governments latched on to his ideas.
Brandon Wilson
...
Gavin Gray
nigger
Hudson Richardson
>These theories are invalid because they're readily confirmed? That's fucking stupid. If every observation confirms your theory, your theory is unempirical. It belongs to metaphysics and is not a real attempt to explain the world. But the thread is more about how the constant stream of inevitable "confirmations" turns believers into dangerous maniacs.
>Marx himself wasn't an invalid thinker because totalitarian governments latched on to his ideas. Sure.
Sebastian Flores
This can all be boiled down to people wanting to have sex with their mothers.
Luke Russell
Science is unempirical. Science does not 'explain' anything you fucking ideologue. >Dangerous maniacs Fuck off, ideologue.
Ayden Perry
>Science is unempirical :^)
Jonathan Gonzalez
It is. I have no observation of 'science'. I myself have not made these observations that they claim. Worse, no human has ever observed the majority of what 21st century natural science claims to exist (through filthy rationalist logic-mongering). Science is also unscientific. Worse, it's terribly Hegelian.
David Miller
...
Jacob Young
Is your argument really that science isn't empirical because you don't observe everything and perform every experiment yourself? Are your parents cousins by chance?
Evan Gutierrez
That certainly explains a lot about Freud.
Hunter Hill
t. redditor that doesn't understand empiricism Sorry! Some of us aren't epistemological cancer! Some of us don't avoid the conclusions of our ideologies!
Andrew Bailey
Here's a challenge for you: empirically validate empiricism.
Evan Hernandez
Yeah, yeah, we can't logically escape solipsism therefore we should accept anything, I know where this is going.
Colton Gonzalez
The only place it is going is that empiricism isn't the be-all end-all of human knowledge; it can't even sustain itself. There are several things we "know" that we don't validate empirically.
Luis Rodriguez
Either you believe that synthetic apriorism is possible or you are referring to things that, if not directly empirical, are logically derived from others that are.
Justin Smith
>logically derived Not empirical. Sorry, the moment one thinks about observation, it is not observation. It stops existing.
Camden Bell
>logically necessary implications of empirical observations are not empirical conclusions Sure m8.
Christopher Flores
logically necessary No, not at all. You really don't understand empiricism.
Kayden Jackson
But the Jews are my enemy and stand against everything I believe in, they actually have worked against me numerous times. Is that just a theory?
The Jews go against Christianity, they undermine Christian values, they push for normalisation of paraphilia and degeneracy through their ownership of the media. The own the most powerful lobbies which push for neocon wars in the Mideast.
Is this all some conspiracy? are you going to deny that's all true and call me a stormtard even though it's objectively true?
Joseph Reed
Suppose that observation shows us that A is true. From A we logically deduce that B is true. Is the truth value of B non-empirical? It depends on the observations that would falsify A. Also, you are writing as if I was defending a particular epistemological school. I'm not.
Anthony Bailey
>a guy keeps hitting you and spitting in your face >"dude, stop doing that.." >"DOING WHAT!!?? ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD, YOURE JUST SEEING PATTERNS BECAUSE YOURE ANTISEMITIC"
Samuel Martinez
What observation would falsify your beliefs?
Jonathan Reed
>still supposing logic Fuck off, redditor.
Benjamin Carter
Logic and rationalism are not empiricism. A totally empirical system would be something like Hume's work, where he pointed out that induction is impossible, or that we can't empirically observe causation. Marxist analysis and psychoanalysis shouldn't be disregarded for being unempirical, for the very fact we take empiricism as valid is unempirical, it should be evaluated based on whether either can be used to effectively analyze and predict.
Luke Collins
>pragmatism Fuck off, redditor
Julian Moore
Again, I'm not defending a particular epistemological school. When I say they aren't empirical, I'm not complaining they aren't logical positivists. Imagine a machine with empirical data as input and a verification or refutation of the theory as an output. If your output is always a verification, it bears no relation to what input is getting in. We could live in any world and the theory would be verified. Can it be considered non metaphisical knowledge?
>based on whether either can be used to effectively analyze and predict This goes back to whether they are empirical or not. If any observation can be fit into a theory, any prediction can. If a prediction can't be fit, it isn't unfalsifiable to begin with.
Benjamin Rivera
If they stopped doing it, for starters. If I saw the mainstream media stop advocating anti-Christianity, if I saw AIPAC stop advocating for wars for Israel.
It's not gonna happen though.
But maybe you're right, it's ALL in my head...
