How can I reject "unprovable knowledge"? The real question is how can I not reject it. (I recall a definition of "knowledge" as "justified true belief". If you can't prove it, then you aren't justified in holding it, therefore it isn't even "knowledge".
Your missing the point and just doubling down on the very epistemics that dismisses "justified true belief" as npt true belief or knowledge.
The reason its "justified true belief" is because it persists depite the definitions and methodology you want to use to dismiss it. It is derived from other knowledge that is not based on materialism or naturalism. The premise your using already discounts "justified true belief" as nothing real.
Even setting that aside...) This is the science section, Steve.
No its not and thats another example of forcing an particular epistemics and ontology.
In science we base our knowledge on evidential demonstration. Something that is "unprovable" (using a lay, colloquial definition, rather than getting) isn't even appropriate for scientific inquiry. We're trying to do science here, Steve.
No we are not. Thats the whole point. The thread itself is questioning the orthodox narrative which is based on the material sciences as to what counts as knowledge.
Your more or less doing exactly what my point is. Which is forcing one epistemics on all as to how we can understand knowledge.
This isn't the feelings and preceptions subforum, Steve. We're here to talk about science. (And there is a science for studying feeings and perceptions [and other stuff] -- psychology. The topic of the thread has never been psychology.
What you are not understanding is that if there are alternative ways of measuring reality. If as some theories posit that thiss Mind or psychological aspect actually creates the objective material world. Then your begging the question in assuming that we must use your material epistemics in the first place to measure it.
Next you respond to my algorithm for running a pseudoscience grift...
What is the algorithm based on. Is there any assumptions that exclude certain knowledge as being pseudoscience grift...Before its established that its pseudoscience grift. Or that we must use a particular algorithm that you decide is truth. That only tells us a certain kind of reality and not complete reality.
Steve, the list is a heuristic, a plan, an algorithm. It is not a comprehensive description of psuedoscience or the specific topic here.
Overall as far as the epistemics for knowledge itsefl as to what counts is a belief and not science. My point is alternative knowledge can be anything from the knowledge God gives throughout history, consciousness beyond brain, the many transcedent beliefs. All the way down the spectrum to whacko ideas.
So within that spectrum where say Christians testify to a knowledge beyond the material to whackery there is no way for science to tell.
Your forcing empiricle sciences as the epistemics due to an assumed ontoilogy of the material. But what if as many transcedent beliefs and now even some theories in science are saying. That the fundemental ontology is the alternative knowledge that is being expressed in many ways for millenai.
What then. You are almost forcing a material epistemics and ontology.
How do you know that along the way to producing the physical result there was no some knowledge beyond the material paradigm that was not included. I gave the example of the color red experience. This is an objective reality to humans. Yet it is derived from a transcedent experience. How do you know that other physical outcomes are not at least partly the result of that alternative knowledge.
To then force the material epistemics and ontology over all else because its methods of measuring only look at one aspect is a belief in itself and not science.
And the anomaly being chased by the vase-gropers is an incredibly minor anomaly: what is the nature of the technology used to make these round, beautiful, and smooth stone objects. It's hard to find a more minor anomaly -- the perfect material for a grift.
Do you see what your doing. Your creating a strawman or at least a false representation. First you qualify the testers as grifters and gropers. So already you have a prior negative view that must influence how you see things. Then you qualify the example as a "minor anomaly". Surely this is a matter of subjective opinion.
Throughout history there has been a clear recognition that these vases stood out, were the peak of all Egyptian vase making including all dynasties that came after. Even some alluded to their high quality and precision that they required a different tech.
So already you have set the parameters that these out of place vases are minor anomalies when many people as a matter of course and not because of some whackery see they do stand out as being out of place for that time.
Of course their "alt manufacturing" method is concocted. It's so concocted they (generally) just invoke "like modern cnc" or wave their hands until stone softeners and laser beams appear from nowhere. (And yes, I created the test algorithm to match a recurring pattern among the pseudoscience grifters.)
Ok so lets see how the "like modern cnc" and "test algorithm" says about that 'stone softerning or weakening'. According to you thios is a completely concoted idea out of nowhere. Based on no science and just made up as part of the conspiriacy.
Lets see if this is the case. You now have to deal with the science and evidence. Just like the vases. Except this ones so out of the box you cannot quibble about microns of difference equating to precise or imprecise. This is obvious and clear.
We look at a vase and we can see the precision as compared to a different imprecise method. But yes there is a point where to the naked eye it is harder to tell precise lathed from handmade and micro measures are needed. But the stone softening and weakening is obvious. Now tests are backing up this.
Steve, I'm describing the nature of the suckers in a grift as ill informed. Some of the grifters are as well, but that is not the point of this "step". If your intended victims actually know the relevant science they are hard to con.
Some of the grifters are well know. Is that not an appeal to consensus or authority. This does not follow that everyone I link falls into that catergory. You have never actually provided any evidence and just stated this with your own mouth and the words that feel out on the page lol.
Am I suppose to just agree with that. I could myself be falling for a grift lol. Thats my point that most of this is assumption and heresay and personal opinions. Its not in the realm of scientific fact.
And explaining to you that the criteria for what you regard as crifters or whackos is itself a particular epistemics based on an ontological belief about what counts as evidence. I don't think there is any science or fact in what your claiming.
Thats not to say there we can tell through a detailed assessment and analysis of what is said. But you have not done this. Its become a stop gap objection and fallacy to call on whenever somethinmg does not fit your worldview.
I've read the grifters stuff.
