Hey Pete, it's your favorite truck driver. Regarding "Epistemology For People In A Hurry," the reason why I'm hoping you'll write a book like this is because I want to know if I'm wrong about something. It seems to me that scientific epistemology is the only one that seems to be working. It seems to me like the basis of its functionality is it's emphasis on falsifiability. While we can regard measurements as true for all practical purposes it seems to me that we should never regard a scientific theory is true. It seems to me that the boldest claim that science makes is rejecting the null hypothesis. In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington took measurements that proved gravity was not a force. This could never be said to prove Einstein right but Newton was definitely wrong. I think we can apply this principle beyond measurable science. For example, a strictly logical claim that has no physical measurements should not be said to be true but if it exhibits and logical fallacy it should be regarded as false (the logic is false, the claim might be true). I tell people that this is my epistemology. So let's apply falsifiability to these statements. Have I used any of these words correctly? Does this have anything to do with epistemology?
Jeffrey--Interesting and nice comment. I am also a fan of Popper and falsifiability. Recedntly a wrote a piece applying it to geopolitical strategy. Of the 3 anonymous reviewer 2 were highly enthusiastic and one was highly critical :) Thank you for posting!
When you first met James Lindsay in 2015, what did you perceive to be his virtues? What did you discover over the years that wasn't obvious at first? Are these virtues a good basis for friendship?
Could you evaluate Florida’s DEI situation, Christopher Rufo’s findings, what Ron DeSantis is trying to do? The recent Jenna Barbee case is distressing but initially I thought DeSantis wasn’t going after this kind of thing.
In your recent publication, you mentioned the problem of self-censorship and the necessity for scientists to “start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks". https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03010001 Thank you for the article and modeling the behavior by standing up for the integrity of your own field. I have a question about the nature of science.
A publication by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states the imperative, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes” and the same publication makes the statement, “Darwin called this process natural selection to distinguish it from the artificial selection used by dog and pigeon breeders”. https://doi.org/10.17226/5787
My question is: How does a scientist speak of artificial selection, synthetic fibers, artificial intelligence, or any other technology while invoking only natural things and processes?
Thank you, Gina and Peter, for hosting these AMA events and producing the best content on the internet!
Context for my question:
This is a rephrasing of my previous Venn diagram question. I watched the videos on BillboardChris twitter profile and was intrigued by the video of the catholic student. The most interesting part of the video was not the catholic student, but the student laughing at him. https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/status/1658278255487582209
At 1:30 he says he is laughing because the catholic is “obviously” not oppressed for wearing his cross. At 1:51 he defines oppression as systemic injustice. At 3:17 he clarifies that he does not agree that the catholic is oppressed, but he doesn’t think it is fair to judge anyone because of their religion (he felt sorry for laughing while someone was recounting an unfair experience). At 3:28 he is asked if he believes being treated differently because of one’s religious beliefs is oppression. He simply replies, “It’s not systemic injustice.”
What I find interesting is it appears he is unaware of any older definitions of oppression. So when someone describes an aspect of reality which he even acknowledges, his thinking is confused by the consumption of his vocabulary. There is good reason to believe that he was intentionally confused on this topic. I suspect something similar has happened to the word “natural”.
Additional context:
In your recent publication I mentioned above, it states:
‘Although there are feminist critiques of how glaciologists have conducted themselves, there is no such thing as “feminist glaciology,” just as there is no “queer chemistry,” “Jewish physics,” “white mathematics,” “indigenous science,” or “feminist astronomy.” Glacial, physical, genetic, or prehistoric phenomena are independent of the positionality of the scientist.’
I can’t help but notice a similarity to ideas like Evolutionary Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Medicine, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Genetics, etc.
Consider the following titles:
The evolution of Apple's iPhone | Computerworld
The Evolution of Technology: Past, Present and Future (discovertec.com)
Do they really make sense semantically? Natural selection was originally distinguished from artificial selection. Now, it seems the lines have been blurred between undirected processes and directed processes in common speech. I was saddened a little today to learn that Richard Lewontin was a doctoral advisor to Jerry Coyne, I am still processing that.
