Acceptability of evidence

Who decides what is considered to be evidence?

It’s a serious questions, because one of the common forms of demagogic trickery consists of confusing this issue, and so the opposing side implicitly assumes it has the right to arbitrarily accept or refuse the offered evidence. So basically I say that trees are living organisms, and the guy I’m talking to says “I dispute that”, and then what, I have to prove that trees are living organisms, or do I simply get to say “you are an idiot”? I actually prefer the latter option, because it is almost impossible to prove anything within the context of a discussion. You can only refer to research and evidence that has already been produced in a more formal setup, experimentally, and if someone refuses to accept that, you have a serious problem if you want to proceed with any kind of a discussion, because if you allow the opponent to control acceptance of evidence, he in fact gets to control who wins, because victory is defined by having the prevailing evidence on your side, and if someone decides what is accepted as evidence, he can rig the game.

For instance, I’ve seen extensive IQ studies based on statistical evidence proving racial differences, and it is all dismissed out of hand with the statement that “this has been refuted”. No, it wasn’t refuted, it was confirmed again and again and again, and it is being summarily dismissed by the leftists because it doesn’t agree with their beliefs and so “it must be wrong”, because racism or because Nazism. So if I allow my opponent to simply dismiss enormous body of work that is offered as evidence, and then proceed to say that my claims are unsubstantiated because there is no evidence for them, can the discussion really be continued? There really isn’t anything to talk about because it’s like dismissing spaceflight as evidence because someone says that nothing NASA publishes can be trusted. If you can’t rely on scientific research as evidence, what can you rely on, in a debate? You can’t really demonstrate any significant physics in a debate, except that water is wet and glass is breakable by smashing a glass of water on the floor. This very much limits the possibility of a debate between very different philosophies and worldviews, because admission of evidence is the point where the debate is decided in advance. Another problem is when your opponent cites a bullshit study you’ve never heard of, which for instance “proves” that there’s no gravity and that the impression of gravity on Earth is created because it keeps accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.81 m/s2. First he dismisses NASA as evidence, and then he offers this bullshit study as the truth, and when you dismiss it, the result is a false impression of equal fanaticism and stubbornness on both sides. The real truth is, you’re talking to an idiot, and if that truth isn’t openly acknowledged, you’re fucked by merely participating in a debate.

And now we come to the more important issue. In your personal life, who decides what is evidence, and what is acceptable? Is it you, or is it dictated to you? Are you free to make a personal judgment about acceptability of evidence?

How do you decide that your wife loves you? Do you say it can’t be determined because there’s no scientific backing for the claim? Do you dismiss your emotions as evidence because someone says they are not reliable? Or do you trust your own judgment and make up your own mind? How do you approach the question of God’s existence if you feel that God is present in your life and you feel that there is compelling evidence for accepting that He exists? If you cannot communicate this evidence to others, does it stop being evidence to you, personally? Is it a requirement that others must accept it, or it isn’t evidence? I don’t think so. It’s a complex thing, and what is evidence for a person, doesn’t necessarily need to be admissible to a court, or to science, but it doesn’t necessarily cease to be valid. For instance, there isn’t a reliable way for someone outside my room to tell whether I’m writing this text on my desktop computer or a laptop. When I connect to the CMS, it only sees the IP address of my router, with no identification of the internal IP address on the LAN which could indicate which machine was used to make the connection. The text would be the same in both cases. Anyone inspecting the CMS database wouldn’t be able to tell the difference. You won’t be able to tell the difference. But I know which machine I used, I know I’m typing it into the desktop machine. I cannot reliably prove it to you, but I know it’s the truth – only I know the truth. The courts cannot know it, science cannot know it, but I know it. Is it less true because it isn’t scientific or communicable? If I write on this keyboard do I write less reliably because you cannot reliably know that I do? If I drink coffee from a cup, did I drink it less because there are no witnesses and you cannot know that I did? If I experienced God, directly and without any doubt on my side, is it less true because you cannot confirm it? But if that is the cornerstone of my personal understanding of reality, and it is not admissible as evidence in a debate, if others will not accept it and I cannot deny it, if my personal experience is incommunicably wider than others’, of what use is a debate? I can write my narrative, and it can be compelling or not to others. I can actually use spiritual powers to create spiritual experiences in others, but what it does is just create one more person that believes me, and one more person you will call crazy or deluded. So what it all comes down to is faith. You choose to believe certain things, and you accept evidence that supports your belief, and dismiss evidence that refutes your belief. Until you change your internal reasoning for acceptability of evidence, there’s nothing anyone can do to convince you. Long ago, I decided that it doesn’t matter. I will do my thing based on what I believe, and you will do your thing based on what you believe, and each choice will have consequences.

