Empirical appropriation?

Read it and weep, intellectually dishonest history re-writers.

From link in this.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316823911_Managing_Science

They’ll claim Newton was Asian next.

You didn’t write these formulae or the many treatise on empiricism that makes science formally a method. It’s like when they try to call ancient philosophers ‘psychologists’ when Galton is probably spinning in his grave, clutching all the mathematics he brought to invent the field of psychometrics. He invented correlations and developed fingerprint technology when most people were still starting fires to cook dinner. Sure, give dick-measuring Freud credit, sounds fair.

Psychology is a “behavioural science” aka it needs maths!

https://apa.org/pubs/info/reports/stem-discipline.aspx

The National Science Foundation (NSF) definition of STEM fields includes mathematics, natural sciences, engineering, computer and information sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences – psychology, economics, sociology, and political science (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2009).”

https://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html
Wilhelm Wundt opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879. This was the first laboratory dedicated to psychology, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Indeed, Wundt is often regarded as the father of psychology.”

Freud opened his office in Vienna in 1886, for comparison.

Get over yourself. Even the Gutenberg press making the wide publication of scientific materials possible was European.

[inb4: Engineers aren’t scientists either.]

Nowadays the Method could actually be patented so ownership claims are valid and vital parts of legally-protected cultural heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)

http://www.cultureindevelopment.nl/Cultural_Heritage/What_is_Cultural_Heritage

“Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values. Cultural Heritage is often expressed as either Intangible or Tangible Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS, 2002).”

Ideologies too, including the invented philosophy of secular empiricism (not religious-based).

“Driving force behind all definitions of Cultural Heritage is:
it is a human creation intended to inform (John Feather, 2006).”

Methods of information in a race.

The more formalized, the better!

“Having at one time referred exclusively to the monumental remains of cultures, cultural heritage as a concept has gradually come to include new categories. Today, we find that heritage is not only manifested through tangible forms such as artefacts, buildings or landscapes but also through intangible forms. Intangible heritage includes voices, values, traditions, oral history. Popularly this is perceived through cuisine, clothing, forms of shelter, traditional skills and technologies, religious ceremonies, performing arts, storytelling. Today, we consider the tangible heritage inextricably bound up with the intangible heritage. In conservation projects we aim to preserve both the tangible as well as the intangible heritage.”

culture (includes precise philosophy and its movements) and technologies as a result of culture, what could that refer to?

On another note, white people have a legal right as a race to the exclusive use of our own symbols, including art, stories, architecture, fashions and food!

Give it back, you racist bigots.

They didn’t tell you that, did they?

Brief detour before the big reveal.

You have exclusive rights to your People’s

“traditional skills and technologies”
“objects, artistic expressions”

Picture Trump in a rice hat. Imagine their reaction. ….But this is fine.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/what-about-the-white-minstrels/

WHITE CULTURE

DOESN’T BELONG

TO THE WORLD.

pinterest.com/sylviacrose/ancient-world-jewelry/

It’s embarrassing when you have no culture of your own to wear.

I’m big on earring archaeology.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/trends/g21930727/layered-necklace-looks-ideas/

“The ubiquitous coin necklace makes for the perfect starting point when layering—let it be your focal point and build from there.” “Pair a wider chain link necklace with your dainty pendants for the perfect contrast to your layers.” “Play with texture by mixing and matching different style chains with one another so each individual piece stands out.”

You mean like this?

Plagiarizing the style of dead Athenians from their very tombs. Shame on you.

On food, for fun.

It reminds me of the food lies (Dutch baby is an American name in the 1900s) like Americans stealing Yorkshire puddings and abusing them by covering them in sugary bullshit.
“Manca’s Cafe claimed that it owned the trademark for Dutch babies in 1942.” – wikipedia
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Yorkshire-Pudding/
“The prefix “Yorkshire” was first used within a publication by Hannah Glasse in 1747
or how pizzas date back to 1570, long before America.
http://www.oldcook.com/en/cooking-recipes_medieval#piz
Mac & cheese to the 15th century
http://greneboke.com/recipes/macaroni.html

Back to SCIENCE

Further reading: an important philosophical figure on par with Newton

https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

was English.

