Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Mick Harper]

[Mick Harper]

A good example of 'the tyranny of large numbers' was provided when the Iranians hit the streets earlier this year to be put down with some brutality by the regime. Nobody knows the number of Iranians killed all told, the Iranian government has certainly not supplied a figure, so competing numbers have been on offer.

My own estimate, based on similar outbreaks, was 'in the high hundreds'. The MSM agreed at first but later opted for 'in the low thousands'. The figure trended upwards as various bodies were cited as authoritative sources. Eventually US talking head pundits reached five figures, at which point US politicians were able to take over with a fairly standard 'in the tens of thousands'.

Yesterday, President Trump came out with a definitive 'forty-two thousand' though he did not cite a source. Presumably the US intelligence services have provided one but I don't know if the two figures are related.

My own estimate remains 'in the high hundreds'.

[Mick Harper]

Many years ago I had an argument with someone here as to whether you could be both an AE-ist and a Christian. I thought not, he claimed he was. But what about belief in Bigfoot and signing up to AE-ism?

Same applies. You have to be a very hardline rationalist to be an AE-ist despite the rule about not subscribing to -isms. And despite the rule about not having rules. In the end the argument petered out when I claimed you couldn't be left-wing (etc) and a paid-up member. I turned out to be in a minority of one on that one.

So anyway, not to be too prescriptive about it, here are the actual rules as they were originally divulged to me in a leatherbound book I allegedly found in a second-hand bookshop in the Brighton Lanes...

[Mick Harper]

While I'm thinking them up here's something that pertains to the post immediately above. I had posted a version of this on Substack yesterday and, as is my wont, this morning I (a) looked at how many views it had received (b) read it again for sub-editing purposes and (c) imagined a helpful response. What transpired was (a) 6 (b) a few little dibs and dabs and (c)

[Mick Harper]

Returning to my 'What an AE-ist is allowed to believe and what he isn't allowed to believe' list, we agreed (that's not the royal we, it's me agreeing with myself) that the 'strict rationality' clause requires rejection of the world's major religions. But before you start arguing about what constitutes a religion and how major is major, we must get diverted to major and minor orthodoxies.

I never get tired of pointing out that

(1) AE-ists are orthodox by default. They are not contrarians or nihilists or mugwumps. If you spend your time arguing the toss about all sorts, you'll never get anywhere.
(2) Under AE rules, an orthodoxy is established as soon as two people believe it. The rule is necessary because of the need to distinguish between the the person who thought it up and people who were convinced by it.

Hence we can vaguely sketch out a few delimitations

(1) Karl Marx could have been an AE-ist
(2) An AE-ist could have been a Marxist in the mid-nineteenth century
(3) A Russian could have been a Marxist and an AE-ist in the mid-twentieth century
(4) All other Marxists fail on the religions rule.

You will notice however that this judgement requires me to know that not only is Marxism wrong, it is wrong in a peculiarly damning way. But I can point to statistics to aid me in this:

(1) There are enough Marxists in the world to establish Marxism is a rational belief.
(2) There are enough non-Marxists in the world to establish Marxism is a religion.

But this is true for pretty much all beliefs, so where does that take us? Surprisingly far...

[Mick Harper]

Remember, we are looking for a way of sorting all the beliefs in the world into

must believe
may not believe
can believe

and making our own minds up about each belief as we come across it without having to study them all one by one. That is clearly impossible so you need a list of rules to judge a belief without having to study it. Actually even that is probably too much, you need to develop a reflex for recognising what should be believed, what should be rejected and what needs further study as you go along.

Technically, AE HQ could provide a list of rules. It could even provide a list of the beliefs you are likely to run into with a tick, cross or question mark attached. Though you would have to satisfy yourself they not only knew what they were doing but you yourself haven't joined under some quasi-religious urging.

This is all necessary because of the Bigfoot situation. Though I prefer the Kennedy assassination situation.

[Mick Harper]

The essential problem with Bigfoot and Kennedy Assassination-type theories is that you could not possibly have arrived at your position--whatever it happens to be--conventionally. They are not taught in schools. (Or by parents. Or church. Or in study groups.)

[Mick Harper]

Global warming is a nice example of a crossover academic theory. When it started life in the 1960's/ 1970's, it was held by people who were academics, it was presented using academic tools, but it was not taught as an academic theory. Now you would lose your job if you didn't teach it.

Global warming (by human intervention) might conceivably have been conceived by an AE-ist but no AE-ist could sign up to its tenets because its adherents were so obviously a coterie. Unless by chance an AE-ist decided to make up his or her own mind, though this would have been unwise given the nature of the evidence. An agnostic position would have been correct.

[Mick Harper]

The Tyranny of Small Numbers

[Pete Jones]

CNN has been running a constant ticker, just below the main headline, on its website since the war began. Oodles of coverage, all the time. They really hate higher prices!

[Mick Harper]

After many years I had to stop watching CNN when they started charging my cable-provider to put it on their list. So they didn't and everybody stopped watching CNN. Now they provide it free again. See! They really do care about inflation.

PS They can't persuade any British advertiser to appear on it though. So they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart.

[Mick Harper]

Spot the bogus list

[Grant]

Surely it's not jump out from the bushes type rape, it's a man being "married" and expecting some nookie type rape.

Plus a nice bit of compy to be earned by all.

[Mick Harper]

I've been advocating gradations of rape for years but the law doesn't recognise anything but penetrative sex without consent. Whatever you thought you were on to, without a signed document you're going dahn.

The trouble with earning compy is that contestants on reality shows only do it because they're dead broke. So settling out of court with another contestant, Andrew/style, is not good business. Panorama doesn't offer dosh for spilling the beans, genuine or otherwise, but I suppose it's worth mentioning on the offchance.

"Don't go, Mr Mangold, I haven't told you about how I was raped yet."

[Mick Harper]