Mason Hughes
That doesn't answer my question. You believe in a conspiracy theory. What observation would make you consider the conspiracy to be false?
Matthew Bailey
But jews do actually own all media in the US, is that considered mental gymnastics?
Isaac Ward
Why does it have to be? So that you can maintain your idea of what those words represent or that those words may make you rethink what you are currently believing?
Matthew Harris
It's happening before our very eyes. If it stopped happening in front of my eyes, I'd believe it's not true.
But nah, it's all a conspiracy, Jews dindu nuffin.
Nathan Richardson
People don't want the world to work the way it does, they want it to work the way they believe it should.
Wyatt Clark
Yes, we know what you consider verification user. Feel free to actually answer the question when you feel like it.
David Scott
They are overrepresented. At the same time, your claim is both an exaggeration and assumes some kind of hivemind, as usual.
Isaac Lewis
Are you retarded? What do you THINK should make me reconsider my "conspiracy"?
I told you the absence of verification would. You say that's not an answer, what answer are you looking for?
Lincoln Miller
I don't define knowledge based on whether it can be put to practical use or not.
So what if, hypothetically, you found a system that was verified in such a fashion that because it was correct? Would you dismiss it out of hand?
Jeremiah Peterson
Humans aren't machines. Furthermore, machines are always biased towards human logic.
Josiah Thomas
Yes you did. >it should be evaluated based on whether either can be used to effectively analyze and predict.
Julian Morris
>You say that's not an answer, what answer are you looking for? I am looking for a proposition of the form "my belief is incompatible with X observation". Your "verifications" are no different from the clinical "verifications" of psychoanalysts or the "verification" of marxist historic analysis: interpretations in the light of an unfalsifiable theory capable of explaining everything. I don't want to turn this into a shitfest about specifically jews because the thread is about a more general question. But lobbying in america is extremely widespread.
Benjamin Ross
No. I didn't say it shouldn't be considered knowledge. We're evaluating the system's merit as an academic tool, not whether knowledge of it constitutes knowledge or trivia.
Andrew Davis
not an argument
Jayden Richardson
>academic tool Irrelevant. Stop forcing STEM memes
Parker Moore
I believe Jews do the crap they pull because there is evidence they do. If there wasn't any visible evidence I wouldn't believe it.
How does that not answer your question?
A lack of evidence would be enough for me to change my views. But there isn't a lack of evidence.
If I saw the Zionist lobby take a stand against war, or the mainstream media stop advocating homosexuality, maybe things would be different.
But you're just going to circle around and avoid the subject because you don't want people to point a spotlight at the crimes of the Jews.
Ethan Jones
>So what if, hypothetically, you found a system that was verified in such a fashion that because it was correct? Would you dismiss it out of hand? If a system is verified under any conceivable observation, it would be impossible to tell if it was effectively correct, and wouldn't give any knowledge about our world if it was.
Dominic Hall
Sounds like empiricism.
Andrew Long
>A lack of evidence would be enough for me to change my views. But there isn't a lack of evidence. Fuck off, redditor
Hunter Wilson
>Backs up his argument >He must frequent a website that people on this website hate!
David Wilson
>I believe Jews do the crap they pull because there is evidence they do. No, there isn't. Unless by "the crap they pull" you mean lobbying as thousands of other organizations do, and by "jews" you mean specific jews.
>A lack of evidence would be enough for me to change my views. But there isn't a lack of evidence. Again, an unfalsifiable theory finds verifications in everything.
>If I saw the Zionist lobby take a stand against war, or the mainstream media stop advocating homosexuality, maybe things would be different. Now, this is what I was looking for. Concrete examples of observations that are incompatible with your beliefs. So, if examples of a "Zionist lobby taking a stand against war" or homophobia in media your beliefs would be falsified?
Henry Fisher
if examples were given*
Wyatt Green
I think Jewish over-representation in areas of media and the institutions is more a result of Jews naturally being argumentative, combative and "politically energetic". Pol's fear of them still stands, but I honestly see little hivemind.
Justin Howard
>>A lack of evidence would be enough for me to change my views. But there isn't a lack of evidence. >Again, an unfalsifiable theory finds verifications in everything. ugh, empiricism again
Nathaniel Sullivan
Your rejection of empiricism is the result of you being a sexually repressed bourgeois jew though.
Cameron James
>At the same time, your claim is both an exaggeration and assumes some kind of hivemind, as usual. So when there is a over representation of a particular opinion is a hivemind, but over representation of a particular group in media is what?