Technically, Science (Method) was invented by the English.

BOOM.

That’s why everyone hates us, we invented pretty much everything.

“Francis Bacon discovered and popularized the scientific method, whereby the laws of science are discovered by gathering and analyzing data from experiments and observations, rather than by using logic-based arguments.”

Discovered = invented.

It isn’t a natural phenomena so ‘discovered’ is an inaccurate legal term.

Older books say invented.

It also has a true, academic name.

The Baconian method marked the beginning of the end for the 2,000-year-old natural philosophy of Aristotle, unleashing a wave of new scientific discoveries, particularly in the hands of devotees such as Robert Boyle.

Philosophy is not science, no math, no method. Bacon really invented falsifiability.

OT but

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5832789/Young-people-really-getting-stupid-IQs-falling-seven-points-generation.html

The above points were important because if you were taught these core fundamentals, you’d know 7 points in IQ is gigantic, especially in one generation. You could lose less than that with blunt force head trauma.

Since it’s rooted to a norm value of 100, that’s 7% of mind power. Compounding, heritable mental degeneration.

The world owes white people

Actually.

The list would be so long, and so what?

White people literally invented science itself.

You can’t top that.

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781441974877-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1032441-p174029978

The Scientific Method?
1600s Europe, at the earliest.
Truly, the Scientific Enlightenment primarily in France, some England, a little Germany, formalized it. All those subjects and branches and divisions you now know? Taught in the universities. Nobody else even knew what these were, so they can’t claim it and they certainly didn’t teach it either.
All NW Europeans, mostly upper class men, a smattering of a few women.

Previously we had ‘natural science’ (the term for this is German, which should give you a clue), mucking about with plants mostly. Labeling and drawing, not really an experimental manipulation, is it?
I guess it’s like saying we had ancient ‘doctors’ – who didn’t see a disease they didn’t wanna stick a leech on.

Except… that isn’t the meaning of the term as we use it in modernity, is it?

Don’t be intellectually dishonest.

Fun fact: leech still means doctor, it’s a synonym.

It’s like trying to claim evaporation cooling was Muslim when at the latest it was Egyptian but probably stolen from more ancient civilizations, there are examples at Pompeii.
Islam mostly murdered its tall poppies because they questioned the religion. That isn’t whitey’s fault.
They had a few good philosophers – not scientists. There was the occasional competent mathematician, but if that’s how low your standard… not to mention, they only built upon Greek and Hindu developments.
I haven’t seen an Islamic Antikythera mechanism. If they had such an advanced knowledge, there’d be proof and they’d use it in battle. Compare with Greek fire, a variant of which was referenced in Game of Thrones. The knowledge of Greek fire was probably lost because of the Muslim conquests going on at the same time. Thanks, Mohammed. 

A little chemistry was developed during the Renaissance but kept quiet by something called a guild.
See Venice and mirrors.

You look at the root of anything STEM and I guarantee you there’s a racial European at the heart of it. I’ve yet to find a single exception.

However, the Egyptians did some fine, pioneering medicinal work in the field of surgery, which isn’t technically a science. These findings were stolen by Muslims.

Along with the country and its women. Look at the modern racial composition.

The eldest surgical examples I’ve seen are European, see trepanning.
Those damn Frenchies, inventing neurosurgery! (As English, we hate giving the French credit for anything except losing). It’s painful for me to admit that, viscerally painful. 

Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

OR
Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?

 

Genius IQ genetic study in America

I’m amazed you found any.

Guys, IQ has a genetic basis! This is a TOTALLY NEW THING.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-genetic-analysis-people-extremely-high.html

Representing the top 0.03 per cent of the ‘intelligence distribution’, these individuals have an IQ of 170 or more – substantially higher than that of Nobel Prize winners, who have an average IQ of around 145.

Genetic research on intelligence consistently indicates that around half of the differences between people can be explained by genetic factors. This study’s unique design, which focused on the positive end of the intelligence distribution and compared genotyping data against more than 3,000 people from the , greatly enhanced the study’s power to detect genes responsible for the heritability of intelligence.