Leftist approach to reason and evidence

It’s interesting how some people, usually on the left political and intellectual spectrum, recommend that we all disregard our prejudice and make up our minds based on reason and evidence, and yet, when people do just that, and based on reason and evidence come up with conclusions different from theirs, they go absolutely fucking nuts.

Well, you can’t have it both ways. If you say that I should reject prejudice, I will do exactly that. I will reject the prejudice that people are equal and see the evidence. I will look into the statistics, I will look at the results, and I will make up my mind. If I don’t come to the same conclusion as you doesn’t mean that I did anything wrong. Maybe it’s you who are not following your advice. Maybe it’s you who are prejudiced, only your prejudice is that of equality.

If you say that people should reject religious dogma and make up your own mind about the existence of God based on the available evidence, and I do exactly that and conclude that God indeed exists, and that religions are just a primitive way of dealing with that truth in an inept and clumsy way, similar to the ways in which cavemen dealt with subdural hematoma. They actually invented trepanation, removal of a part of the skull in order to let the brain expand and relieve intracranial pressure, and it was widely ridiculed in medical circles until quite recently the modern neurosurgeons discovered that craniotomy is the best way of dealing with that exact problem. So yeah, the cavemen were the stupid dumbasses who bored holes in people’s skulls to let the evil spirits out, except that the modern doctors also bore holes in people’s skulls in order to… what? So yeah, we follow the evidence. But I will also make up my own mind on what I consider to be evidence. If I’m to make up my own mind, I’ll be damned if I’ll allow someone else to dictate what I’m to do with this freedom. I will see for myself. So, if God exists, are there people who can attest to that? There are. Are they credible? Yes. Are there multiple testimonies that can be correlated? Yes. Do I have personal experiences that confirm that God exists? I do. So well, there you have it. I followed the evidence, I approached those things rationally, and I made up my own mind.

The fact that my mind didn’t turn out into a replica of yours should not surprise you, since you profess your support for “multiculturalism” and accepting differences. But that isn’t really the case, isn’t it? It’s only a pose. You only accept different opinions if they are the same as yours. You only say we should follow the evidence and reason and reject prejudice because you think you can order people around and dictate what the prejudice are, what the evidence is and what is the reasonable conclusion. Essentially, you have a playbook you want to impose on everyone, and the story about freedom and reason and evidence is just a collection of nice words that are supposed to cloud one’s judgement and blind him to the ugliness of what’s actually going on.

Can atheists go to heaven?

There’s that recurring theme with atheists who, wanting to portray religious people as close-minded, intolerant and limited, ask if they think that atheists can be good people, and, alternatively, if atheists can go to heaven.

The answer to this is to first define “good”, and then to define “heaven”, or salvation.

Accepting the most usual definition for “good”, the answer is yes. Most atheistic solutions to ethics are benevolent, tit-for-tat ones, which will be aggressive only if provoked, and even then only in a limited way, in order to deter further provocations. The dynamics of the cold war were essentially an example of two inherently godless camps doing self-serving things and thus avoiding any widespread violence and evil. There are, of course, very evil atheistic ethical frameworks, which we can see in the history of the age of enlightenment and socialism, so let’s not delude ourselves: atheism is actually wide open to bad ethical choices if they are seen as reasonable and self-serving.

The answer to the third question, whether atheists can go to heaven, is more difficult. If you define heaven as a state of permanent, eternal union with God, then my answer is a decisive “no”, because an atheist simply doesn’t have the kind of internal urge that makes one explore everything related to God because all his motivations drive him there, as if everything depends on it. If you really want God, you will find him, and then I can be quite certain that you’ll go to heaven when you die. If, as atheists often proudly say, you feel no need for God, you won’t go to heaven because what you are looking for is not in heaven. It’s that simple. You may now answer that it’s not right, but my response is that it’s exactly right, and it wouldn’t be right to put you in heaven so that you can annoy saints and angels with your sarcastic remarks about how stupid they are to love God so blindly when you see nothing special about Him. Since you see nothing special about God and nothing attractive about heaven, get the fuck out. It’s only logical.

Since you don’t need God anyway, you won’t be missing out on anything, apparently.

Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain

I’ve been called a blind, unthinking sheep for buying an iPhone.

I’ve been called a cult leader for trying to teach people how to think independently and attain personal spiritual powers.

I’ve been called called a counterfeiter and liar for making a verbatim quotation from the Bible.

I’ve been called a right-wing racist misogynist bigot for having straightforward opinions based on evidence.

I’ve been called stubbornly wrong for claiming that 2+3*5=17.

I’ve been called illiterate by people who probably can’t sign their own name.

