The Origins of Hitchen’s Razor

Image

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are not the smartest people in the world, they are the smartest people that silly Americans are capable of recognizing as smart.  They take credit for things they didn’t do and instead of being intellectually honest they obfuscate, conflate, and create false dichotomies.  

“Christopher Hitchens doesn’t take himself seriously, there is no reason anybody else should.” ~ Noam Chomsky

Now, the original argument came up between the Vienna Circle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Karl Popper. The Vienna Circle was creating what would become the modern philosophy of science and they were studying the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I am not even sure if he was technically part of the Vienna Circle or just mentoring it.  He used to say, “Deep is that which cannot be said.” Based on the fact that according to the new Philosophy of Science it would only accept A priori, and empirical data, which means it was editing it’s consideration set to exclude personal experiences that could not be verified by peer review.  Wittgenstein’s favorite hobby was to enjoy the poetry of Sri Aurobindo:

Sri Aurobindo (Sri Ôrobindo), (15 August 1872 – 5 December 1950), born Aurobindo Ghose, was an Indiannationalist, philosopher, yogiguru and poet.[2][3] He joined the Indian movement for independence from British rule, for a while became one of its influential leaders and then became a spiritual reformer, introducing his visions on human progress and spiritual evolution.[4]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo

Karl Popper was also from Vienna and having inferior support and recognition he had a short man complex.  Popper thought that he was falsifying Ludwig Wittgenstein, he believed that he understood Wittgenstein through the Vienna Circle, and he thought that Wittgenstein was some manner of Pope and that the Vienna Circle took his word on everything.  Popper accused Wittgenstein of making ex Cathedra assertions:

Image

A person in making an ex cathedra assertion presupposes their own authority to make that assertion, if they don’t support it with reason or evidence.  Hitchen’s razor is basically a tautology of that moment in the history of science.  He just reworded it and then didn’t give credit to the source.  So not exactly plagiarism but maybe in spirit…

Now where Mr. Popper’s argument is weakest is when the person is giving information on something about which they are a priorily an authority.  Like themselves, what they think and what they believe.  People are authorities on themselves, so unless their is some reason to believe that they are lying, one should accept their word on what they believe as long as they are not arguing for what other people should believe.  Scientific materials are descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive, so when a person is describing what they believe that is scientific in a sense.  But if they are arguing for what another must believe they don’t have that authority.  Furthermore, Atheist like to use the extraordinary claims argument on religious people describing what they believe.  An extraordinary claim is a claim which if true would radically alter the way in which the scientific community went about its business.  The last time I checked nobody was trying to force the scientific community into accepting god, and Dawkinites and Hitchenites are trolls, they aren’t the scientific community.  

Image

Advertisements

Strategic Communication, Psychopathology, and Richard Dawkins.

Image

 

The first time I read the God Delusion, I knew it was wrong on a number of points, but recently Richard Dawkins said some things that mad me interested in the book again and I bought a copy and started rereading it.  I didn’t realize the first time what a truly manipulative and strategic communicator he really was.  The reason this is important to me is that some of you know that I am a psycholinguist that looks for psychopathic patterns in communication and psychopaths are manipulative, strategic communicators.  

One of Richards favorite tactics is to quote somebody else and agree with them instead of saying something himself, or he will invite somebody to make a logical fallacy that he himself doesn’t actually assert, or he will ask a question instead of making an assertion that could be falsified, he edits his consideration set to prove himself correct and he doesn’t include information that weakens his arguments.  I will point out a couple of examples of these behaviors in his rants.  

When the police are interrogating someone they look for the story to change, this is very important, how the story changes and what the story changes to because it can reveal intent to conceal or mislead.  Every time the story changes it is important.  When I first read the book Richard quotes a female friend of his as saying that she was sexually molested and it was “icky” but it did no long term damage and he agreed with her, then recently he said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html

 

In an interview in The Times magazine on Saturday (Sept. 7), Dawkins, 72, he said he was unable to condemn what he called “the mild pedophilia” he experienced at an English school when he was a child in the 1950s.