>your claim is both an exaggeration and assumes some kind of hivemind I didnt 'claim' anything, it is literally the truth that you can confirm yourself without much effort.
Joseph Lee
>So when there is a over representation of a particular opinion is a hivemind You misunderstood my post, you are assuming a jewish hivemind. Although you are part of a hivemind too.
>I didnt 'claim' anything, it is literally the truth that you can confirm yourself without much effort. It isn't a claim because it's true? Strange logic there, bud. You can easily find both plenty jewish and non jewish media magnates.
>You misunderstood my post, you are assuming a jewish hivemind. Although you are part of a hivemind too. So I am unwittingly part of a hivemind that only you are aware of so that is your understanding of the truth manifest? and as I am supposedly an unbeliever because i am one of those 'people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it' you can assign names and classifications that is usually reserved for people who are your opposite? Seems a little ironic no?
>It isn't a claim because it's true? Strange logic there, bud. You can easily find both plenty jewish and non jewish media magnates. Yes anyone can make a claim, but it is not necessarily true, yes there are plenty of non jewish magnates, but I am simply stating that there is a over representation of jewish magnates in USA, that is all I claimed, not the world, just in US.
In this regard it seems that the hivemind is something you are channeling to apply to your opinions and then use the pot calling the kettle black argument and pointing out a group of people with similar opinions as hiveminded, because it does not align with your views?
>The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which ‘verified’ the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. Seems Hivemind is one of those theories...
Michael Walker
I am going to ignore your inane rants and get to the point.
>I am simply stating that there is a over representation of jewish magnates in USA, that is all I claimed, not the world, just in US You claimed that "jews do actually own all media in the US", to which I replied that "they are overrepresented. At the same time, your claim is both an exaggeration and assumes some kind of hivemind". I'm glad that you agree with me.
Camden Evans
Obviously they represent at least 99% of jews...
Oh wait no...just like those magnates they are a handful, but this handful is irrelevant while the former are extremely relevant.
Julian Anderson
You are making up imaginary arguments that nobody made, user.
Ian Bell
>I am going to ignore your inane rants and get to the point. Ah yes, obviously you have no point other than your smug detraction.
>I'm glad that you agree with me. Well you have to say that to save face since I just proved you are just another hivemind calling others hivemind because you are insecure about your opinions.
Dylan Sanchez
You're actually impressively stupid. Again, I wasn't calling you part of a hivemind in my initial post, I was referencing the way /pol/tards treat jews as part of a single entity (aka jews as a hivemind). But you and the rest of the /pol/tards do act as a hivemind, often repeating each others word by word and spamming the exact same shit, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything vaguely resembling an epistemological discussion. Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant in regards to your initial claim, which you have since withdrawn, which is good enough for me.
Cooper Walker
>You're actually impressively stupid Projecting. >Again, I wasn't calling you part of a hivemind in my initial post, I was referencing the way /pol/tards treat jews as part of a single entity (aka jews as a hivemind). Not a poltard so dont know why that was relevant to point out >But you and the rest of the /pol/tards do act as a hivemind, often repeating each others word by word and spamming the exact same shit, which has absolutely nothing to do with anything vaguely resembling an epistemological discussion. Now you sound exactly like a /pol/tard setting precedent to an argument you are not really aware on how to win. >Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant in regards to your initial claim, which you have since withdrawn, which is good enough for me. Yep, have to convince yourself of that or else you will loose face, :(
Jordan Young
>dat pic
Adam Reed
...
Tyler Butler
woooo
Dylan Lopez
>have to convince yourself of that or else you will loose face I don't have to convince myself of anything. You start by making a claim ("jews do actually own all media in the US"), to which I reply a counterclaim ("overrepresented", "exaggeration"), to which you concede a few posts later ("plenty of non jewish magnates, but I am simply stating that there is a over representation"). Feel free to reply if you have anything of substance to add. Otherwise please fuck off.
Jonathan Green
It's like a visual representation of what the OP says. Everything confirms the jew/bourgeois.
Matthew Myers
>I don't have to convince myself of anything. Sure you do, without that you have no conviction, but if you wanna live by that word I dont have to read anything else you have written because you arent even convinced by your own opinion.
I can see you are getting mighty upset by telling me to fuck off, i would advise you to calm down.
Ethan Jenkins
"Overrepresentation"
Caleb Bell
"there are some exceptions, so it's not a hive mind"