I doubt that. You would not equate all these people as grifters and whackos if you did. I can tell. When someone from the first couple of pages of a book of threads thats trying to establish what is knowledge. Then from the strat makes tars all alternative knowledge as whacko then they are already showing their bias before we have actually gone into the content.
When I hear a lot of language along those lines and a lot of ad hominems and little engagment into the context. Then I know and its actually obvious independently that there is at least a degree of bias because the weight of fallacies is unjustified. So yes there are ways you can tell griters. Don't think that the skeptics cannot grift and push their own conspiracies lol.
Half of what they do is whinge about being ignored by "the mainstream" and being kept out of "the academy". They are trying to paint the experts as elitist that are keeping the suckers from engaging as an emotional manipulation method.
Yes that may be a small portion. But it actually is like that in reality. When a new or alternative idea that ends up being correct is first proposed its treated as conspiracy or pseudoscience at first. In some ways thats science. Look at the fights some have over the BB and other theories. Or consciousness. They even call each others scientific proposals as whackery when they actually use the same science.
In away you apparently can't perceive, the "complain about science not being non-scientific" is a method you have copied from those who are grifting you. It is sad Steve. We try everyday to pull you out of their grasp, but you keep lighting the rope on fire and throwing back at us from you pseudoscience pit.
Actually what I am basing the whole skeptics verses conspiracy making and everything in betyweem on the science. On behavioural sciences. On the psychology you referred to earlier which is my expertise and not yours. Like I ackowledged you know more about physics. You should now ackowledge I know more about the psychology and socialogical patterns of behaviour that go into this.
Its not as simple as one side = epistemic truth and the other false. Even science itself can be used as an epistemic beating stick to deny other forms of knowledge. Including the ploy of making out all altenative knowledge that does not conform to scientific material epistemics and ontologies is pseudoscience or grifting.
That *I* (or the others arguing with you are grifters)? LOL. Or do you think Dunn et al are the suckers and you are the grifter? I'm not sure how well you understand what is written.
All I know is the very thing (that the pyramids are some sort of energy producer" that you claimed Dunn was a whacko for suggesting such. Has been verified by independent studies. So you automatically labelled his idea as whacko when it was actually correct.
Thus expsoing your bias, your beliefs and asumptions that creep in and distort how you see this whole issue.
Literally to fight pseudoscience argue with the victims of the pseudoscience grifters. Yep, if you've read and parsed that correctly you are now realizing I am here to argue with *YOU* (and others like you) about ancient technology (electric stars, creationism, flerf, etc.). It was how I even found this site and why I chose to stay. Does that make you feel special or targeted?
So what if some of those skeptics are themselves grifters who go through social media sites looking to save the poor unaware who are being fooled. With the epistemic truth. Thus creating their own religion of saving the religious or fools who are falling for such ideas.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At the moment you tar all such ideas as pseudoscience and I just showed you how you did that wrongly to a good man in Christopher Dunn with 50 plus years of the fields he is addressing. You throw all that into the box of pseudoscience and grifters. That in itself is very telling of a personal belief and not facts.
We (you, I, the other posters) have been over the evidence over and over Steve.
No you havn't. We got ito the vases and that was the only specific item we got into deeply. At the very least this is ongoing. BUt you have already made up your mind.
We are beginning to touch on the many signatures of saw cuts but we have yet to establish anything. Another assumption that everything must then fall into pseudoscience before its investigated.
The images I linked which showed obvious out of place examples was ignored for most of this thread or dismissed as pseudoscience without any investigation. I think the majority of this thread has been on fallacies and especially ad hominems and not actually on content.
I am not critiquing the evidence in this response. I am discussing the grifters right now. (We'll get to evidence a little later in this posts because all of your posts eventually become omnibus posts.)
Hum, like I said this started from the very beginning and has just got worse. That you want to discuss that the sources are all grifters and pseudoscience and not the content or label all of Dunns work as whacko is the problem.
You see ad hom, but I am sick of dancing around the fact that your sources (Dunn, UnchartedX, Karoly, Dr. Max, etc.) all are promoting "ancient tech/ancient aliens/lost civ/Atlantis" garbage.
There you go you just admitted it. You label Dunns work as equalivelant to a podcast. You cannot seperate out the facts from the podcast thats hosting it. You assume everything presented is pseudoscience.
Which is surely an unfounded assumption as I don't think you have even had the time or bothered investigating these proposals properly (Dunns pyramid energy hypothesis).
In fact the reality is I have not mentioned anything about (aliens/lost civ/Atlantis) or anything magical. Rather it is you and others who are making it so over and over and over again. You have used this narrative that many times that you cannot see that you are creating the false dichotomy of aliens and Atlantis vesrse proper science lol. When its far more complex and varied than that.
That's why they care about "precise vases" and it is also why the wave their hands so hard to not specify what that mystery tech is. I'm sick of dancing around their grift to not be "offensive" and so I have decided not to hold back on your grifter sources.
But you have created a strawman to begin with based on the above reasoning and facts actually of what actually haooens and not what ideal you are subjective determining as the case. What if people challenge your premise to begin with.
The final straws are given in posts #1004/1001 and when I finally tried watching some of Karoly's content and realized he is one of them too. Since you didn't want to engage with my #1004 post and respond directly, I'm going to refer to that crowd of grifters in the way they deserve. I'm not talking about you, but I am done treading lightly around your sources.
Ok sorry I must have missed it. Not on purpose. Just having so many posters to respond to. I will go back and answer it specifically. I will leave this section and respond to the rest seperately.