This is a reply I sent 1 hour ago in response to a letter from a Candian Federal Prosecuter; who managed to have a Federal Judge issue a 'Interception of Private Communication' for the following purpose: "Evidence suggestion ativity involving the criminal code section 185 . "
Mr. Sonley (A Federal Procescutor..this not in sent email...) :
I have received by registered mail a letter signed by you in reference to a Notification of Interception.
I am aware that under the Canadian Criminal Code that any information gathered under the Notification of Interception is now public record and subject to a FOIA request.
In the interest of having a open conversation in regards to the results of the investigation I am 100% confident that any information you received for which your office obtained this Notification was garnered via an statement by a person or persons whom had the purposeful intention of misleading your office with information that is neither truthful nor complete and should therefore lead to charges from your office.
I also am aware that any statements made against myself in obtaining the warrant for the Interception I will now be able to categorize as slanderous and a defamation of my character.
As you may be aware your office has found that all of the information gathered in the Interception was benign. I will gladly provide your office with unfettered access to all of my information for the past decade upon my return to Canada after leaving the US after 17 years.
I am writing a book and I can tell you that this will be another tall story that will be a chapter on its own due to the absolute hypocrisy of the person or persons who made statements against me. Those lies were purposeful and meant to cause harm with my abilities to have a livelihood free interference of others.
I am now requesting a meeting with you in order to provide your office with all the information you may wish to obtain. I am willing to do this in order to free myself from any further insidious and illegal character assassinations against myself.
I will never know the intent of the person or persons involved in this charade but I do have an inkling of who "they" may be or at the very least what type of character they project themselves to be.
I have a quiet life. My daily mantra is to live by the Golden Rule. I have all that I need and my wants are very limited. I enjoy having at least one opportunity a day to help someone I may meet throughout my day.
Upon my return to Canada I have strived to further my career as a Professional Fundraiser which I had decided to dedicate on behalf of my dearly departed wife Gail. We met while we were both working as fundraisers in Fairfax VA.
All of my time and energy goes to doing for others and the notion that any of my life involves any criminal activity is preposterous. My past criminality is a very long way in the past and over 80% of the serious charges were all before I was 19. I have made something of a life that should not have been so difficult to negotiate and the hurdles and obstacles I had to overcome were of such that no one other than myself can make this claim: "I have worked for both the US and Cdn Federal Governments. I have had high level security clearances from both. I have worked and paid taxes for over 50 different companies. I have been behind bars in some fashion in over 50 different locations."
These statements are absolutely true and will encapsulate the essence of my book which will be published in about 6 months. It will be a big hit. Especially with those who have lied about me, cheated and stole from me. Exposing them is something I am only doing to bolster my present reality.
No one in this world in the past, present or future can ever make that claim except myself. With present day technology that claim can never be achieved and without any doubt can never be achieved as organically as I had done.
The truth is. I am not of the character that everyone who has it in for me claims because they are either jealous or need someone to blame for their mistakes. I know who I am and what I have accomplished and ever better still I know how much I can accomplish.
The truth is what I speak daily and it has led me on a path which will not falter.
Please let me know what it is that I can do for you and your office to ensure that this type of harassment and illegal activity does not occur against me in the future.
One question but really a request with information on why I would like you to answer the following: Can you please provide me with contact information for Dr. Jordan Peterson or provide hinm with mine. The reason being is that besides him being a fellow Canadian who lives in the same city as me i would like to have a discussion with him in regards to a book I am writing which will be titled " 50 Celebrities 50 Women 50 Jobs 50 Jails". The importance of the title is the last 2 statements which are true and can be proven easily as they are public record. The conversation I would like to have with both you and Dr. Peterson involve how I was able to do what no one can claim or ever will be able to claim and the determination I had in being able to do those things I should never have been able to do. My childhood was wrought with abuse and that abuse although not as serious as many others I know gave me the power and knowledge that no matter what I could do what I needed to do even though it seemed impossible. Ex being able to get a TN Visa for a job in the US even though I had a criminal record and being able to work with high level security clearances for both the Cdn and US Feds. My goal is to provide others that have no expectation of being able to live the life they deserve hope through my book that anyone can accomplish anything,
Not sure if this is something you even want to touch. I've had a pet theory for decades. Sometimes I think America is ONLY being hit with (PsyOps) Psychological Operations from (my best guess) Russia and/or China.
