Basic Facts About USAID

Today I post this on FB, where am constantly smacked like a pinata by people who are completely ignorant about how U.S. foreign policy works.

If you are not following key people on Twitter, you are living in abject ignorance. You are missing real facts and real conversation. You are inviting corporate media to take over your brain so that you think and mouth corporate propaganda. You might hate what I've written above because you think of yourself as intelligent, but intelligence depends on being well informed by people who speak freely, without censorship. You are not getting that with corporate media. It's time to break out and learn important things that the giant U.S. propaganda machine is hiding from you. Case in point: USAID. You probably know nothing about USAID. You are probably completely ignorant about the damage we have done to dozens of other countries through USAID. We do this in the name of democracy, but that is complete bullshit. Mike Benz explains.

Continue ReadingBasic Facts About USAID

RFK, Jr.: The Problem with Experts

RFK, Jr.:

Newsweek asked RFK Jr. "why he doesn't stop promoting conspiracy theories".

This was his reply:

"My father told me when I was a little boy that people in authority lie and the job in a democracy is to remain skeptical. I've been science-based since I was a kid. Show me the evidence and I'll believe you, but I'm not going to take the word of official narratives."

"The way you do research is not by asking authoritative figures what they think. Trusting experts is not a feature of science, and it's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion and totalitarianism."

Compare with this passage from The Constitution of Knowledge by Jonathan Rauch (p.88):

I argue that liberal science’s distinctive qualities derive from two core rules, and that any public conversation which obeys those two rules will display the distinguishing characteristics of liberal science. The rules are

- The fallibilist rule: No one gets the final say. You may claim that a statement is established as knowledge only if it can be debunked, in principle, and only insofar as it withstands attempts to debunk it. That is, you are entitled to claim that a statement is objectively true only insofar as it is both checkable and has stood up to checking, and not otherwise. In practice, of course, determining whether a particular statement stands up to checking is sometimes hard, and we have to argue about it. But what counts is the way the rule directs us to behave: you must assume your own and everyone else’s fallibility and you must hunt for your own and others’ errors, even if you are confident you are right. Otherwise, you are not reality-based.

- The empirical rule: No one has personal authority. You may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement. Whatever you do to check a proposition must be something that anyone can do, at least in principle, and get the same result. Also, no one proposing a hypothesis gets a free pass simply because of who she is or what group she belongs to. Who you are does not count; the rules apply to everybody and persons are interchangeable. If your method is valid only for you or your affinity group or people who believe as you do, then you are not reality-based...

Here is a problem, though, with the funnel metaphor. The boundaries of the reality-based community are fuzzy and frothy, not hard and distinct, and the same is true of knowledge itself. What has and The Constitution of Knowledge has not been validated? Who qualifies as an expert reviewer? Who is doing good science or journalism, who is doing bad science or journalism, and who is not doing science or journalism at all? Distinguishing science from pseudoscience and real news from fake news and knowledge from opinion will never be cut and dried. Among philosophers of science, a debate over what kind of thing is and is not science, the so-called demarcation problem, has been going on for a long time without resolution, which makes philosophers unhappy.

In fact, however, efforts to define who is or is not a scientist or what science does or does not do miss the point. The beauty of the reality-based community is that it can acquire all kinds of propositions and organize all sorts of arguments, and it can do all kinds of things to resolve those arguments, so long as its methods satisfy the fallibilist and empirical rules. In the real world, checking does not need to mean falsifying a factual statement in some precise, authoritative way. It means finding a replicable, impersonal way to persuade people with other viewpoints that a proposition is true or false. The reality-based community is thus not limited to handling factual disputes. It can work its will on any kind of proposition which its members and rules can figure out how to adjudicate, and it can drive many kinds of conversation toward consensus.

Continue ReadingRFK, Jr.: The Problem with Experts

Statistics Concerning Double-Mastectomies Motivated by “Gender-Affirming Care.”

This tsunami of "gender-affirming" double-mastectomies of children is one of the most horrific medical scandals in history. It's happening right here and right now in the United Stated. And the fact that corporate media suppresses information regarding this butchery of children is one of the greatest scandals in journalism. From this article by Leon Sapir:

The U.S. is one of the few Western countries where minors can receive gender surgeries, according to a new report. Teens under 18 cannot undergo double mastectomy in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Sweden, the U.K., and three Canadian provinces. Countries that allow these procedures typically do so only in “rare cases,” after age 16, and with parental consent. In the U.S., WPATH Standards of Care, Version 8, widely followed and endorsed by the Biden administration, specifies no age minimums for gender surgeries, with the exception of phalloplasty (but even that can be performed if “significant, compelling reasons” exist to do so). In June, unsealed court documents revealed that WPATH eliminated age minimums for political reasons, and under pressure from U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, a transgender woman.

Continue ReadingStatistics Concerning Double-Mastectomies Motivated by “Gender-Affirming Care.”

Brett Weinstein Warns of the Deepening Cartesian Crisis

We should be spending a lot more time living normal lives: visiting friends, taking care of our children (and parents) and contributing positively to our communities, but we have a profound collective case of Burridan's Ass. Because advocacy is strongly prevailing over knowledge seeking, we struggle to know what is true in numerous basic ways.

Brett Weinstein warns that this problem is getting worse.

The Cartesian Crisis describes the inability to be sure of anything—scientific claims, the basic facts of historical events, the degree to which a consensus is actually accepted by others. It leads to the collapse of reason itself. But it’s difficult to illustrate with examples because in each case, people immediately get lost in making the case for their best guess at what’s true.

Try spending one day resisting conclusions, and concentrating on the quality and consistency of the evidence. Our average level of certainty may be unchanged, but our reason for certainty is at an all time low. If you did this exercise once a month you’d soon know how rapidly the Cartesian Crisis is deepening.

It’s vital that we each halt our descent into this tsunami of uncertainty. Establish an unbreakable bond with someone you have good reason to trust, and discuss your beliefs and the reasons you hold them, regularly and in person. You won’t regret it.

Burriden's Ass:

Buridan's ass is an illustration of a paradox in philosophy in the conception of free will. It refers to a hypothetical situation wherein an ass (donkey) that is equally hungry and thirsty is placed precisely midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water. Since the paradox assumes the donkey will always go to whichever is closer, it dies of both hunger and thirst since it cannot make any rational decision between the hay and water.[1] A common variant of the paradox substitutes the hay and water for two identical piles of hay; the ass, unable to choose between the two, dies of hunger.

Continue ReadingBrett Weinstein Warns of the Deepening Cartesian Crisis