Honesty: #1 necessity for a modern scientific society

We cannot build correct physical or social science1 on taboos2, unenlightened3 dishonesty4* 5* 6 and false theorizing7. We cannot even have an intelligent conversation about minority crime8 * 9 with people who believe in the minority crime gag orders10 and racism taboo11.

Reblogged from Sincerity.net

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Honesty: #1 necessity for a modern scientific society” »
Honesty: #1 necessity for a modern scientific society
» continues here »

UK government probes algorithm bias in crime, recruitment, and finance

Race differences in crime are covered up 1. Recruitment requires biased affirmative action. Finance suffers from affirmative loans. Insincerity is at the root. Computers caught PC with its pants down.

Reblogged with permission from TruthRevolution.net

UK government probes algorithm bias in crime, recruitment, and finance

The UK government is launching an inquiry into whether algorithms used in areas such as criminal justice, recruitment, and finance are biased against people based on gender or race.

Is it not  preposterous to think computers are biased? Maybe computers stumble upon the truth, because they have not been programmed and brainwashed like our media and population. Maybe computer algorithms are NOT biased, but our society has egalitarian bias.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “UK government probes algorithm bias in crime, recruitment, and finance” »
UK government probes algorithm bias in crime, recruitment, and fin…
» continues here »

Age of Enlightenment for Social Sciences Requires Scientific Honesty

The Age of Enlightenment advanced quality of life through technological revolution in STEM 1. Our ideologically flawed Social Sciences (political sciences, journalism) are in need of such enlightenment to bring an end to disastrous policy decisions based on factually false theories2. Truth, honesty, sincerity is the way, says SINCERITY.NET. Forbidden Truths and dogmatical lies have permeated and destroyed our entire social sciences 3 4

Reblogged with permission from Sincerity.net

  1. True Speech is Forbidden, True Facts are Taboo. #DeCriminalizeTrueSpeech: When reporting crimes, it is not permissible to [truthfully] refer to the suspect’s religious, ethnic or other minority membership {GUIDELINE 12.1. by the German Press Council}  5
  2. Scientific Honesty & integrity compromised by PC Antiracist dogma:
    Truthfulness in science should be an iron law, not a vague aspiration. One’s personal faith must not interfere with the pursuit of truth
  3. Media Speech Codes #1: USA, Canada, Germany
  4. The Racism Exception to Civilized and Honest Behavior #1: Media

Age of Enlightenment |Wikipedia

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Age of Enlightenment for Social Sciences Requires Scientific Honesty” »
Age of Enlightenment for Social Sciences Requires Scientific Hones…
» continues here »

Everything false can be derived from one false premise (f ⇒ f)

Thus we must not allow a single false or dubious assumption to creep into media, into social sciences.

We leave it to the esteemed reader, what potentially false dogma could have crept into social sciences.

Reblogged with permission from Sincerity.net:Everything false can be derived from one false premise (f ⇒ f)

f ⇒ f   From one false assumption everything else can be deduced as true, mathematical logic tells us1. Thus Sincerity.net demands “zero tolerance” for dishonesty.  We demand “zero tolerance” for anything that misleads people into potentially false beliefs.

Reblogged with permission from Sincerity.net:Everything false can be derived from one false premise (f ⇒ f)

Logical implication | Wikipedia

p-implies-q-the-conditional-truth-tableLogical implication and the material conditional are both associated with an operation on two logical values, typically the values of two propositions, which produces a value of false if the first operand is true and the second operand is false, and a value of true otherwise.

The truth table associated with the logical implication p implies q (symbolized as p q, or more rarely Cpq) is as follows2

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Everything false can be derived from one false premise (f ⇒ f)” »
Everything false can be derived from one false premise (f ⇒ f…
» continues here »

Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary. Alfred Wegener ridiculed for half a century

Continental Drift Theory’s 100’s anniversary on January 6, 2012. Pioneering scientist Alfred Wegener had presented it to the Geological Society in Frankfurt. He was ridiculed for half a century for his absurd idea that the continents float and drift. In 1945, Albert Einstein wrote a preface to a book criticizing Wegner’s theory.  [1]. In 1964, Encyclopedia Britannica stated that the continental drift theory had grave theoretical problems.