I’ve been called uneducated by people who think that the rocks in the pyramids of Egypt were organically grown.

I’ve been called unenlightened by people whose entire concept of spirituality is copied from some book.

It bothered me at first. Later I tried arguing with them. Now I just confirm what they said. Yeah, I’m a sheep, I’m too stupid to make up my own mind and I bought the expensive shiny thingy because I’m too lazy to see the alternatives. Yes, I’m a cult leader, I’m in it for money and pussy. Yes, I like counterfeiting the scriptures, my father Satan is very proud of me for it. Yes, I’m a right winger, Heil Hitler, get back to the kitchen and make me a sandwich. Yeah, I’m stubborn, and I’m too fucking lazy to just make operations in the proper order, from left to right like all normal people. Yeah, me dumbass, can’t write, can read a little but slowly. Yeah, I’m uneducated and close-minded and I don’t even believe in the tooth fairy. I’m totally unenlightened, I don’t care about that shit at all, I didn’t even give enough fuck to read a Richard Bach or Paulo Coelho book and get the right answers.

In other words, fuck me if I care.

About science, verifiability and equality

Generally speaking, science is the best tool ever devised by mankind for the purpose of finding out the facts about the world. It provides us with the most accurate and verified information of all the sources of knowledge that we possess. It is more accurate than religion, it is more accurate than journalism, and it is much more reliable than politics. If you want to know something about the world, ask a scientist. Don’t ask a religious person or a politician.

On a more personal level, however, things are quite a bit different, because on a personal level, you can’t really verify science, and you don’t actually see it first-hand. You hear about science from the politicians and the journalists, or even worse, from the religious people, and what science survives this unreliable conduit is no longer science. It’s an interpretation of science that serves someone’s agenda, and to you personally, it’s served in form of a religion, which I call “scientism”. Scientism is the religion of science. It preaches salvation by science, and divides the world into scientific and falsehood. If there’s a scientific opinion about something, it’s a sacred dogma. If scientists agree on something, it’s to be viewed with the same worshipful reverence with which the Catholics view a council of the Church. If someone says a 97% of scientists agree on something, you don’t verify. You obediently comply and you don’t ask questions lest you be called one of those names that end all discussion and harm your chances of ever finding or keeping a job.

The problem is, the world isn’t neatly separated into science and falsehood. It’s separated into the part that is known to us and within our ability to process in any way, and the part that is completely beyond our grasp. The part that is within our ability to process is very small, and it is further divided into the part that the science has ways of dealing with, and the part that it can’t process because it’s incompatible with the scientific method. That’s why we have so much knowledge about chemistry and so little about human psyche; what we do know about human spirit is only the part that can be subjected to scientific analysis, and the psychologists like to believe that this part is much larger than my personal experience can attest.

There is also a big difference between science as a method, practitioners of scientific method, the scientific community, and the impression the general population gets about what it’s all about. What the general population thinks about science is basically what the newspapers and other media report. Think about it what you will, but I am less than pleased with my prospects of finding out any kind of objective truth with this method.

One of my problems with the so called “social media” is that it gives a platform to vocal but stupid people, who often know very little about what’s going on in the world, but they tend to have a huge following. Recently some ignorant musician went on a campaign to inform people that the Earth is really flat. There’s actually quite a following of conspiracy theorists who claim that NASA is all about computer-generated forgeries and that it’s actually impossible to go into orbit let alone to Moon and Mars, because the Earth is flat.

And that’s my main problem with the movie “Martian”. Regardless of how interesting and well made it is, it works with an implicit faulty assumption that we live in the same civilization that went to the Moon in the sixties and early seventies. We don’t. That then was a civilization ruled by white men who did what they thought was right and didn’t care much about anyone else. The result was that they stretched technology to the limits and did what people today would generally consider impossible, but not because it’s really impossible, but because they are stupid people whose arrogance and self-importance was inflated by the social media culture which conditioned them to believe that they are important and that they matter. Which they are not, and they don’t.

They are uneducated, because the education system in the West, and especially in America, under-emphasises hard science disciplines and a direct experimental approach, with the end-result of students getting degrees while thinking that it’s all just dogma whose purpose is to fill short term memory in order to pass the tests. On the other hand, what is over-emphasised is self-importance, self-confidence and rhetorical skills whose purpose isn’t to find out and defend the truth, but to win arguments for any side. Essentially, they are taught conceit and demagoguery, and that’s what we can see online – vain, stupid, conceited, argumentative people who post “selfies”, use the platform of social media to talk endlessly about their unimportant experiences and shallow thoughts, and never concede that they are wrong about anything.

