Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:23:54 UTC No. 16207505

science is an atheist social construct so atheist can do whatever they want with science, if they want to change it they can. might is right.
the truth is that science is a mediocre tool . science cant determine what truth is .


The term "Whig history", coined by Herbert Butterfield in his short book The Whig Interpretation of History in 1931, means the approach to historiography which presents the past as an inevitable progression towards ever greater liberty and enlightenment, culminating in modern forms of liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. In general, Whig historians emphasized the rise of constitutional government, personal freedoms and scientific progress. The term has been also applied widely in historical disciplines outside of British history (the history of science, for example) to criticize any teleological (or goal-directed), hero-based, and transhistorical narrative.[80]

Paul Rapin de Thoyras's history of England, published in 1723, became "the classic Whig history" for the first half of the 18th century.[81] It was later supplanted by the immensely popular The History of England by David Hume. Whig historians emphasized the achievements of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This included James Mackintosh's History of the Revolution in England in 1688, William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, and Henry Hallam's Constitutional History of England.[82]

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:24:55 UTC No. 16207508

>>16207505

The most famous exponent of 'Whiggery' was Thomas Babington Macaulay. His writings are famous for their ringing prose and for their confident, sometimes dogmatic, emphasis on a progressive model of British history, according to which the country threw off superstition, autocracy and confusion to create a balanced constitution and a forward-looking culture combined with freedom of belief and expression. This model of human progress has been called the Whig interpretation of history.[83] He published the first volumes of his most famous work of history, The History of England from the Accession of James II, in 1848. It proved an immediate success and replaced Hume's history to become the new orthodoxy.[84] His 'Whiggish convictions' are spelled out in his first chapter:

>I shall relate how the new settlement was... successfully defended against foreign and domestic enemies; how... the authority of law and the security of property were found to be compatible with a liberty of discussion and of individual action never before known; how, from the auspicious union of order and freedom, sprang a prosperity of which the annals of human affairs had furnished no example; how our country, from a state of ignominious vassalage, rapidly rose to the place of umpire among European powers; how her opulence and her martial glory grew together;... how a gigantic commerce gave birth to a maritime power, compared with which every other maritime power, ancient or modern, sinks into insignificance... the history of our country during the last hundred and sixty years is eminently the history of physical, of moral, and of intellectual improvement.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:25:56 UTC No. 16207509

>>16207508

The Whig consensus was steadily undermined during the post-World War I re-evaluation of European history, and Butterfield's critique exemplified this trend. Intellectuals no longer believed the world was automatically getting better and better. Subsequent generations of academic historians have similarly rejected Whig history because of its presentist and teleological assumption that history is driving toward some sort of goal.[87] Other criticized 'Whig' assumptions included viewing the British system as the apex of human political development, assuming that political figures in the past held current political beliefs (anachronism), considering British history as a march of progress with inevitable outcomes and presenting political figures of the past as heroes, who advanced the cause of this political progress, or villains, who sought to hinder its inevitable triumph. J. Hart says "a Whig interpretation requires human heroes and villains in the story."[88]

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 09:43:25 UTC No. 16207522

>>16207497
The same thing tgat is wrong with everything else - peopke are brain damaged, and only do a cargo cult which shares only superficial similarities with the original thing.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:11:21 UTC No. 16207546

>>16207497
>What's wrong with science?
I don't think there's anything wrong with science, just what we do regarding its results.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:13:48 UTC No. 16207549

>>16207505
>science is an atheist social construct
No, it's not. Science is just discovery, and that's what God placed us here in this incredibly intricate creation of his. He made us curious, he gave us the means to think, reason, inquire, and pursue understanding.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with God.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:40:47 UTC No. 16207583

>>16207546
>I don't think there's anything wrong with science

Most of modern science is fake, built on errors and statistical slight of hand which reinforce erroneus naratives.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:41:48 UTC No. 16207584

>>16207583
*sleight of hand

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 10:46:37 UTC No. 16207593

Can someone please explain the problem of significance testing?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:03:58 UTC No. 16207679

Here is Gerd Gigerenzer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er0SVun8rww

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:44:50 UTC No. 16207716

>>16207497
>building political consensus
Just a trick to justify hordes of grifters doing nothing than parasiting the dead horse of academic science.

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:27:18 UTC No. 16208412

>>16207505
So the whiggs believed progress to be inevitable in spite of all available evidence o the contrary?

Anonymous at Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:28:25 UTC No. 16208413

>>16207505
>Whig historians emphasized the achievements of the Glorious Revolution of 1688
So they were some sort of pro central banker movement?

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 05:36:27 UTC No. 16209253

>>16208412
yeah the entire public propaganda by the humanists is progressivism, and universalism with the french revolution

>>16208413
the whigs are just the usual merchants who hate the pope and hate absolute monarchism.
the dichotomy whigs-Tories is fake and gay like the dichotomy left-right today: what they both deeply hate is the papacy, and they somewhat disagree about universalism : either everybody is born equal and there shouldnt be privileges at birth and that's the job of the democracy to ensure that, or there should be privileges and then there may or may not be some social mobility for the bourgeois.