Continental-Drift-1The ruling theory posited that the earth shrunk and shriveled, like an old apple, causing mountains to form. Unlike Continental Drift theory It could not explain why mountains were unevenly distributed over the earth, nor why Norway had coal which originated in tropical climates, nor why there were similar fossils on both sides of the Atlantic. Instead, unproven theories of land bridges across continents tried to explain how the animals could have crossed the oceans. [1]

One would expect that in our modern ages,

unlike early scientists, modern scientists proposing radical new ideas do not need to fear the reactions of those entrenched in the existing system. Alfred Wegener is one modern scientist amongst many that demonstrate that new ideas threaten the establishment, regardless of the century.

Alfred Wegener was the scientist who championed the Continental Drift Theory through the first few decades of the twentieth century. Simply put, his hypothesis proposed that the continents had once been joined, and over time had drifted apart. The jigsaw fit that the continents make with each other can be seen by looking at any world map."

Since his ideas challenged scientists in geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology, it demonstrates the reactions of different communities of scientists. The reactions by the leading authorities in the different disciplines was so strong and so negative that serious discussion of the concept stopped. One noted scientist, the geologist Barry Willis, seemed to be speaking for the rest when he said:

                 "further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students.

Barry Willis’s and the other scientists wishes were fulfilled. Discussion did stop in the larger scientific community and students’ minds were not befogged. The world had to wait until the 1960’s for a wide discussion of the Continental Drift Theory to be restarted.

Why did Alfred Wegener’s work produce such a reaction? He was much more diplomatic in presenting his theory than Galileo. Although he believed himself to be right and that some of his arguments were compelling, he knew he would need more support to convince others. His immediate goal was to have the concept openly discussed. Wegener did not even present Continental Drift as a proven theory. These modest goals did not spare him. The fact that his work crossed disciplines exposed him to the territoriality of scientific disciplines. The authorities in the various disciplines attacked him as an interloper that did not fully grasp their own subject. More importantly however, was that even the possibility of Continental Drift was a huge threat to the established authorities in each of the disciplines.

One can’t underestimate the effect of a radical new viewpoint on those established in a discipline. The authorities in these fields are authorities because of their knowledge of the current view of their discipline. A radical new view on their discipline could be a threat to their own authority. One of Alfred Wegener’s critics, the geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain, could not have summarized this threat any better :

"             If we are to believe in Wegener’s hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again."

He was right.       Wegener, Galileo and Darwin

Alfred-WegenerAlfred Wegener, Galileo Galiei, Charles Darwin

The main problem with Wegener’s hypothesis of Continental Drift was the lack of a mechanism. […] In spite of the lack of a mechanism for the preservation of traits, Darwin’s theory quickly came to dominate. Within 5 years, Oxford University was using a biology textbook that discussed biology in the context of evolution by natural selection. […]

Wegener also shares much in common with Galileo. Wegener probably had at least as strong a case for Continental Drift in 1929 as Galileo had for the Copernican model in 1633. The reason many do not realize this is that the controversy is usually presented as a controversy between Galileo and the Church and not Galileo and other scientists (see Galileo’s Battle for the Heavens). As a result most discussions of the early Copernican Model do not even mention any problems associated with the Copernican model. But it was a scientific controversy and it had many of the same elements of the Continental Drift controversy. […]

From the descriptions above it would be difficult to explain why one of the theories was quickly accepted by the scientific communities, another was quickly dismissed even as a hypothesis, and the other was accepted by some and challenged by others. Interpreting these events from a strictly scientific basis won’t help. All of the theories had some compelling advantages and all had some very serious failings when they were first presented. We might have to look beyond the world of ideas to the world of people, events and things to help answer the question.

Darwin, was the ultimate insider in English scientific circles. His grandfather, Erasmus, was an early student of evolution and his half-cousin, Francis Galton, was a noted statistician who was considered the father of eugenics. Being part of the Wedgewood-Darwin clan meant having no worries about money and established connections in the scientific world. When evolution by natural selection was under attack, Darwin could enlist the efforts of a Who’s Who of mid-nineteenth century English science. The most famous of the early defenses of Darwinism was not by Darwin himself but by the famous biologist, Thomas Huxley and the social philosopher, Herbert Spencer.   Wegener, Galileo and Darwin


Remembering Alfred Wegener

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” This summary, usually attributed to German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, seem especially true of scientific knowledge. Take plate tectonics. The idea that surface of the earth is constantly changing as continents drift around on top of a layer of molten rock is so well established that it’s hard for most people to imagine otherwise. But exactly 100 years ago today, when a 31-year-old German meteorologist named Alfred Wegener presented this idea at a meeting of the Geological Association in Frankfurt, he was mocked. It would take decades and the work of many other scientists – including some prominent Canadians – to show that plate tectonics are as real as gravity and evolution.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary. Alfred Wegener ridiculed for half a century” »
Continental Drift Tectonic Plate Theory’s 100th anniversary….
» continues here »

Human logic evolved to win arguments, not to find the truth, scholars assert.

dont-listen-argumentOur brain evolved to win arguments, not to find the truth. In Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory,
Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber defend the argumentative theory of reasoning. They argue that human logic reasoning evolved to win arguments, not to discover the truth.

