Nobel Prize Not SJW-Proof, As Scientist Discovers

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If "Age of Bullshit" is Marxist, so is "fake news." Nobody has a monopoly on undermining epistemology in the "post fact" postmodern world.

Good recap of what I just said. Truth is meaningless to the courtiers of federal city (both flavors). Nietzsche would be telling us all "told ya" in-between shaking fits. To his credit, it's possible that Nietzsche wouldn't take either side in the fight for control of the city. His midwitted followers, however, well they tend to want to be inside the city walls above all, and objective truth is just another obstacle.

The Nobel curators will genuflect at some approved version of truthiness if it's necessary to protect their position inside the walls of the city, for sure.

Would the same dedication to objective truth hold if a different sacred cow, say, free will, were shown to be empirically impossible (God forbid, of course)?

[Fife]

Not to me, it wouldn't (YMMV).

Some bumbling undergrad might come up with a counter-factual for the Riemann hypothesis by accident this afternoon. That would occasion a good bit of rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.

I have faith, if we want to call it that, that it won't happen, but I accept that it could happen until a proof is figured out.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

2 + 2 = 4

Which is deductive. True as any tautology, but not empirical.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Not to me, it wouldn't. YMMV

I think it would make a difference to me.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"pro-truth"

Like the dark age ideologues punishing one of the greatest living scientists for wrongthink.

Get fucked.

I would love to hear a convincing argument for the supremacy of scientific truth as a moral virtue, since it is what I want to believe is true.

If the case for scientific truth is merely pragmatic, then it is contingent, and rather devalued.

Science has fuck all to do with your "moral values".

Then, whence your outrage over the betrayal of science?

[Fife]

Not to me, it wouldn't. YMMV

I think it would make a difference to me.

More power to you; I'm not dragging on you.

My edit above was:


Some bumbling undergrad might come up with a counter-factual for the Riemann hypothesis by accident this afternoon. That would occasion a good bit of rending of garments and gnashing of teeth.

I have faith, if we want to call it that, that it won't happen, but I accept that it could happen until a proof is figured out.

[Fife]

2 + 2 = 4

Which is deductive. True as any tautology, but not empirical.

I guess you're right, chief. Your empirical truth is your own, who am I to harsh your high?

I was referencing Room 101 with that little quip, after all.

[Speaker to Animals]

I would love to hear a convincing argument for the supremacy of scientific truth as a moral virtue, since it is what I want to believe is true.

If the case for scientific truth is merely pragmatic, then it is contingent, and rather devalued.

Science has fuck all to do with your "moral values".

Then, whence your outrage over the betrayal of science?

Because I like not living in a dark age. Fuck your religion.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

2 + 2 = 4

Which is deductive. True as any tautology, but not empirical.

I guess you're right, chief. Your empirical truth is your own, who am I to harsh your high?

I was referencing Room 101 with that little quip, after all.

I'm just saying it is paradoxical to get riled up in defense of empirical evidence because of reasoning from first principles. It is why I thought the article was germane to the Watson situation.

Ya'll need to get better grass in Nashville so we can have a long talk about, like, how big God is and stuff.

edit: left a word from a previous draft of the quip. whoops.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Science has fuck all to do with your "moral values".

Then, whence your outrage over the betrayal of science?

Because I like not living in a dark age. Fuck your religion.

Presumably, because there is a pragmatic value attached to empiricism. Presumably, because living in the dark age would result in a good deal of suffering.

Now, if we are going to advocate for the Devil a little, the people attacking Watson are doing so in service of reducing suffering (so they believe). If we prioritize empiricism, we have a method for determining if Watson's position causes more suffering than being dedicated to honesty prevents.

But we aren't doing that, are we? We are having a knee jerk, moral, reaction against the cultural Marxists.