Paper geniuses. err… sure, okay, that methodology works I guess... but isn’t it a case of academia proving the benchmark of academia (grading, as SATs are a mathematically acceptable sub for IQ)?

On paper, Obama was a good President.

Did they check other demographic factors, like religion? Nope.
Did they check for any intelligence level above genius? No. Tests do not exist nor apply.

So they’re not even comparing the norm to the BEST, they’re comparing to themselves.
Difference.
There are no polymaths in academia.

Our research shows that there are not genes for genius. However, to have super-high intelligence you need to have many of the positive alleles and importantly few of the negative rare effects, such as the rare functional alleles identified in our study.’

We’ve mentioned that before around NRx, it’s called the genetic load hypothesis.

I'm smarter than anyone else you'll ever meet

I’ll leave this here.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9DbvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=genetic+load+hbd&source=bl&ots=Wf7D4jJvAH&sig=McC9TR-Lxo4r5z154aXcKBhas-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw99yL5rvRAhXUOFAKHZ1vC1YQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q&f=false

geneticload

Meanwhile, the people who can do maths are waking up.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/njj/suppose_hbd_is_true/

TLDR: Stereotyping is MEAN! ….But also accurate?

It’s only prejudice if you ignore the evidence when it arises.
So if you ignore the negative evidence e.g. that guy could kill you, you’re also being prejudiced ( to ‘that guy couldn’t kill me’, the belief held prior to evidence aka The Prior).

‘Educated’ adults are hiding under the blanket from terrorism, hoping it will go away.

Nature tends to cull those people pretty quickly. Ahh, Darwin!
The tone of all these articles is the same: Disregard race, attend education.
Chock full of fallacies. They want censorship, they want suppression. You don’t ignore a factor. Science 101. Nothing is forbidden. This isn’t religion. If you don’t feel comfortable, scientists don’t care.
If HBD were true, what would we see in social science following a Blank Slatist denialism over many, many decades, an academic fraud enforced by regressive speech law?
A reproducibility crisis!

http://lesswrong.com/lw/o95/be_secretly_wrong/

You have to understand that this system is not real, it’s just a game. In real life you have to be straight-up wrong sometimes. So you may as well get it over with.

This whole blog is one big thought experiment. Thanks for tuning in.

Why is scientism a problem? The ‘Appeal to Data’

I lurk on comment threads to get a feel for what is trending in the noosphere and I find some gems. Sometimes I get a bit stalkerish in my fervor for curating opinions.
I was reading a science article and I was way, way down, losing hope and I saw this.
I’ve been wanting to cover this topic for a while, I didn’t know what to call it but I felt I needed an example to mock first, since it’s easier to pull that apart than a possible strawman.

Thank you, Hobbesian________, I have a new name for this: “The Appeal to Data

He hasn’t read much of his namesake, why am I not surprised?

A man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience, may be erroneous. ~ Hobbes

I was serious about the mocking part.

scientism appeal to data

You could say that about anything: What would be the point in interviewing Richard Dawkins, the Bible speaks for itself? What would be the point in interviewing climate skeptics, the UN papers speak for themselves? Why trust the Government on vaccines, the ingredients list speaks for itself?

Muh “speaks for itself” is the new “isn’t it obvious?” No, dipshit, or there wouldn’t be a discussion. That’s kinda the point when it comes to any scientific question, the debate never ends, nobody will pack up their bags and go home. We’ll just sort of come to a point of consensus naturally and lose momentum, like an emergent phenomena as the evidence comes in (from both sides). Until the paradigm shift, anon!
Humanities isn’t social science. Liberal arts isn’t a science. Social science is a science because it follows the Scientific Method. Merely, it applies the method to humans (social animal hence society). There are textbooks on this written for children. This is basic.

It’s a combination of appeal to popularity, and a subtle ad hominem that’s intended to outgroup you as inferior and thus, not worth listening to. It’s a rabbit trick. Look! A hat! 

The atheistkult and other redditfags seem to rely on this IFLS-esque appeal to ‘objective’ authority and clarity when describing nature; that the numbers can’t be faked, or wrong, or that various biases and errors (inc. the huge measurement error) do not exist.