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, he recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

He said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded: “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/9/7/dawkins-under-attack-for-his-lenient-view-of-mild-sex-abuse-the-times

So we see that he was concealing his real narrative.  This is a strategy that he uses repeatedly to avoid taking responsibility for what he is saying.  Here is another instance where he is quoting Douglas Adams:

If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it.  But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’ you say, ‘I respect that’.

Who hear is expressing contempt for Orthodox Judaism?  Is it Richard or Douglas?  Who do I falsify?  Does Richard agree with Douglas?  If not why does he include the quote?  In the next paragraph he he attacks Quakers, who started in England by rebelling against the Atheistic sexual debauchery and had to leave the country to get away from them.  Now I don’t know about you, but I have never had an Chassidic Jew tell me that I wasn’t allowed to move a light switch on Saturday.  Who is arguing for the authority to force Orthodox Jews to use the lights on Saturday?  Not only are they mocking one of the first revolutions in civil rights, the original Holy Day, the first weekend that guaranteed that you were not allowed to work your slaves to death, and that you wouldn’t have to compete against people working 7 days a week and you had one day to yourself in which to relax and roger your wife, but it is also a post modernist movement for people that are tired of the rigors, deuchery, and psychopathic hypocrisy of modern life. 

Oh, yeah, I will just leave this here….

“the right to be Christian seems in this case to mean the right to poke your nose into other people’s private lives’.”

EINSTEIN IS CONFUSING

Image

“confuse” or enlighten?  “deism is watered down theism“.  Now what is so telling is that one moment he is saying that Deism is Theism and then he says he is not trying to debate Einstein’s god, but Einstein was a deist…  Not only that, he doesn’t explain Einstein’s god because if he did some people would say, “Well, that is actually pretty interesting, I think I might be a deist too”  and then they wouldn’t be as easily hypnotized by his propaganda that they must from now on harass and bully religious people.  Richard Dawkins is not an authority on deism and he defines it falsely.  I should know, I am a deist, Einstein and myself have the same god.  

(http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm)

Image

HITLER QUOTE

This is truly bizarre, he quotes Adolf Hitler verbatim but he doesn’t give credit to Hitler for the quote.  

ImageImage

http://f.eed.bz/the-top-six-craziest-richarddawkins-tweets-of-2013-so-far/

Now why is it that knowledge has to be fought?  That is what is so strange about this quote, not only does it tell me he is most likely quoting Hitler, it tells me that he is manipulating people.  A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, unfortunately most Americans are not smart enough to detect what is for me the powerful stench of horse shit.  He can easily befuddle the minds of people with a little bit of knowledge and turn them against the people of faith, just like somebody else I know, hmmm….

BORROWING AUTHORITY

One of his communication strategies is to borrow authority from other cool people to make his ideas seem more hip.  He uses the Beatles song to support his claim that without religion there would be no violence because there would be no clicks or groups of people that disagree with one another and fight each other.  Not only is this assertion unproven, that a world without religion would be a peaceful world, but he ignores the fact that state enforced atheism has always failed, and has always been associated with violence and human rights atrocities.  Furthermore, he ignores the fact of the first two primary influences of the Beatles music.  Not to mention he is smart enough to know that children are not born as blank slates, that is why Noam Chomsky is famous, he falsified the Behaviorists who thought that children were blank slates.  On top of that, if lets say we got rid of Islam would the thought tools, Abeed, Harem, and Taqiyya disappear?  Would people no longer think in those terms?  Or should we eradicate their language as well, like the Catholics who indoctrinated people into their own language?  