Other times I think this is all a sort of cover and America is done. I fear America lost the Cold War and all the weirdness is part of a long term bloodless coup.
Maybe one is right, maybe neither is right.
This seems to me to be why all the weirdness is happening:
* All the groups being funded to fight each other by Putin's media guy and psyops.
* All the trans gobbledygook.
* All the BLM and patriarchal oppressor nonsense.
... And more. James Lindsay said many of the same things I had been thinking (he has a bit too much content for me to absorb, but the parts I can hold onto mostly resonate).
In any case, I was speaking with someone about all of the weirdness. I said (as Lindsay has said) the college profs are messing with young people's minds, pushing Marxist (and Maoist) ideas, and this is probably being pushed by Russia and China.
The guy lost his cool. He said America is the threat to the world. Russia and China are the heroes. I asked about things like China holding the ughurs and what about this and that? He said the FBI and the CIA are destroying America and the world and Russia and China are the heroes. America is the existential threat and Russia and China will save America when it implodes.
A general question might be "What do you make of that, Peter?"
Another question might be something like "When people have such diametrically opposed views of the world is it possible to have conversations about such things?"
Another question might be "Could we both be right and if so how?"
Peter--I have really enjoyed your street epistemology series. Here is a difficult but IMHO important question. It's been pretty well shown that the various search engines and social media platforms use algorithms that prejudice search results, usually or always toward the currently fashionable woke agendas. Meta, Google's parent is a $1 trillion company. How is it possible to overcome this insidious threat to democracy without taking a wrecking ball to the 4th Amendment?
Hey Pete, it's your favorite truck driver. Regarding "Epistemology For People In A Hurry," the reason why I'm hoping you'll write a book like this is because I want to know if I'm wrong about something. It seems to me that scientific epistemology is the only one that seems to be working. It seems to me like the basis of its functionality is it's emphasis on falsifiability. While we can regard measurements as true for all practical purposes it seems to me that we should never regard a scientific theory is true. It seems to me that the boldest claim that science makes is rejecting the null hypothesis. In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington took measurements that proved gravity was not a force. This could never be said to prove Einstein right but Newton was definitely wrong. I think we can apply this principle beyond measurable science. For example, a strictly logical claim that has no physical measurements should not be said to be true but if it exhibits and logical fallacy it should be regarded as false (the logic is false, the claim might be true). I tell people that this is my epistemology. So let's apply falsifiability to these statements. Have I used any of these words correctly? Does this have anything to do with epistemology?
Jeffrey--Interesting and nice comment. I am also a fan of Popper and falsifiability. Recedntly a wrote a piece applying it to geopolitical strategy. Of the 3 anonymous reviewer 2 were highly enthusiastic and one was highly critical :) Thank you for posting!
Thanks, Evan. I'd love to know more about you paper. Feel free to give me any updates. Happy publishing!
Who is Popper? Do you have any sources for more ideas like what I tried to describe that I could look up?
Let's do the opposite of a struggle session!
Finally finished The Reformers by Mike Nayna.
When you first met James Lindsay in 2015, what did you perceive to be his virtues? What did you discover over the years that wasn't obvious at first? Are these virtues a good basis for friendship?
My wish to have a conversation with you both is of no consequence but it has the potential to change lives. So I hope.
Could you evaluate Florida’s DEI situation, Christopher Rufo’s findings, what Ron DeSantis is trying to do? The recent Jenna Barbee case is distressing but initially I thought DeSantis wasn’t going after this kind of thing.
In your recent publication, you mentioned the problem of self-censorship and the necessity for scientists to “start standing up for the integrity of their fields despite the risk of bullying and verbal attacks". https://doi.org/10.35995/jci03010001 Thank you for the article and modeling the behavior by standing up for the integrity of your own field. I have a question about the nature of science.
A publication by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states the imperative, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes” and the same publication makes the statement, “Darwin called this process natural selection to distinguish it from the artificial selection used by dog and pigeon breeders”. https://doi.org/10.17226/5787
My question is: How does a scientist speak of artificial selection, synthetic fibers, artificial intelligence, or any other technology while invoking only natural things and processes?
