Mercurial Hosting > arkian

changeset 17:8cae2ee2684a

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
more mikraite
author Franklin Schmidt <fschmidt@gmail.com>
date Wed, 17 Sep 2025 19:49:43 -0600
parents d32071c18e2b
children 30ab8cf88df6
files src/mikraite/Science.html src/mikraite/The_Cycle_of_Cultures.html src/mikraite/Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html src/mikraite/mikraite.html
diffstat 4 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) [+]
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Science.html	Wed Sep 17 19:49:43 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Science</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Science</h1>
+
+<p>Science is based on two ideas: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning">inductive reasoning</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor">Occam's razor</a>.  I would divide science into two types: hard science where controlled experiments are possible, and soft science where controlled experiments are not possible.  For example, theories of gravitation can be tested in a lab, making this hard science, but using theories of gravitation to explain astronomy cannot be tested with controlled experiments, making this a soft science.  Both forms of science are valid.  In soft science, one makes a hypothesis based on past observations and then tests the hypothesis against future observations.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of inductive reasoning naturally follows from the belief in one consistent god, so science mostly developed in monotheistic cultures as I explained <a href="Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">here</a>.  But applying Occam's razor requires a belief in common sense as opposed to mystical bullshit or ideological rationalism.  In this area, Islam started off much better than Christianity.</p>
+
+<p>Muhammad was a very down to earth common sense guy, and the first few generations of Muslims were the same.  Only later did Muslims become ruined by mystical bullshit (Sufism) and ideological rationalism (Mu'tazila, Ash'arism, etc.).  So science flowered in early Islam and then died as Muslims went bad.  In particular, I would consider <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham">Ibn al-Haytham</a> to be the founder of real science.</p>
+
+<p>Christianity took the opposite path.  It began plagued with mystical bullshit and ideological rationalism (Platonism), so it was completely unproductive scientifically for its first 1500 years.  It was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham">William of Ockham</a> who turned Christianity in the right direction.  Not only is he the source of Occam's razor, but he also introduced nominalism which allowed Christians to escape from ideological rationalism.  Christian science started with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei">Galileo</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon">Francis Bacon</a>.  Galileo was similar to Ibn al-Haytham in his approach and used experimental data to make theories.  Francis Bacon promoted inductive reasoning and empiricism as a basis for science.  Christian science was fully realized with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton">Isaac Newton</a>.  His laws of motion are well known.  His <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica#Rules_of_Reason">four rules of reason</a> clearly express the scientific method and are based on inductive reasoning and Occam's razor.</p>
+
+<p>What causes science to fail?  Usually it is a rejection of Occam's razor.  I will give a concrete example with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism">heliocentrism</a> which was discovered in the 200s BC by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos">Aristarchus of Samos</a>.  This theory provided a simple explanation of astronomy, being a great example of applying Occam's razor.  But it was rejected in favor of the horribly complicated <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_system">Ptolemaic system</a>.  Why?  Because of an ideological insistence for geocentrism.</p>
+
+<p>For any set of observations, there are an infinite number of explanations.  No theory about reality can be proven in the way that a theory of logic or math can be proven.  This means that there must be some method to chose which of the many explanations of observations to accept.  And there are many possible such methods.  One can choose based on personal feelings, based on religious dogma, based on ideological convictions, or based on Occam's razor.  Science means choosing based on Occam's razor and not the alternatives.  Religious fundamentalists choose based on religious dogma, so are incapable of science.  Woke liberals choose based on personal feelings and ideological convictions.  So does the far right.  The far right has an ideological conviction that everything is a conspiracy, so rejects science to promote conspiracy theories.  And in general, modern culture fundamentally hates simplicity which makes it totally incapable of using Occam's razor and doing science.</p>
