epistemology

what is knowledge?

how do we know what we know?

in our modern epistemological climate, information is presumed false until proven true

proven, that is, by an authority

when i wandered into creating a new wikipedia article, i was assaulted with questions:

• is what you are writing about notable?
         - has it been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works?
         - has it won any well known, reputable awards?
• do you have good sources?
• does your article have a neutral tone?

i felt like i had been teleported back to a college classroom

needless to say i never wrote that wikipedia article

academia and it's slightly friendlier online counterparts, wikipedia included, "prove" things by pointing to corroborating material published by well known and impartial organizations or authors

this practice protects academic text from advertisers, heavily biased and ignorant authors, and non-academic outside influences

i think it also protects epistemologically reprehensible myths from being challenged and prohibits new ideas from seeing the light of day

“epistemologically reprehensible”

I say that an idea or belief should be considered "bad" when directly observable and conclusive evidence contradicts it

not that all beliefs are legitimate until they are proven wrong, but simply, that beliefs and ideas and myths are on a different epistemological level than observations and measurements

observations and measurements should trump myths and should dominate the discourse, but unfortunately, the opposite is true in our society

i blame this mostly on human nature, but also partly on our current information paradigms.

“myth”

on 9/11, afghan terrorists highjacked some planes and flew them into some buildings

jet fuel fires broke out in both world trade center towers, quickly reaching temperatures that could melt steel, and as the main structural columns weakened, both buildings fell down individually

building seven of the world trade center complex was struck by debris from the falling towers and fires broke out inside it as well, which led to its eventual collapse

“should “ / “human nature”

humans do not do what they "should" do

i should stop surfing the net and face whatever emotional turmoil has been winding me up today
they should stop eating so much junk food
he should really just go over and talk to her
we should stop shopping at wal-mart and consuming so much

but its not gonna happen

we're too tied up by emotions to be rational

we're locked into step

we'll dance for our credit card bills, we'll eat shit, as much as we can grab, and we'll ignore eachother till we die

“observations”

both world trade centers and wtc7 fell too fast to have been toppled by a single structural failure - they were measured to have fallen at roughly free-fall speed - that is, the upper part of the building fell as fast as it would if it had been held up by a massive crane and then dropped through an empty sea level atmosphere.

other, older buildings constructed much more flimsily have survived hotter, larger, longer lived fires

this would be the first time in history that a steel framed building fell down from a fire

sulfur, an ingredient of the steel melting incendiary explosive thermate, was measured in extraordinary concentration at the site

molten steel was observed in abundance at the site, and measured at temperatures much higher than those at which jet fuel burns under ideal conditions

small fragments of unburned explosive containing layered iron oxide, aluminum, and carbon were found at the site. their construction and properties matched published whitepapers generated by the research and development process of a new incendiary called nanothermite

dust and debris was observed and recorded bursting out of the trade centers as they collapsed, well below the “collapse wave”

the collapse appeared to be too energetic in general to have been caused by the kinetic energy of the upper part of the building.

“do you have good sources?”

what is a source? a source is a text created by someone unrelated to you that conveys an idea, belief, or myth somehow related to yours

a source can also be a measurement or an observation that you are using as evidence for your argument

too much of academic knowledge and well accepted knowledge has grown from sources which are primarily ideas, beliefs, and myths

when a text is judged by an authority, as in peer review or any other arena, its sources are checked

do they say what you said they say?

its myths, ideas, and beliefs are checked

do these ideas, myths, and beliefs make sense to me? are they acceptable by our society?

its measurements and observations are checked

are you using complicated statistics math to hoodwink us? did you conduct your study appropriately?

if it passes those criterion, it passes the test and gets published

but i argue that the most important question is never asked: did you include the relevant observations and measurements? what is the epistemology of your text? if you know something, then, how do you know it? because you saw it? or because you read about it in a book or a paper by a well respected author or organization? because it doesn't make sense to you and your peers any other way? because the alternative is too scary to think about?

i would refuse to publish anything of importance in an academic context that does not include as much observation and measurement as it does cultural, mythical, and textual references, even if the observations and measurements are nothing more than personal experiences and accounts relevant to the subject

im tired of myths

im tired of humanties courses

im tired of fox news

im tired of CrimethInc and all the anarchists

im tired of the 9/11 commission report

im tired of mother jones

sorry humanity, but you're full of shit