 

ImageImage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yukteswar_Giri

 

Yukteswar Giri (also written yuktesvaraSri Yukteswar) (Bengaliশ্রী যুক্তেশ্বর গিরী) (10 May 1855 – 9 March 1936) is the monastic name of Priya Nath Karar (Bengaliপ্রিয়নাথ কাঁড়ার), the guru of Satyananda Giri and Paramahansa Yogananda. Yukteswar was an educator, astronomer, a Jyotisha (Vedic astrologer), a yogi, and a scholar of the Bhagavad Gitaand the Bible. He was a disciple of Lahiri Mahasaya of Varanasi and a member of the Giri branch of the swami order. Yogananda considered Yukteswar as Jnanavatar, or “Incarnation of Wisdom”.[1]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

 

Aleister Crowley (/ˈkrli/; born Edward Alexander Crowley; 12 October 1875 – 1 December 1947) was an Englishoccultistceremonial magicianpoet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He was responsible for founding the religion and philosophy of Thelema, in which role he identified himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into theAeon of Horus in the early 20th century.

And then Richard contradicts himself again by creating another clique or group of people that is adversarial with everybody else…

“Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to ‘come out,’ thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can’t be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.”

― Richard DawkinsThe God Delusion

Now what I find so interesting about the behavior of Atheists is that Atheism was not an organization, it was the absence of the presence of the belief in god, as such their behavior was not informed by Atheism and not organized.  Now it is becoming organized and informed.  But Atheists while attacking other groups ignore the bad stuff that their people say and do, just like a religion, while insisting that their bad behavior doesn’t characterize Atheism, at the same time atheists cannot be falsified by any praxis of Atheism, since they are still insisting that it is not an organization when in fact it is.  Atheism is becoming a religion.  What they are forgetting is that the highest form of their good is the absence of the presence of a form of good…  If you want to talk about Delusional…

STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION

Image

He just won’t give up on defending pedophilia.  Notice the change in narrative, the first time he spoke it happened to a woman, then it happened to him, and it was “putting hands in my shorts” and then he mentioned it again and this time it was, “putting hands in clothes” he is using vague tautologies in order to make the whole matter look more harmless, and he is using an exaggerated comparison set in order to herd people towards the answer he wants in order to make it look more reasonable than it is.  

I have spent a lot of time studying how psychopaths like Hitler rise to power, how they communicate harmlessness, and how they pass your threat filter, and then they get behind you and get you doing their dirty work.  In the book click!, they say the fastest way to get a group of people to have a sense of unity is by instilling in them a shared sense of suffering, they need to feel victimized, persecuted.  And then he uses his scientific authority to get them to attack his enemies, while he stays at home and “mildly” Frotteurises your children, but as my stand up comedy alter ego says:

Image

 

 

MCDONALD TRIAD, SOCIOPATH,

 

Imagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macdonald_triad

Firesetting[edit]

In Singer and Hensley (2004), firesetting is theorized to be a less severe or first shot at releasing aggression. Extensive periods of humiliation have been found to be present in the childhoods of several adult serial killers. These repetitive episodes of humiliation can lead to feelings of frustration and anger, which need to somehow be released in order to return to a normal state of self-worth.[5] However, the triad combination has been questioned in this regard also, and a review has suggested that this behavior is just one that can occur in the context of childhood antisocial behavior and isn’t necessarily predictive of later violence.[8]

Cruelty to animals[edit]

FBI Special Agent Alan Brantly believed that some offenders kill animals as a rehearsal for killing human victims.[9] Cruelty to animals is mainly used to vent frustration and anger the same way firesetting is. Extensive amounts of humiliation were also found in the childhoods of children who engaged in acts of cruelty to animals. During childhood, serial killers could not retaliate towards those who caused them humiliation, so they chose animals because they [animals] were viewed as weak and vulnerable. Future victim selection is already in the process at a young age. Studies have found that those who engaged in childhood acts of cruelty to animals used the same method of killing on their human victims as they did on their animal victims.[10]

Wright and Hensley (2003) named three recurring themes in their study of five cases of serial murderers: As children, they vented their frustrations because the person causing them anger or humiliation was too powerful to take down; they felt as if they regained some control and power over their lives through the torture and killing of the animals; they gained the power and control they needed to cause pain and suffering of a weaker, more vulnerable animal – escalating to humans in the future.[11]

In a study of 45 male prison inmates who were deemed violent offenders, McClellan (2003) found that 56% admitted to having committed acts of violence against animals. It was also found that children who abused animals were more often the victims of parental abuse than children who did not abuse animals.[12] As previously stated, animal cruelty was a way for the children to feel as if they were retaliating against those who abused, frustrated, or humiliated them.