+
+<p>Note that one cannot argue with any of these anti-science people, and attempting to do so is just a waste of time.  Because nothing can be proven about reality, anti-science people can always find some way to defend their overcomplicated anti-scientific views.  One cannot prove the Ptolemaic system wrong.  A scientifically minded culture accepts heliocentrism because it is simpler, and they value simplicity.  That is all there is to it.</p>
+
+<p>Scientific thinking supports heliocentrism, the theory of evolution, and most scientific ideas from the Enlightenment up until around 2000.  By 2000, modern culture had gone insane and lost the ability to do science.  But it still used the "science" label to promote its bullshit which clearly isn't science.  Science is currently extinct in the modern world.  To bring back science, one would need an intelligent culture that values simplicity.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Science-tp4831.html',2024) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/The_Cycle_of_Cultures.html	Wed Sep 17 19:49:43 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - The Cycle of Cultures</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>The Cycle of Cultures</h1>
+
+<p>1.  Stupid and not thinking<br>
+2.  Intelligent and not thinking<br>
+3.  Intelligent and thinking<br>
+4.  Stupid and thinking</p>
+
+<p>This is a cycle, so #4 is followed by #1.</p>
+
+<p>1.  Stupid and not thinking</p>
+
+<p>This is normal.  Most cultures are in this category.  These culture have traditions that work.  The people are too stupid to create much value.  But by following traditions, they survive.</p>
+
+<p>Today the most obvious example of this are Sunni Muslims who blindly follow hadiths without critical thought.  But, as usual, most of the world is in this category.  Medieval Europe was also in this category.</p>
+
+<p>2.  Intelligent and not thinking</p>
+
+<p>Occasionally it happens that a culture becomes intelligent, probably due to some unplanned eugenic force.  During this phase, culture opposes thought, but there are a few people who are so intelligent that they can't help thinking, and these people create value.</p>
+
+<p>The European Renaissance is an example of this.  Today Japan is in this category where the culture doesn't encourage thinking.  Also possibly China where the brutal culture makes thinking impractical.</p>
+
+<p>3.  Intelligent and thinking</p>
+
+<p>Category #2 often changes to #3 as intelligent people push to allow thinking.  Thinking allows for a great deal of value to be created.  But the negative is that traditions are lost and the culture begins to become degenerate.</p>
+
+<p>Ancient Athens, the Islamic Golden Age, and the West from the Enlightenment to about 2000 are examples of this phase.  No cultures in this category exist today.</p>
+
+<p>4.  Stupid and thinking</p>
+
+<p>This seems to inevitably follow from phase #3.  The cause isn't entirely clear, but degeneracy probably plays a role.  In this phase, stupid people try to think which produces endless stupid delusional ideas.  This phase is short because it is unsustainable.  The stupid ideas produced quickly destroy the culture.  When the culture collapses, people turn to traditional ideas which leads back to phase #1.</p>
+
+<p>Modern western culture is a perfect example of this.  So was decaying Rome.</p>
+
+<p>My order of preference of these phases, from best to worst, is: #3, #2, #1, #4.  #4 is clearly the worst with the worst ideas.</p>
+
+<p>Historically, cultures experienced these phases in isolation without influencing each other too much.  But global communications has changed this.  So now the West is in phase #4 while most of the world is in phase #1.  But because of communications, most of the world is exposed to Western ideas which replace their traditional ideas.  The result is that modern culture is global.  Stupid people in the West produce stupid ideas which are then absorbed by stupid non-thinking countries.  For example, America is in phase #4 while Mexico is in phase #1.  Mexicans never think and never produce ideas.  Americans are stupid people who think and produce an endless stream of stupid ideas.  The stupid Mexicans just absorb these stupid ideas.  So in the end, America and Mexico have basically the same culture.
