1/2

Timestamp: 39:18

Presstitute: “This morning Dr. Birx said that ‘it is still an open question’ how rapidly children under 10 can actually spread covid-19, but the other day the President said they don’t bring it home very easily and they don’t transmit very easily. So shouldn’t we figure out which one of those it is, before sending children back to school?”

That statement by Dr. Birx I can see would be weaponised by fake news, because while from a ‘modern science’ standpoint it is technically not wrong to say ‘it is still an open question’ about any theory about covid spread, it is imperative to know that THIS STATEMENT APPLIES TO ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORY ALL THE TIME.

Allow me to explain what I mean.

In the field of ‘philosophy of science’, the mainstream form being ‘falsificationism’ which took shape during the early 20th century at the Vienna School, notable architects included Karl Popper, the way we can consider ourselves as ‘knowing’ something true by way of the modern scientific method today, is through the method of theory -observe -> test (‘confirm’ or ‘falsify’), then it repeats.

If you read the literature very closely, you will find that the method of falsification does not permit us to ever be 100% certain of any theory no matter how many times it is ‘confirmed’. For the logic of positivism always leaves open the possibility that a heretofore repeatedly confirmed theory might one day become falsified. Perhaps a previously unnoticed variable is having an impact on the test such that the theory as initially constructed becomes falsified. This is called omitted variable bias. Or, perhaps a coefficient on a variable is found to no longer correctly lead to predicting outcomes.

The key thing about the method of falsification is that ANY THEORY IS ALWAYS OPEN TO BEING ‘QUESTIONED’ because the logic of the method requires us to always leave open the possibility that any theory, including those that have been confirmed repeatedly in the past, might one day be falsified.

We saw this happen with Newtonian physics being ‘falsified’ which paved the way for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, which also must be considered as possibly being falsified in the future.

The modern scientific method, in other words, DOES NOT PERMIT AN ABANDONMENT OF ‘QUESTIONING’. It requires permanent ‘on guard’ readiness for any scientific theory to be falsified in the future.

Indeed, that requirement is so strong that the modern scientific method goes as far as dismissing any and all ‘non-falsifiable’ statements as not true knowledge of anything real, that they could only ever be, at best, a ‘faith’, or ‘popular belief’, never a ‘knowledge’ of the real world, or, at worst, deliberately deceptive statements that cannot be disproven or proven, but rhetorically accomplish political ends or nefarious ends.

The way the scientific method promises us in providing accumulating knowledge over time, is by way of an endless series of testing, falsification, re-testing, falsification again, then re-testing, etc. That we accumulate knowledge and reach the goal of enlightenment by way of rejecting and dismissing ‘incorrect’/’falsified’ theories. In other words, we accumulate knowledge by repeatedly eliminating the ‘wrongs’ from a theory. Then, if a theory is consistently confirmed, ok that’s fine, keep it going, depend on it from a practical standpoint, but always keep in the back of your mind that you could one day find the theory falsified.

>>10066541

2/2

Going back to Dr. Birx’s statement of ‘it is still an open question’, the reason why I am saying it was a highly irresponsible thing to say to the media is that there is no reasonable expectation that the media would appreciate the subtlety and nuance of such a statement. Dr. Birx should have known that the media would ‘run with’ a narrative that uses the statement as an excuse to attack the President, and the majority of the public, ago want the children to go back to school in the fall.

So for that presstitute to phrase her question as “Dr. Birx said it was an open question, but you said the risk is low. We need to make a choice on who’s right before we send children back to school”, that is incredibly deceptive.

It was almost like Dr. Birx’s statement served as a ‘hand-off’ to the fake news to continue the fear porn narrative. It reminds me of Mueller’s “We cannot exonerate the President either” hand-off to the fake news to continue pushing the Russia collusion narrative. “FBI said they didn’t find you innocent! I have MOAR questions for you because of that….”

Just like the FBI was never in a position to ‘exonerate’ anyone, so too is Dr. Birx not in a position to ‘stop all questioning’ of any theories of covid spread.

Dr. Birx cannot decide “OK, we can finally stop using science to study covid everyone, because for the first time ever we now have 100% absolute knowledge about reality using the scientific method. No more questions are permitted let alone needed, so we can all go home now.”

Do you see how both the FBI’s statement, and Dr. Birx’s statement, while both technically true, are nevertheless clearly very misleading especially when dealing with a corrupt ‘media’ whose only purpose is to help Democrats and attack Republicans truth be damned?