As a result, this raises the noise floor so much, you can no longer reliably differentiate between the spikes of authentic signal and various social media propagandistic campaigns, with the end-result of nobody taking the serious stuff seriously, because we are repeatedly brainwashed with claims that everything is equally important and everybody matters. As a result, the civilization portrayed in the “Martian” doesn’t exist. It existed when Wernher von Braun and Sergei Korolev led the space programmes of their respective nations. It existed when important people were taken seriously, and stupid people didn’t have a platform from which to shout their worthless drivel, and as a result of them not having a voice, they couldn’t say stupid things and raise the overall civilizational noise floor.

What I’m saying here, is that ordinary people should be aware that they are not special. They are not important. Their opinions aren’t important, aren’t smart, aren’t well informed and, being aware of that, they should shut the fuck up and not drown out the voices of the few who actually have something important and relevant to say. The fact that everybody has a voice and a platform only served to reveal how stupid, unimportant and uneducated most people are, and why censorship and restricted access to public speaking platforms were such a great thing, that brought us to the Moon, gave us nuclear energy and produced all the great things of modern technology.

What social media gave us are the stupid conspiracy theorists who don’t know jack shit about how science and technology actually work, but who possess worthless degrees given to them by an education system that teaches people that truth doesn’t matter, that the facts don’t matter, but that presentation is everything.

As a result, we live in a civilization in which facts don’t matter, the truth doesn’t matter, and the media-created thoughtspace contains only presentation, propaganda, opinions and nonsense, and people like myself, who genuinely cut through that bullshit in search for truth and the facts are seen as some crazy right-wing kooks who say things that are completely out of touch with the stuff “everybody knows is true”.

Well, what you “know” is true is that 97% of scientists support the man-made global warming interpretation. That’s what the politicians tell you. That’s what the media tells you. But when someone actually bothered to ask the scientists, they said something quite different.

I once watched a Youtube movie called “Zeitgeist” that intends to reveal all the “bullshit” of religion, by uncovering all the “lies” Christianity, for instance, has been telling us. For instance, it states that Jesus is a myth, that stories about virgin birth are abundant in the Mediterranean circle of religions. I saw this movie because it was widely spread by “skeptics” and conspiracy theorists. Guess what, I actually bothered to be skeptical enough of the movie’s claims as to verify them, and found them to be complete and utter drivel. For instance, Krishna is quoted as an example of someone born of a virgin. Only he was his mother’s eighth child. This is something I noticed immediately because unlike the author of the movie, I actually know something. I proceeded to verify other similar claims, and they all fell apart, nothing even remotely makes sense when you look at the actual content of some belief, not the one-sentence presentation made by a liar and a conman. So, it appears that the self-proclaimed skeptics are the most gullible people you can ever meet. They will believe literally anything, as long as it isn’t the “official story”, and the cause of all this is that stupid, irrelevant, common people have been lead to believe that they are special, that they should question things and not simply accept them, and that narrative is everything and the facts are relative.

And when you have stupid people who are skeptical of what the smart people tell them, you get a doomed society.

Common people believe that we are all the same, that they are equal to the smart people, because they were never required to actually test this belief. If they were, their opinion of themselves as God’s special snowflakes would suddenly wane. At one point in life I was surrounded with average people who didn’t think I’m special because I looked like them, only more scrawny, I talked to them about the common banalities, but they heard that I’m supposed to be some Mensa-IQ guy so they got some IQ tests and offered that we solve them together, to see how we compare. I will never forget their faces when they saw with what ease I solved the test while they got stuck at the simplest questions, and not only did I do my test flawlessly, I simultaneously helped them with theirs. They felt humiliated, probably for the first time in their lives, and not because I laughed at them or made fun of them – on the contrary, I was as polite and forthcoming as always. It’s because for the first time in their lives they saw that not all men are equal, not because somebody told them, but because they were forced to confront the evidence in their living experience.

When people are told all the time that we are all equal, that IQ doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter, that there is no more than 1% of difference between people, that all souls were made the same by God, they tend to believe that – “those scientists, they’re not really smarter, they are just deceiving us, but we know better”. I personally experienced many situations where I was faced with someone who knew much more about something than I did, and I couldn’t delude myself into thinking that we are equals; I was the stupid one, and if I wanted to overcome that I had to learn. I truly wish everyone had the same experience, and then this entire political correctness multicultural egalitarian bullshit would go away. There’s nothing more harmful to a civilization than belief that we are all the same and that everyone’s opinions and lives matter the same.

They don’t. Narrative is not all that matters. When some people succeed where others fail, it’s not due to discrimination, it’s because some people are better than others, and they are worth more. If you think you’re anyone’s equal, take an IQ test against a 1-percentile.