Thank you, Gina and Peter, for hosting these AMA events and producing the best content on the internet!
Context for my question:
This is a rephrasing of my previous Venn diagram question. I watched the videos on BillboardChris twitter profile and was intrigued by the video of the catholic student. The most interesting part of the video was not the catholic student, but the student laughing at him. https://twitter.com/BillboardChris/status/1658278255487582209
At 1:30 he says he is laughing because the catholic is “obviously” not oppressed for wearing his cross. At 1:51 he defines oppression as systemic injustice. At 3:17 he clarifies that he does not agree that the catholic is oppressed, but he doesn’t think it is fair to judge anyone because of their religion (he felt sorry for laughing while someone was recounting an unfair experience). At 3:28 he is asked if he believes being treated differently because of one’s religious beliefs is oppression. He simply replies, “It’s not systemic injustice.”
What I find interesting is it appears he is unaware of any older definitions of oppression. So when someone describes an aspect of reality which he even acknowledges, his thinking is confused by the consumption of his vocabulary. There is good reason to believe that he was intentionally confused on this topic. I suspect something similar has happened to the word “natural”.
Additional context:
In your recent publication I mentioned above, it states:
‘Although there are feminist critiques of how glaciologists have conducted themselves, there is no such thing as “feminist glaciology,” just as there is no “queer chemistry,” “Jewish physics,” “white mathematics,” “indigenous science,” or “feminist astronomy.” Glacial, physical, genetic, or prehistoric phenomena are independent of the positionality of the scientist.’
I can’t help but notice a similarity to ideas like Evolutionary Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology, Evolutionary Medicine, Evolutionary Psychology, Evolutionary Epistemology, Evolutionary Genetics, etc.
Consider the following titles:
The evolution of Apple's iPhone | Computerworld
The Evolution of Technology: Past, Present and Future (discovertec.com)
Do they really make sense semantically? Natural selection was originally distinguished from artificial selection. Now, it seems the lines have been blurred between undirected processes and directed processes in common speech. I was saddened a little today to learn that Richard Lewontin was a doctoral advisor to Jerry Coyne, I am still processing that.
This is a reply I sent 1 hour ago in response to a letter from a Candian Federal Prosecuter; who managed to have a Federal Judge issue a 'Interception of Private Communication' for the following purpose: "Evidence suggestion ativity involving the criminal code section 185 . "
Glen White <glenwhite@gmail.com>
3:29 PM (4 hours ago)
to roderick.sonley, bcc: Greg
Mr. Sonley (A Federal Procescutor..this not in sent email...) :
I have received by registered mail a letter signed by you in reference to a Notification of Interception.
I am aware that under the Canadian Criminal Code that any information gathered under the Notification of Interception is now public record and subject to a FOIA request.
In the interest of having a open conversation in regards to the results of the investigation I am 100% confident that any information you received for which your office obtained this Notification was garnered via an statement by a person or persons whom had the purposeful intention of misleading your office with information that is neither truthful nor complete and should therefore lead to charges from your office.
I also am aware that any statements made against myself in obtaining the warrant for the Interception I will now be able to categorize as slanderous and a defamation of my character.
As you may be aware your office has found that all of the information gathered in the Interception was benign. I will gladly provide your office with unfettered access to all of my information for the past decade upon my return to Canada after leaving the US after 17 years.
I am writing a book and I can tell you that this will be another tall story that will be a chapter on its own due to the absolute hypocrisy of the person or persons who made statements against me. Those lies were purposeful and meant to cause harm with my abilities to have a livelihood free interference of others.
I am now requesting a meeting with you in order to provide your office with all the information you may wish to obtain. I am willing to do this in order to free myself from any further insidious and illegal character assassinations against myself.
I will never know the intent of the person or persons involved in this charade but I do have an inkling of who "they" may be or at the very least what type of character they project themselves to be.
I have a quiet life. My daily mantra is to live by the Golden Rule. I have all that I need and my wants are very limited. I enjoy having at least one opportunity a day to help someone I may meet throughout my day.
Upon my return to Canada I have strived to further my career as a Professional Fundraiser which I had decided to dedicate on behalf of my dearly departed wife Gail. We met while we were both working as fundraisers in Fairfax VA.