Dr. Birx should have clarified and said that ‘questions’ are ALWAYS open to ANY scientific theory, that when she said ‘it is still an open question’ about covid, she wasn’t actually saying anything special or unique about covid that isn’t the case for every other scientific theory.

The more I see the media ‘using’ Dr. Birx and Dr. Fauci AGAINST the President in these deceptive ways, the more I tend towards concluding that Birx and Fauci are either extremely careless, or too scared to commit to a position and opening themselves up to fake media witch hunts, or intentionally playing a game the media wants them to play. For Dr. Birx I am hoping she just didn’t want to say “I believe children should go back to school” to avoid being targeted by fake news/deep state, to leave that decision to those who can withstand the onslaught criticism, so she said “it’s an open question”. Unfortunately, being in the highly respected and influential role she is in, saying that only gave fake news ammo to deceive.

>>10066552

Oh I realized I forgot to include something, just for you

no thats no way for him has he no manners nor no refinement nor no nothing in his nature slapping us behind like that on my bottom because I didnt call him Hugh the ignoramus that doesnt know poetry from a cabbage thats what you get for not keeping them in their proper place pulling off his shoes and trousers there on the chair before me so barefaced without even asking permission and standing out that vulgar way in the half of a shirt they wear to be admired like a priest or a butcher or those old hypocrites in the time of Julius Caesar of course hes right enough in his way to pass the time as a joke sure you might as well be in bed with what with a lion God Im sure hed have something better to say for himself an old Lion would O well I suppose its because they were so plump and tempting in my short petticoat he couldnt resist they excite myself sometimes its well for men all the amount of pleasure they get off a womans body were so round and white for them always I wished I was one myself for a change just to try with that thing they have swelling up on you so hard and at the same time so soft when you touch it my uncle John has a thing long I heard those cornerboys saying passing the comer of Marrowbone lane my aunt Mary has a thing hairy because it was dark and they knew a girl was passing it didnt make me blush why should it either its only nature and he puts his thing long into my aunt Marys hairy etcetera and turns out to be you put the handle in a sweepingbrush men again all over they can pick and choose what they please a married woman or a fast widow or a girl for their different tastes like those houses round behind Irish street no but were to be always chained up theyre not going to be chaining me up no damn fear once I start I tell you for their stupid husbands jealousy why cant we all remain friends over it instead of quarrelling her husband found it out what they did together well naturally and if he did can he undo it hes coronado anyway whatever he does and then he going to the other mad extreme about the wife in Fair Tyrants of course the man never even casts a 2nd thought on the husband or wife either its the woman he wants and he gets her what else were we given all those desires for Id like to know I cant help it if Im young still can I its a wonder Im not an old shrivelled hag before my time living with him so cold never embracing me except sometimes when hes asleep the wrong end of me not knowing I suppose who he has any man thatd kiss a womans bottom Id throw my hat at him after that hed kiss anything unnatural where we havent 1 atom of any kind of expression in us all of us the same 2 lumps of lard before ever Id do that to a man pfooh the dirty brutes the mere thought is enough I kiss the feet of you senorita theres some sense in that didnt he kiss our halldoor yes he did what a madman nobody understands his cracked ideas but me still of course a woman wants to be embraced 20 times a day

>>10066637

So….

Reporting truth 'lends legitimacy to reporting on deep state'?

Hahahahaha, Media Matters can't even fake news without self-detonating.

>>10066619

Her, I like her.

She's not wrong!

>>10066710

Is that Plotinus quote from the Enneads? If so, which one? I could not locate that quote.

>We must always be open and have a humble recognition that there is value in knowledge that transcends our current understand of reality.

>This is the foundation of the scientific method when we say we can never prove anything 100%, we are only permitted to accept or reject our null hypotheses.

Good summary of the philosophy. I would only add, and you likely may already know, but this…how should I say it…"absolutist"…position about what we allegedly can and cannot know, if you do a self-referential analysis on it, which I think should always be done on any claim, it contradicts itself.

It purports to describe the efficacy of the human mind, what the mind is capable of, and what it is not capable of.

And it does so NOT in accordance with its own professed standard of non-committal 'healthy'(?) skepticism that could itself be wrong and could be falsified, it is presented instead as an unfalsifiable, 'a priori', assertion of the true reality of the human mind.

That we ABSOLUTELY cannot know anything absolutely.

See how that self-detonates?

Also, Plotinus' philosophy is what motivated the entire 'dialectic' wave of philosophy, including Hegel and Marx.

So fuck Plotinus. His view of all physical reality as inherently evil, I believe is a form of psychosis.