Thursday, May 4, 2017

How to not think well: or the relentless liberal undervaluing of all the right types of knowledge

Let us create a classification of different types of knowledge. Some of there terms are made up. Do not worry. I will define them all. I have put them in rough order from most valuable at the top to what I think is least valuable at the bottom.

accretive (or cookbook knowledge)
derived from the scientific method
engineering-based (tinkering)
iterative (design-based)
statistical knowledge
theological interpretation
common sense
well-intentioned advice
pure reason

accretive (cookbook knowledge)

All cookbooks are "cookbook" knowledge. Cookbook knowledge/accretive knowledge is any knowledge that has been learned from lots of experience by many people, and put into the form of a recipe. "Do this and you will get a certain result," is the format of accretive knowledge. I call it accretive because it accumulates from the experience of many people. It is among the most important type of knowledge created by humans, and the type the left-wing undervalues the most. Here are some examples of it;

Cookbooks, like the The Joy of Cooking.
Knowledge of how to organize family and sexual relationships from religious books, such as The Bible, the Rig Veda, or the Upanishads.
All medical texts, such as the Physicians Desk Reference, Grey's Anatomy, Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, or the Astanga Hridaya.
Building codes, such as the International Building Code,
Dictionaries and encyclopedias, like Black's Law Dictionary, or the Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Additionally, you have Native American, Amerindian, and tribal folklore and folk medicine.

Notice that this knowledge is not derived from science but from experience. Accretive knowledge is just an accumulation of what works. Buildings kept falling down, and that is how knowledge of building standards came into being. Doctors worked out treatments through mostly trial and error. Religions defined the proper roles between men and women through experience. None of this stuff was arrived at a priori from logic, but backwards, from experience. It works because it works, and the whole world is built on this stuff. "Accretive knowledge," has given us the engineering standards to build rockets to the Moon, and yet listening to liberals you would think that the "scientific method" did everything. Actually, the cookbook/dictionary/engineering manual/religious doctrine came first, and then science simply explained it later. People made vast books of what worked, and then theories arrived to explain it.

Accretive knowledge is underrated because it just "works," and working is its only criteria. It's always the case that nobody fully knows how it works. That is why it is accretive, and not scientific, knowledge. Consider that there is now a scientific cookbook called The Food Lab: Better Home Cooking Through Science, which applies theory to explain what makes food taste good. But of course the ordinary and boring experience-based cookbook preceded it.

derived from the scientific method

Almost nothing is purely derived from the scientific method. But it has given us abstract mathematics, information theory, symbolic logic, calculus, and the like. In truth, accurate science usually only arrives at after enough accretive knowledge accumulates to postulate an hypothesis.The scientific method is as over-rated as accretive knowledge is underrated. The second form is built on the first. Contrary to liberal beliefs, "proof" is not based on a priori reasoning like Kant would have you believe. It is the long culmination of the process of accretion. When accretion reaches a certain lofty height, if becomes science. Scientific knowledge is just accretive knowledge with a theory to explain the pattern.


Teleological knowledge is that which is derived from an analysis of purpose. An objects teleological function, is its function according to what it does, and not what it says it does. This is where statements like the following come from;
"taxation is theft,"
"government is a stationary bandit,"
"ideology is to government as marketing is to business,"
"Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws,"
"a bureaucracy behaves like a corporation that works for the profit of its employees,"
"the tendency of bureaucracy is to grow without bound"
"immigration is about replacing White voters"
"feminism is designed to sterilize White women so they give birth to fewer Republican babies"
"unsecure power will fight until one is supreme, with disastrous consequences."