Data isn’t objective because data is a tool used by people. You can flip a coin 100 times, get 100 heads and it doesn’t disprove the other findings. It’s added to them. We call those people using the data in their possession ‘scientists’ and they aren’t using the data, really. They are collecting the data (possession) and interpret the data (moving on to a claim), that is their training and their job, to make claims based on the data (the data is just there to show their workings for replication, like maths classes). We have a label for people who make claims not based on data, but opinion formed prior, a beautiful category is…..;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_interpretation

Oh look, it’s another bias. SI: You can use totally legitimate data to lie. Anita Sarkeesian does it all the time. She takes a legit study and makes those unsupported claims. You say X, but data says X-1. This is what they mean when they appeal to data, that it’s supposed to be free of false interpretation. Except – all data is interpreted. It’s a human impulse.

You can’t do shit with data itself anyway. Those 100 heads results aren’t going to go anywhere. They’ll stay in a drawer, unpublished. For the researcher: They don’t change the data (unless crooked or naive with poor method design, a priori) and they aren’t meant to influence the data (so many ways under researcher bias), but they are human.

In social science

After the data are collected, bias may be introduced during data interpretation and analysis. For example, in deciding which variables to control in analysis, social scientists often face a trade-off between omitted-variable bias and post-treatment bias.[10]

This is why we need philosophy of science taught in schools.
We learn biology, chemistry and physics but we don’t learn what science is or why all those things are science, let alone how science is actually done. But sure, photosynthesis…..

Identities protected but putting the name of a philosopher in your screen name doesn’t make you smart. They keep doing that (redditfag signature) when it’s a clear appeal to authority, again.

Here is the first result on google for “scientist stock photo”

Sure, I’d trust that guy, who doesn’t even wear goggles. They buy into this, like the memes. Oh Christ, the memes…. 

It’s very Aspie to think all scientists are perfect, morally virtuous men in white lab coats, pristine as their soul, and they’ll never do anything like lie, or cheat for a promotion, or steal grant money, or… I dunno…. fake most of a subject….
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

Statistically, most of a subject. Literally. (Me being topical)

They have some wonderful cognitive dissonance here because they believe experts are liars (I blame Gen X), but the data the experts gather is pure as the Virgin Mary.
The data is sacred! bc Humans are flawed!
Who do you think made the data? ET?
What we see are the actions of a narcissist (they wouldn’t dare lie to me!) who cannot conceive of systemic deception that would persevere against their imagined intellect. Con artists find these people easiest to fool because they have no guard. There is no guard to let down.

As much as I dislike this website, for example the name (isn’t debunking something also a denial? and why is denial/dissent wrong, given Burden of Proof?), there are many statistical fallacies in the public arena, from people who are meant to be defending science like it’s a lady’s virtue:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2011/11/17/the-top-five-most-annoying-statistical-fallacies/

TLDR: This thing is like that thing because I said so.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/11/10/why-p-values-and-statistical-significance-are-worthless-in-science/

TLDR: p-value fraud is rife.

You could find many things which are statistically significant, for example — and false. This is where correlation/causation truly comes in, the claim is beyond the data e.g. if I find murders spike with ice cream sales, ice cream doesn’t cause murder. The third hidden variable is the heat and the frustration it produces. A good method design will eliminate extraneous variables, and in most social science, they don’t do this. That’s why it can’t be replicated – shitty design. Copying the shitty design just doubles the number of shitty experiments in the world. 

Method design is mostly intuition. Redditfags deny this. They should pick up a book on it, seriously – the first thing you’re told is Make Stuff Up and the rest is just refinement.

The appeal to data is treating a chart of values like the Bible. Yes, I went there.

Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook

Working example: http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2012/06/12/torturing-the-data-long-enough-will-make-them-confess-anything/

Conclusion: Let’s go with the Appeal to Data. If I ask 100 people whether you are worse than Hitler, and 51 say yes, the data is there. The data is sacrosanct.
It’s an appeal to popularity dressed up in a Halloween lab coat.

btw I appreciate the turtles reference at the end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

it made me laugh

oh you dean winchester