All of my time and energy goes to doing for others and the notion that any of my life involves any criminal activity is preposterous. My past criminality is a very long way in the past and over 80% of the serious charges were all before I was 19. I have made something of a life that should not have been so difficult to negotiate and the hurdles and obstacles I had to overcome were of such that no one other than myself can make this claim: "I have worked for both the US and Cdn Federal Governments. I have had high level security clearances from both. I have worked and paid taxes for over 50 different companies. I have been behind bars in some fashion in over 50 different locations."
These statements are absolutely true and will encapsulate the essence of my book which will be published in about 6 months. It will be a big hit. Especially with those who have lied about me, cheated and stole from me. Exposing them is something I am only doing to bolster my present reality.
No one in this world in the past, present or future can ever make that claim except myself. With present day technology that claim can never be achieved and without any doubt can never be achieved as organically as I had done.
The truth is. I am not of the character that everyone who has it in for me claims because they are either jealous or need someone to blame for their mistakes. I know who I am and what I have accomplished and ever better still I know how much I can accomplish.
The truth is what I speak daily and it has led me on a path which will not falter.
Please let me know what it is that I can do for you and your office to ensure that this type of harassment and illegal activity does not occur against me in the future.
Sincerely,
Glen A. White
One question but really a request with information on why I would like you to answer the following: Can you please provide me with contact information for Dr. Jordan Peterson or provide hinm with mine. The reason being is that besides him being a fellow Canadian who lives in the same city as me i would like to have a discussion with him in regards to a book I am writing which will be titled " 50 Celebrities 50 Women 50 Jobs 50 Jails". The importance of the title is the last 2 statements which are true and can be proven easily as they are public record. The conversation I would like to have with both you and Dr. Peterson involve how I was able to do what no one can claim or ever will be able to claim and the determination I had in being able to do those things I should never have been able to do. My childhood was wrought with abuse and that abuse although not as serious as many others I know gave me the power and knowledge that no matter what I could do what I needed to do even though it seemed impossible. Ex being able to get a TN Visa for a job in the US even though I had a criminal record and being able to work with high level security clearances for both the Cdn and US Feds. My goal is to provide others that have no expectation of being able to live the life they deserve hope through my book that anyone can accomplish anything,
Not sure if this is something you even want to touch. I've had a pet theory for decades. Sometimes I think America is ONLY being hit with (PsyOps) Psychological Operations from (my best guess) Russia and/or China.
Other times I think this is all a sort of cover and America is done. I fear America lost the Cold War and all the weirdness is part of a long term bloodless coup.
Maybe one is right, maybe neither is right.
This seems to me to be why all the weirdness is happening:
* All the groups being funded to fight each other by Putin's media guy and psyops.
* All the trans gobbledygook.
* All the BLM and patriarchal oppressor nonsense.
... And more. James Lindsay said many of the same things I had been thinking (he has a bit too much content for me to absorb, but the parts I can hold onto mostly resonate).
In any case, I was speaking with someone about all of the weirdness. I said (as Lindsay has said) the college profs are messing with young people's minds, pushing Marxist (and Maoist) ideas, and this is probably being pushed by Russia and China.
The guy lost his cool. He said America is the threat to the world. Russia and China are the heroes. I asked about things like China holding the ughurs and what about this and that? He said the FBI and the CIA are destroying America and the world and Russia and China are the heroes. America is the existential threat and Russia and China will save America when it implodes.
A general question might be "What do you make of that, Peter?"
Another question might be something like "When people have such diametrically opposed views of the world is it possible to have conversations about such things?"
Another question might be "Could we both be right and if so how?"
Thanks,
Earl
Here's a recent article on academic research into these algorithms: https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/how-google-manipulates-search-to-favor-liberals-and-tip-elections/
Peter--I have really enjoyed your street epistemology series. Here is a difficult but IMHO important question. It's been pretty well shown that the various search engines and social media platforms use algorithms that prejudice search results, usually or always toward the currently fashionable woke agendas. Meta, Google's parent is a $1 trillion company. How is it possible to overcome this insidious threat to democracy without taking a wrecking ball to the 4th Amendment?