People Argue Just to Win, Scholars Assert.

Hugo Mercier is among the researchers now asserting that reason evolved to win arguments, not seek truth. […]

Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth. […]

“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

Indeed, Mr. Sperber, a member of the Jean-Nicod research institute in Paris, first developed a version of the theory in 2000 to explain why evolution did not make the manifold flaws in reasoning go the way of the prehensile tail and the four-legged stride. Looking at a large body of psychological research, Mr. Sperber wanted to figure out why people persisted in picking out evidence that supported their views and ignored the rest — what is known as confirmation bias — leading them to hold on to a belief doggedly in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.    Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth | NY Times

Relevance for real world issues

argue2Human-Stupidity shares the frustrations of many activists, that logical reasoning and unassailable scientific proof are not enough to convert the believers in issues like men’s rights, race and iq, *evolution, political correctness, and drug war

We are awe-struck how manipulative language successfully distorts words like *consent, *child, *rape, distorts facts about prostitution. Feminists and religious zealots thus managed to take over the United Nations and enforce world wide law changes based on voodoo theories  and forged science, like sex trafficking and one in four myths. Harvard President Larry Summers was persecuted for questioning some feminist victimization theories. Human-Stupidity posits that women have evolved especially acute language manipulation skills to make up for their physical and economic disadvantages in the EEA. As a result, peer reviewed sound scientific studies get condemned by both the US senate and the US congress by unanimous vote (Rind Study).

Nobel prize winner James Watson had his reputation ruined for well-meaningly stating scientific truths, the same truth that earned renowned scientist J. Philippe Rushton constant persecution. *Discrimination is the explanation for every gender and race difference. We are awe struck how people in high academic positions can get away with drivel like race does not exist.

Don’t miss Robert Kurzban‘s book on the evolution of hypocrisy and meddling in other people’s sex life. Which explains, partially, why lying about a blow job (Bill Clinton) seems to be a worse transgression then starting a trillion dollar war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction (Bush)..


Original scholarly article

Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan, Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory (June 26, 2010). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1698090 

Excerpts from Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Human logic evolved to win arguments, not to find the truth, scholars assert.” »
Human logic evolved to win arguments, not to find the truth, schol…
» continues here »

Should Evolution be taught in School? (Miss USA 2011 – 51 Delegates Interview)

This year’s Miss USA candidates had to answer "Should evolution be taught in School". The stupidity of their answer might be due to the lack of information about evolution, and due to religious zealot’s mis-information. The fact is that the theory of evolution is about as established as the theory of gravitation.

Of course, their answers are also due to politics. A Miss has to be pleasing and diplomatic. A Miss who says the total truth would be too controversial and would be demoted by religious zealots.

Miss USA candidates answering "Should Evolution be taught in School?" | YouTube

“Should Evolution be taught in School?”

Miss California gave a fairly true answer. She actually won! I doubt it was because of her good answer to this question!?

The true answer would be, in Dawkins’ style: "Should the stork theory of child conception be taught in school?" "Should alchemy be taught instead of chemistry. Or should be both sides be taught, Alchemy and chemistry?". Evolutionary theory is as much a theory as the theory of gravitation.

Let’s be sexist and enjoy what these young women do best:

Miss USA 2011 Bikini Contest |YouTube

Miss USA 2011 Swimsuit competition

To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none

We have always been baffled about "victimization".  The teenage sexuality, child porn, irrational drug prohibition witch hunts are based on victimization theories. These victimization theories are so outlandish, they make the medieval "theory that witches cause hail storm" look like sound science.

First come our preconceived moral judgments. Then we find justifications and victims.