+
+<p>So we can divide modern non-western cultures into 2 categories: Those who have the strength to resist modern culture and those who don't.   Most modern cultures don't, so they will collapse with the West.  The cultures that do resist include Japan, traditional Anabaptists, Orthodox Jews, and some Muslims.  These are the cultures that will survive.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/The-Cycle-of-Cultures-tp4837.html',2024) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/src/mikraite/Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html	Wed Sep 17 19:49:43 2025 -0600
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang="en">
+	<head>
+		<script src="/site.js"></script>
+		<script> head() </script>
+		<title>Arkian - Who to blame for modern culture</title>
+	</head>
+	<body>
+		<script> header() </script>
+		<div content>
+<h1>Who to blame for modern culture</h1>
+
+<p>The walking brainstems who pass for people today certainly can't be blamed for anything.  They are the product of modern culture, not the cause of it.  We need to look back to people with brains for the cause.</p>
+
+<p>Boomers were intelligent and well-intentioned but they were ignorant of religion and history and they had inherited a dysfunctional political system that included <a href="/Against-Women-s-Suffrage-tp11.html">women's suffrage</a>.  Because of their ignorance, it was inevitable that all their conclusions would be wrong.  So they can't be blamed.  Who caused the destruction of education and the political system?</p>
+
+<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Great_Awakening">Third Great Awakening</a> produced the first social justice warriors of western culture.  These lunatics promoted women's suffrage and attacked prostitution and evolution.  Prostitution is needed to protect female chastity, and attacking evolution undermined the eugenics movement which was needed to prevent dysgenic decay.  They were also complicit with the destruction of traditional western education as promoted by evil intellectuals.  The full effect of this horrible movement can be seen in the 1920s.  What caused all this?  This was the result of modern Christianity which is an evil perversion of traditional Christianity.  So I can't really blame these people, the blame lies with modern Christianity itself.</p>
+
+<p>Where did modern Christianity come from?  It came from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Awakening">Second Great Awakening</a>.  A key player was Charles Finney as I described <a href="/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Christian-Culture-tp102.html">here</a>.  This movement killed the Enlightenment and made Christianity an enemy of science.  It also destroyed the traditional historical understanding of Christianity and encouraged religious ignorance.  So here is where the blame really lies.  But there remains the question of what allowed such a horrible change to happen to Christianity in the first place.</p>
+
+<p>So now I will extend the blame to Luther.  The key good figures in the Reformation are Zwingli and Calvin.  Luther was the bad guy and almost everything he said was bad.  In particular his idea that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood">we are all consecrated priests through Baptism</a> meant that ignoramuses like Finney who lacked any serious religious education could be taken seriously.  For more on the Reformation I recommend reading <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Reader-Primary-Texts-Introductions/dp/0800663101/">A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts With Introductions</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Cultures depend on their founding religion.  Western culture depended on the Reformation which effectively died with the Second Great Awakening.  At that point, it was only a matter of time before the culture would degenerate into the collection of evil morons that it is today.</p>
+
+<script> mikraite('https://mikraite.arkian.net/Who-to-blame-for-modern-culture-tp2004.html',2020) </script>
+		</div>
+	</body>
+</html>
--- a/src/mikraite/mikraite.html	Wed Sep 17 16:23:25 2025 -0600
+++ b/src/mikraite/mikraite.html	Wed Sep 17 19:49:43 2025 -0600
@@ -13,6 +13,9 @@
 			<p>Old posts from the <a href="https://mikraite.arkian.net/">Mikraite forum</a></p>
 
 			<ul links>
+				<li><a href="The_Cycle_of_Cultures.html">The Cycle of Cultures</a> - 2024</li>
+				<li><a href="Science.html">Science</a> - 2024</li>
+				<li><a href="Who_to_blame_for_modern_culture.html">Who to blame for modern culture</a> - 2020</li>
 				<li><a href="Science_Requires_Monotheism.html">Science Requires Monotheism</a> - 2020</li>
 				<li><a href="In_Defense_of_Feminism.html">In Defense of Feminism</a> - 2016</li>
 				<li><a href="Understanding.html">Understanding</a> - 2013</li>