Tallichet and Hensley (2004) postulated that studies have been uncertain in regard to animal cruelty and later violence against humans. In their study, which considered not one-off events but patterns of repeat violence, Tallichet and Hensley did find a link between animal cruelty and violence against humans. They examined prisoners in maximum or medium security prisons. [13] Furthermore, over-generalizing possible links between animal violence and human violence can have unwanted consequences such as detracting focus from other possible predictors or causes.[14]

Enuresis[edit]

Enuresis is the “unintentional bed-wetting during sleep, persistent after the age of five”.[15] The bed-wetting must continue twice a week for at least three consecutive months.

The idea that bedwetting has anything to do with psychological maladjustment, and certainly with later antisocial or violent tendencies, or plays some part in a triad of predictors, has been described as a destructive myth entirely discredited. Crime researchers acknowledge that it is not linked with later sociopathic behavior. It is not even clear that it is necessarily associated with distress.[16][17]

However, some authors continue to speculate that enuresis may be related to firesetting and animal cruelty in some way. One argument is that because persistent bed-wetting beyond the age of five can be humiliating for a child, especially if he or she is belittled by a parental figure or other adult as a result, this could cause the child to use firesetting or cruelty to animals as an outlet for his or her frustration.[5] Enuresis is an “unconscious, involuntary, and nonviolent act and therefore linking it to violent crime is more problematic than doing so with animal cruelty or firesetting”.[18]

According to Douglas and his fellow researchers, the triad behaviors are not causal when examining a relationship with later predatory behavior, but rather, are predictive of an increased likelihood of the future behavior patterns, and give professionals a chance to halt some patterns before they progress.

Mistakes people make in Judgment

Image

Strategic behavior can be irrational insofar as it deviates from rational and sustainable behavior depending on the environment and teleology of events.  It would be silly to blame a person in an irrational environment for behaving strategically, since that person couldn’t survive any other way.  Likewise strategic behavior in a rational environment is more egregious but people seem to be able to get away with it by making certain emotional appeals and throwing histrionic fits.

ImageImage

In the Harry Potter movie, Harry behaves strategically and uses his magick and irrational act, in a rational environment, but he is provoked by a Dementor attacking himself and his relative.  So, teleologically speaking he behaved irrationally in a rational environment after being provoked by an irrational action, why is this ok?

 

Jus ad bellum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Just cause/ Right intention[edit]

According to the principle of right intention, the aim of war must not be to pursue narrowly defined national interests, but rather to re-establish a just peace. This state of peace should be preferable to the conditions that would have prevailed had the war not occurred.

 

Proportionality[edit]

The principle of proportionality stipulates that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. For example, if one nation invades and seizes the land of another nation, this second nation has just cause for a counterattack in order to retrieve its land. However, if this second nation invades the first, reclaims its territory, and then also annexes the first nation, such military action is disproportional.

 

Last resort[edit]

The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

What is interesting with people and their judgments nowadays, is that people respond with horror when a rational person defends themselves against an irrational person that is forcing a confrontation, as if there is a virtue in letting psychopaths force their will on everybody and get away with it.  This just emboldens them to do it again in the future.

Contemplate if you will, the rules governing gun play in the cowboy days, shooting an unarmed man was an act of murder, but shooting an armed man was acceptable because shit happens.  Now what is interesting is that today you have psychopathic structures of authority in relationship with protecting and expanding their authority, and they have an incentive in a situation where the rational person defends himself and wins, to fly in the face of reason and rule against the righteous person defending themselves against the lawless, irrational man.

Image

ImageImage

 

The Mind Hacker…