In deciding what other people shouldn’t do, people don’t necessarily start with some principle and go from there. It could have been that moral reasoning was not unlike mathematics-start with a few axioms, and see what follows from them. If people did that, then their moral reasoning would be consistent. Everything follows from the assumptions. But they don’t, or at least, not always.2 

All quotes from:
Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind * (Robert Kurzban)
(p. 188 ff | Kindle Loc. 2322-64)

  1. first comes a moral judgment, like "promiscuity is bad", "creeps who possess child porn photos need to be punished", "having sex with adolescents is disgusting" (or "smoking marijuana is bad"). Some of these judgments stem from evolutionary mental modules hard-wired into our minds. Or course, our culture plays a role here too, especially in how we justify our moralistic feelings
  2. After the fact, after we already decided that sex with nubile adolescent women is heinous, our mental "press secretary" has to come up with socially acceptable justifications  for punishing people for apparently victimless crime.  So our mind is made in ways that it finds justifications for our moral judgments. It comes up with logical reasons. It invents victims that need to be protected

Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity: where are the victims of a billionaire’s secret dalliances? Tiger Woods: why can’t he have open marriage and have fun?

For things like sex-which many people want to do-people are very happy to apply moral principles. They think that decisions about what is right and what is wrong, what should be permitted and what should be banned and punished, should derive from principles. In this case, the principle is freedom or liberty: People ought to be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.

[…] But that’s not the way people make all moral judgments, and by moral judgments here I don’t mean how people decide what they themselves should do-what their conscience tells them. I mean how people decide what other people ought not to do, what other people should be punished for.1 […]

People seem to judge acts first, and search for justifications and victims afterwards, which strongly suggests that one coherent set of principles isn’t driving moral judgments.

Human-Stupidity suspects that our modern manipulative language distortion stems from such attempts to justify moralistic interference.

Who are you calling a victim?

One way you can tell people make their moral judgments based on nonconscious intuitions is that they can’t explain their own moral judgments, as we’ve seen with Jon Haidt’s work on "moral dumbfounding." People will say that incest is wrong without being able to give any justification for it. Incest is just wrong.

Kurzban is a scientist. He will not argue if incest is right or wrong, He is analyzing the functioning  of the human mind.  He notices that people are totally convinced of the immorality of incestual relationships and can not explain why it is immoral. Even the incestual couple is adult and infertile, it still is wrong.

Many modules seem to cause people to find certain things wrong and to work to prevent others from doing them.Often, people can’t actually tell you the real reason behind those judgments, any more than they can tell you why they think they’re among the best drivers in the country.

Our moral convictions make us find logical explanations and victims at all cost.

We’ve been studying moral intuitions in my lab as well. Peter DeScioli, Skye Gilbert, and I have done some work looking not at moral justifications, but rather intuitions about victimhood. You might think that when people make moral judgments, they first determine if there’s anyone who is a victim-anyone made worse off by the act in question-and use that when they’re making their moral judgment. But we think that for at least some offenses, it’s the other way around.

Researchers got rid of all potential victims from scenarios. If there absolutely can not be a victim, we find a victim anyway

We presented people with a set of "victimless" offenses-things like urinating on a tombstone, burning a flag, cloning a human being, and so on-and asked our subjects if the act was wrong or not. After that, we asked if anyone was harmed by the action. What we found was that almost anyone who said an act was wrong also indicated a victim. But the victims included entities like "humanity," "society," "the American people," "friends of the deceased," "the clone," and so on.

Now, of course it’s possible to argue that somehow these entities really are worse off as a result of the actions. So in a follow-up, we changed the scenarios to get rid of these potential victims. We had a story in which someone urinated on the tombstone of someone with no living family or friends, or a scientist cloned a human being, but the clone was never alive, so couldn’t ever have suffered, felt pain, or worried that she was a clone.
Doesn’t seem to matter. People still judged the acts wrong, and, when they did, they searched for a victim. If the clone wasn’t ever alive, fine, the clone wasn’t the victim: the scientist (somehow) was. If the dead person had no family or friends, "society" was worse off.
People seem to judge acts first, and search for justifications and victims afterwards, which strongly suggests that one coherent set of principles isn’t driving moral judgments.

Here is the explanation for the amazing theories of victimization with child porn, about consensual sex with adolescents being exactly the same as violently raping the same adolescent. These theories actually have become law and terrorize men with long jail sentences.  

OBS: Dr. Kurzban is not responsible for conclusions Human-Stupidity draws from his work.

Immoral judgments aren’t driven by a set of consciously accessible general principles that are applied to particular cases.


Evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban explains
how we gain reproductive advantage by moral condemnation of promiscuity and interfering in other people’s sex life

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none” »
To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there ar…
» continues here »