Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Ishmael]

Its fascinating how AE invariably supports all your private vices.

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

[Ishmael]

I have come to realize that, though you are the first Applied Epistemologist, I am the first to be so consciously. Everything you achieved, you did so unconsciously.

It was left to me to tease out from your work the actual method you used. You were quite unaware of it and only stumbled around in the dark. You wouldn't know a principle of Applied Epistemology from a hole in your head.

There are no principles here. Just a long-winded dissertation on the virtue of your own lethargy.

Part two will no doubt tell us why we ought to milk the public dole.

[Mick Harper]

So you can't actually come up with an example. Interesting. I am sure you can but I suppose you are a little nervous of mixing it with me. Fair enough but you will have to desist then from these airy objections.

Would you like me to give a short dissertation on when it is correct (in AE terms) to milk the dole? As you know AE doesn't permit blanket objections.

[nemesis8]

"Revealed" the first album by Hardpiss was a cult classic, a throbbing triumph of hardcore punk rock grunge.

"Empire" a collaboration, matched the edginess of Hardpiss against the achingly beautiful tones of The Hatters. Its a must buy masterpiece.

"Principles! What Principles?" seems like a reworking of the first two albums. Maybe with an additional "new" track about the dangers of celebrity?

Fans will want to own this..

But........

[Mick Harper]

Thank you for your faint praise but remember that this is me still in the studio working on themes that may or may not pan out into something. This is why the lack of technical input from the 'studio audience', as opposed to ... um ... unfocused opposition, is disappointing.

[Hatty]

[Mick Harper]

Principles of Applied Epistemology No 10

Applied Epistemology is a way of thinking. Or rather it is a way of not thinking the way you have been taught to think. The human brain is not equipped to do this ordinarily, or even extraordinarily ('You will burn at the stake unless you change your mind'), so it follows that you have to trick your brain into doing what you want it to do.

The reason AE so often uses politics as a suitable training vehicle is because it is one of the few areas of life where there are opposing views held by exactly the same sort of people ie there are people out there who believe precisely contrary things to you but are otherwise just like you. If their brain is betraying them, it follows that your brain might be betraying you.

This is not generally the position in the field, academia, where AE normally operates since generally everybody in a given subject area is of a like mind, and the tyro-AEist tends to be entirely on his own -- though he can test the academic waters via conspiracy theories and non-orthodox revisionism. Hence the tenderfoot is advised to practice with politics where at least there is a plurocracy of opinion.

But to appreciate why politics is so useful, consider other areas of life where the same-people/opposite beliefs rule applies. Religion, for instance. Why does your twin-brother believe that it is a historical fact that the Creator of the Universe sent an angel to earth to impregnate a Jewish woman with his only begotten son? (Or why do you whereas your brother is an atheist?) Clearly, you are not going to be able to learn much from this situation, the intellectual distance is too great.

Or what about supporting different football teams? This is generally not useful because their adherents recognise their own irrationality. But now combine football and politics. How would you react to the news that opinion polls reveal that Manchester United fans are 99% in favour of capital punishment but 99% of Manchester City fans are opposed? You might be surprised but would you do anything about it if you were a Manchester United fan who happened to support capital punishment?

As a would-be AEist which half of the equation would you be uneasy about? Since the correlation is more or less absolute it is highly likely that both choices are irrational. But only one is recognised as irrational. So would you be be prepared to jetison the political one. Actually it is hard to know which is the easier to jetison.

But this is not a real case. Let us combine the football principle and politics in a way that is real. 99% of Britons thought that Britain was right to fight Germany in 1939 and 99% of Germans thought it right to fight Britain in 1939. An AE-ist will have to think long and hard if he finds himself in either of these camps. Where you were born is not a matter of rational choice so you will have to give up the other belief.

Somewhat difficult no doubt but it just goes to show how much AE training is required when the really hard questions come along.

[Grant]

[Mick Harper]

Sorry, I mis-stated. What I meant was that 99% of Britons were prepared to fight and die for their country (or however you wish to put it). The point is that the 'take-up' rate was near-unanimous on either side even though in theory both could not be right. Only a British AE-ist (or perhaps an NF-ist for other reasons) could say, in 2012, "We-e-e-ll now, the Germans had a definite case... "

However compare the Falklands War question. 99% (to put it mildly) of Argentinians thought the islands were technically Argentinian. The Brits were much more nuanced on the matter. You might argue that this was because the case for Argentina is so overwhelming that only Brits could go wrong. But, personally, I would say that it is because the British are more mature than the Argentinians.

But I will have to check this with my Argentinian AE-trained twin brother.

[Ishmael]

But what if 99% of Britains believe it right for Germans to fight for Germany. Patriotism was once held a virtue, even for enemies.

[Mick Harper]

This is a different argument. AE always tries to substitute the technical for the moral. It may well be that people should fight for their country, right or wrong; it probably is a rational policy to do so given the penalties for losing a war, whether right or wrong.

However one should convert this into a technical question (vide the Falklands), "Was Britain right to fight in 1939?" to which 100% now would answer, yes. Fair enough but why then did near 100% of Germans agree in 1939. This is not saying yes to "Right or wrong, will you fight for your country" but yes to the technical question "Is Germany entitled to invade Poland etc etc".

[Hatty]

[Mick Harper]

This may well be so but the point is what percentage of Britons (in 1939 or now) would say, "Good on you, Germany, you are entitled to have The Corridor back." AE-ists though might entertain the notion.

It is worth pointing out that AE-ists would presumably have made peace with Germany in the Summer of 1940 after the fall of France. One should hesitate to argue that AE-ists ought to be in charge of the asylum.