So all bourgeois merchants want to avoid having kings and priests on their back, they want a society based on commerce and bureaucracy, not on religion and military affairs.
After their revolutions all over europe they offered the population the fake atheist spectrum of democracy run by the ''right wing'' and democracy run by ''the left wing'', whatever those terms means.

Since the banking industry is the peak of comemrce and they base their republics on comemrce, it's normal for them to want the bureacrats to have a monopoly on money and to be the lender of last resort when the bankers inevitably fuck ups.
And nowadays they even created the modern monetary theory, which just means the bureaucrats have free rein over the debt because money is literally fake and gay anyway lol.

What matters for the merchants is always to have a cushion to dump their shitty assets after bureaucrats and merchants have fucked up with yet another bubble. In democracy the fool who pays at the end is always the population. Population is like disposable sheep, the raw material for the bourgeois to thrive when the situation is good, by taxing the incomes and spending of the sheep and by making the sheep their wageslaves, and not to lose money hen the situation gets bad by dumping toxic assets on the public balance sheet run by the civil servants. It's a well oiled mechanism.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 05:43:54 UTC No. 16209264

>>16209253
>Since the banking industry is the peak of comemrce and they base their republics on comemrce, it's normal for them to want the bureacrats to have a monopoly on money and to be the lender of last resort when the bankers inevitably fuck ups.

this is why the public propaganda of the atheists has always been the fake dichotomy bureaucrats versus businessmen. But that's theater.

the real divide in society is population-bourgeois, with all bourgeois being businessmen or bureaucrats, It's literally a caste.
In democracy the goal of the civil servants is to be the public front of the bourgeoisie and when the population is unhappy because there's a fuck up, the bureaucrats go back to the private sector and are replaced by new bureaucrats from the bourgeoisie.

This is why Bill Still is a fucking moron who doesn't understand why central banking exists.
-it's the class of bureaucrats who created the central banks
-it's the class of bureaucrats who defined the rules of the central banks
-ti's the class of bureaucrats who name the people at their central banks
-it's the class of bureaucrats who created the idea that central banks buy the public debt, ie the debt created by the bureaucrats themselves. When a CB buys public debt, it's literally the left hand buying the debt created by the right hand. And those people claim it's legit meaningful wealth creation kek.

So the fantasy of the retard Bill Still of the central bank being non-private is already happening. The gobernment and all the public servants control integrally the central bank. SINCE DAY ONE. In europe the ECB has the official status of publicly owned already. They do the same shit as the privately owned FED.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 05:49:38 UTC No. 16209267

>>16207497
>So how do we fix the problem?
It's working as intended. It's a construct, not an accident

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:09:59 UTC No. 16209285

>>16209267
Working for who? It's a huge funding scam.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:13:46 UTC No. 16209287

>>16207497
>William Briggs guy says we have too many experts building political consensus instead of following actual evidence and the worship of science he calls scientism and scidolatry.
sounds like political scientism and scidolatry

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:43:51 UTC No. 16209323

>>16209285
The institutions, who can demand as much money as they want from the government, who will give anyone a loan to go to college at exorbitant rates (either they own the colleges or their friends do). A loan they have to pay back and the only loan they will never be able to declare bankruptcy on

Banks get to have someone by the balls for life for lending them money that they just made out of thin air through fractional reserve banking. The rich people that run in the government are friends with both the bankers and the college leaders. They all 3 take turns fucking your ass.

It serves to further waste peoples' time filling their head with useless shit, 95% of which you will never use in your profession

It's an indoctrination camp for government approved thoughts and is also a propaganda machine (think bill nye and black science guy)

Academia prejudice prevents people from venturing into areas of science the government would rather you not know about

It's a recruitment center for government contractors for skilled professionals

Its a place that rich people can donate money to as a charity so they can write it off on their taxes in certain circumstances. Their friends run the places, so they're just circulating money around and saying they're losing it, but then their friends give them money back in a similar fashion

It's a filter put in place so that you NEED some credentials they offer to be taken seriously in society as an authority even though everyone knows college is mostly horseshit anyway

Allows them to dangle your accreditation over your head so that if you commit wrongthink they can unilaterally remove your license, BAR card, board status, fellowship or whatever else, ruining your career in an instant

The list goes on. It really is a marvelous multifaceted highly successful machine. The fact that capable professionals are sometimes developed there is a nice bonus.

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 06:54:37 UTC No. 16209335

>>16207497
>So how do we fix the problem?
mainly with antisemitism, but some racism and sexism are also needed

Anonymous at Tue, 4 Jun 2024 15:24:35 UTC No. 16209893

>>16207679
I liked the discussion at the end.