Knowledge derived from teleological processes, (analysis of a de facto purpose as measured by results), is the most underrated knowledge. It is underrated because it is the only proper way to understand the state, and because people with power do not want to have their motives fully understood. Teleological knowledge will always be undervalued because there will always be an incentive for anyone with even a little power, (even a college professor) to downplay it in order to conceal their true purpose. Everyone who has an agenda hates teleology: it exposes them.

engineering-based (tinkering)

Not to be confused with engineering standards, (a kind of cookbook knowledge), engineering knowledge is the kind that Thomas Edison practiced in his workshop, and every computer programmer is familiar with. This is the actual source of most of the worlds great inventions, and not "reason" or the scientific method, though real scientific theory can help. The incandescent bulb was invented by tinkering, as well as the airplane, automobile, assembly line, television, telegraph, and many others.

iterative (design-based)

This is repetitive learning through designing something over and over again. All cell phones in the world are designed through a process of iteration. Architects use iteration to weed out the mistakes in their designs. Software companies write and rewrite software to make it better, etc. Also massively underrated. Iteration consists of designing a thing, then critiquing its flaws, and then redesigning it. This is repeated over and over again. The process is didactic. One learns from the process itself.

statistical knowledge

The most overrated form of knowledge. Statistics have an outsized importance because they can be used to lie. Most statisticians are in the business of producing lies for political agendas. The vast bulk of college professors who teach statistics are in on the game. Never trust a statistic unless you understand how it was collected, its sample size (n), etc. If you have never taken a stats class then you have little clue as to how extensively you are being deceived.

theological interpretation

If there is one piece of advice to give people, it is to trust theological knowledge before "pure reason," and to trust a traditional interpretation before a modern one. Theological knowledge is not religious knowledge straight from the book — that is cookbook, or accretive knowledge. Rather, it is the interpretation of that knowledge in ways appropriate for the current society. The basic rule with theological interpretation is that if the priest is changing the meaning to eliminate its conservative, or traditional aspects, you have a bad priest, and you are being lied to. Since religious wisdom is accretive in nature, it is compiled by many minds over vast stretches of time. There is "wisdom in the crowd" so to speak. The fact that it has been interpreted, translated, rewritten, and edited by so many people has given countless minds the opportunity to iron out its imperfections. Extensive editing is proof of its legitimacy, not against it. Doctrines like the Quran (which are not subject to change) are worse than doctrines like the Hindu Vedas, (which have been changed through oral retelling over the course of thousands of years). Editing produces perfection, unless the new edition has survived for less than a few hundred years, in which case it may be influenced by modern agendas. You want extensive editing without modernist corruption. That way it has been modified by the hands of many (sound) minds.

common sense

Albert Einstein once said that "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Einstein was also a socialist, proving that a man can be a genus in one area and an idiot in politics. Common sense is a form of accretive knowledge. It is produced by editing of social constructs by the social body itself. Unfortunately, it is far more prone to liberal corruption than cookbook knowledge, and contains liberal/egalitarian corruptions in abundance.

well-intentioned advice

Well intentioned advice is not always worth following because what is appropriate for one person may be wholly inappropriate for another, because intentions are hard to ascertain, and because the other does not have the complete story. But it is "objective" in that it consists of a mind external to ones own, and may provide some small amount of corrective thinking to ones own small flawed viewpoint. It is better than nothing.

pure reason

Is not knowledge at all. Kant loved pure reason. Probably because it allowed him to make up lies. For something to be knowledge it must have some contact with the external physical universe. Pure reason only requires that all lies have an internal consistency. To that end, there are schizophrenics who are better at it than Kant. With no messy details of reality to get in the way, pure reason can be utterly consistent. If fact, complete consistency actually selects against pure reason.

The universe is hostile to life. As such, it is impossible for a living organism to be completely true to its morals and survive. To form a moral code that would be compatible with survival, a living being would need a perfectly accurate model of the world, with zero imperfections. Otherwise a simple error in its model would lead to a faulty moral sense in some small way. This could produce a contradiction between survival and morals. Since misestimation abounds, moral codes are imperfect, producing moral compromise.

If you had to compromise your morals to survive, your morals were imperfect.

Pure reason is the drug of men who prefer Gnosticism to reality, idealism to survival, and virtue signaling to genuine goodness. It is a consistency in morals placed above life itself, which is a contradiction, since morals should serve life. Pure reason also is not even pure reason: inevitably logical fallacies creep into the most dedicated thinkers. Reason has also not undergone the cumulative process of accretive knowledge, the testing of science, the analysis of consequence inherent to teleological knowledge, the tinkering of invention, the flawed proof of statistics, the recursive self-criticism of iterative design, the social editing of theological wisdom, the social editing of common sense, or even the bad process of good advice. It is the laziest, dumbest, most flawed, most deluded, form of thinking there is, and the most beloved by "rationalists" and atheists.

In conclusion

Contrary to popular belief, real science is the culmination of vast amounts of human experience with what works, collected and cataloged, and piled up into a great mound of knowledge. A typical car manual has more real science than a book on climate change. Once EXPERIENCE has reached a vast height, theory is brought in to explain it. It was only after humans has cataloged the movements of the planets that Sir Isaac Newton invented his calculus to explain the motion of heavenly bodies. The scientific method is 1. observe. 2. form a hypothesis. 3. test the hypothesis. 4. verification or refutation. 5. independent verification. This process depends on a big enough pile of observations at stage 1 to move on to the rest of the stages. It does not spring from the mind of "pure reason."

The point of all of this is that collections of information about what works, even if they don't explain why it works, are superior to other forms of knowledge. Science comes out of Chesterton's Fence. It is a tradition of workability. Once you have enough knowledge about what works, and what doesn't, even if you don't know why, you can begin to find out why. Once you have found that out, you the form a theory — and not before. It makes no sense to demand an explanation to justify a tradition. Finding out why something works is an act of obedience to Chesterton's Fence: once you know the reason you have a theory, and once you have that justification for tradition, you have SCIENCE. As a subject, proper science is literally a justification for a tradition of doing what works. It is the theory-based justification of practical tradition.

How science really works;

1. For thousands of years, some pagan priests record the motion of the planets and stars.
2. Either everyone respects Chesterton's Fence, or leftists forget to burn the books, but somehow the knowledge survives.
3. Newton comes along and uses this record of patterns to develop calculus.

Now this is how the left thinks science happens;

1. "Pure reason" comes from the mouth of Dawkins.
2. "I fucking love science" happens.
3. I get a new iPhone.
4. The communist utopia arrives cuz super-sciencey scientific socialism.

Notice that the leftist is a hindrance to the science he loves so much. He refuses to respect Chesterton's Fence, to just trust that because something is working that it must have a reason. Those pagan priests were trusted because they could accurately predict the next full moon. No one knew how it worked. They just knew that it worked. This is cookbook / accretive knowledge. "It works because it works." That had to be respected long enough for the next stage to arrive: theory. Everyone who undermines "it works because it works" undermines the arrival of theory. Don't question it: answer it. Find out why it works. Now you have science.

Oh, and last thing. If you really want to advance science, you would make an encyclopedia of patterns, paying special attention to unexplained patterns which could have a physical cause. Of course, a lot of HBD would wind up in there, and if the liberals didn't burn the books. . .

1 comment:

  1. I was thinking along the same lines: science should explain the stuff everybody believes, "street" experience, not challenge it. Scholastic astronomers asked Galilei "if we sit on a wagon, we can feel we are moving, why don't we feel the Earth is moving with us?" and it is very wrong to dismiss it. The correct answer is that we feel acceleration, changes of direction, not movement per se. We should not see those guys as as hindering science but asking important questions later on Newton and then whoever who figured out the human inner ear answered, they contributed to it by asking good questions. Not necessarily asking it from the right guy, though.

    To be fair, there is one way science can both explain and dismiss common experience: by relegating it from the realm of the objective and physical to the realm of the subjective and psychological. "If there is no difference between races, why does everybody, including brown people tend to experience that there is one?" "Brah that is just social conditioning, privileged and underprivileged people are trained to feel the underprivileged are inferior."

    I mean, okay, theoretically it is valid to dismiss a common experience commonly believed as physical by explaining that it is merely psychological, there are good examples of it like how time slows down before a traffic accident, it doesn't, and you don't even feel it so at that time, but apparently the memory formed in your brain is slowed down.

    So the point is, Lefties think they are doing that kind of science, explaining the physical experience with the socially conditioned psychologica cause. And that is not an inherently invalid thing to do. The issue is, if all that ultimately emanates from power, they are ignoring the biology of power, like testosterone and then everything other mistake they make can be considered to flow from that.

    Best Regards

    The Dividualist