Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change |399|

I like the chart :)

but I was driving at something else. I believe our emerging, broader understanding consciousness leads to scientifically-based acceptance of extended Consciousness realms. I really don't see how anyone can argue against this once one makes the leap from "Consciousness is an illusion." so once we accept extended Consciousness realms it's pretty hard to deny agency. I mean, all indiactions are that spirits can do s***. this marks the end of science as we know it. Carl Sagan used to joke about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but what if that becomes a legitimate scientific question?

Ahhh, gotcha Alex.

Yes, we have detected something. We have falsified materialistic nihilism - the old null hypothesis. Science must change, and abjectly refuses to.

We do face the task of marginalizing the nihilist atheist agencies who have pretended that their religion was a sound basis from which to constrain science. Basically they are no different than the Christian Clergy's domination of pre-modern science. We are in a no-man's land therefore. Our old null hypothesis has been falsified, yet our old religious ideas do not offer us Wittgenstein definitions by means of which we can take measures for the domain inside which we observe these 'somethings'.

If it was as easy as 'ghosts', 'spirits', 'angels', 'demons', 'dead Uncle Frank' etc. then we would have this defined pretty darn quick. We cannot even gain a definition of an object which shows up on our Navy fire control radars; finding that bubble-headed, almond eyed ET's, flying stainless steel appliances is falling woefully short as a definition or explanatory-predictive model.

Perhaps we need a new model of science. One which does not begin with a definition, measures and the incremental progression of hypothesis. While that works on cracking open the riddle of titanium ;) - it does not work in solving the BIG question.

It is the job of philosophy to restructure the ethical or method backbone of science. Perhaps this is why fake skeptics have been patrolling the philosophy of skepticism for decades now. To make sure that no new ideas of science are formulated.

Thinking on this.
 
I’ve noticed that while other races self-segregate by ethnicity, or religion, Indo-Europeans have historically segregated by social class, such as the Indian caste system and the British class system of the 19th century. I don’t know if many are familiar with 19th century British history, but I find that the parallels between their days of empire and our own present empire to be astonishing. Here your link to the WW1 video is apropos.

What today is called the “managerial class” would have then been referred to as the bourgeoisie. Many of today's families reached affluence post-WW2, just as the 19th century bourgeoisie reached prominence post-Industrial Revolution. Political Correctness is in reality class solidarity of the privileged class. Enforcing speech and behavior code keeps the poor and working class in line; quieting their complaints through the social shaming of branding these as “racist”. This is very similar to Victorian era shaming by social propriety, where the servant class was expected to be seen and not heard; and their singular “privilege” was to volunteer to fight in the wars of empire.

The current Progressives are identical to Britain’s 19th Century Whigs, making only cosmetic changes in the name of Social Progress. Back then, the lower classes were viewed as backward to Christian “Progress” just as today they are seen as backward to today’s Social Darwinist “Progress” - who today are even expected to go “extinct” along with their manufacturing jobs. In fact, exporting our industrial base overseas, and working in the military-industrial complex that sent unemployed mid-West farm boys to fight overseas, is how much of our current ruling class made their money. This created a kind of reverse of 19th century colonialism, or a neo-colonialism, which exploits the standard of living of lower classes right here at home in the “First World” instead of going overseas to directly exploit foreigners.

Unsurprisingly, a strident survival-of-the-fittest, might-makes-right, money-is-everything Social Darwinism has turned a handful of people into “winners”; and many more into “losers”. It’s like trying to climb a slippery slope to find a moral high ground with these kinds of essential beliefs.

Trump took up the cause of those in the working class. It is because of this that he makes some people uncomfortable; and is seen as being rude and crude. Really, he speaks and behaves like an average American, without much of the class snobbery of hyper-affected sensitivity. Trump is viewed with suspicion because he is a traitor to his class, to white privilege; to the monopoly on power of the ruling class; and to the privilege to pick who gets to be president.

In reality, America doesn’t have a high class, America is just one big culturally-deficient Low Class.
by the way have you seen this excellent documentary from James Corbett?
 
Last edited:
I like the chart :)

but I was driving at something else. I believe our emerging, broader understanding consciousness leads to scientifically-based acceptance of extended Consciousness realms. I really don't see how anyone can argue against this once one makes the leap from "Consciousness is an illusion." so once we accept extended Consciousness realms it's pretty hard to deny agency. I mean, all indiactions are that spirits can do s***. this marks the end of science as we know it. Carl Sagan used to joke about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, but what if that becomes a legitimate scientific question?

So, Alex brings up a good point here. My thoughts center around a new form of research and inference. Not that it has not existed all along, rather that this form of research is denied its own meaning.

"_____________" Inference
  1. Locus of study resides inside an enigma or apparent enigma which bears detection, but is denied meaning
  2. Its logical critical path bears asymmetry
  3. Its observations are ephemeral, hard to quantify and involve apparent sublime influence
  4. Observations are cherry sorted in favor of reliability over their probative potential
  5. There exists an appeal-to-authority hostility toward the subject domain (Omega Hypothesis)
  6. The disciplines of lab/linear style hypothesis, deduction and induction are not sufficient inference method to solve the enigma
  7. More is unknown than is known regarding the subject domain.
Solving a murder (deduction) or discovering a non-chlorine hand sanitizer for Ebola stricken areas (linear induction), or arriving at a conclusion about the character of a person (triangulating induction)...

...none of these are sufficient method of inference in this exotic condition (much to the joy of fake skeptics).

Maybe one of the first steps in the battle is getting the philosophers of science to recognize this 'new' form of induction in the first place.

TES :)

Post Script: Aha - it just hit me... this is not a form of inference, rather a method of investigation - Not research, rather Intelligence. But it hinges upon a novel form of inference!! Rather than incrementally extrapolating risk from that which is LIKE our prior art... this is pooling and drawing from that which is unlike... Heteroduction.

Heteroduction
A disruptive and asymmetric form of inference necessary when classic modes of inference have served to produce or enforce incoherent and/or falsified conclusions. Heteroduction is associated less commonly with classic incremental hypothesis, and more with a process of investigation called intelligence assimilation. A novel form of inference which does not or cannot rely solely upon leveraging an incremental extrapolation of risk from that which is alike to our prior art. Rather, this method of inference must pool and draw inference from that which is unlike our prior art. It is the basis of the Kuhn-Planck Paradigm Shift understanding of scientific revolutions.
 
Last edited:
We do face the task of marginalizing the nihilist atheist agencies who have pretended that their religion was a sound basis from which to constrain science.
nice. And I agree that we have to pull these groups apart. along the way I think we have to take a hard look at the social engineering aspect of this. take a group of scientists and put them on an altar and then tell them they're the smartest ones to ever save Humanity and you have one kind of problem. do it with the intention that you'll then be able to control the population worships them did you have another.


If it was as easy as 'ghosts', 'spirits', 'angels', 'demons', 'dead Uncle Frank' etc. then we would have this defined pretty darn quick. We cannot even gain a definition of an object which shows up on our Navy fire control radars; finding that bubble-headed, almond eyed ET's, flying stainless steel appliances is falling woefully short as a definition or explanatory-predictive model.
great point. I'll admit to falling asleep at the switch on this one. Is there a technical component to spirituality? what's the biological interface?

It is the job of philosophy to restructure the ethical or method backbone of science. Perhaps this is why fake skeptics have been patrolling the philosophy of skepticism for decades now. To make sure that no new ideas of science are formulated.
I was thinking the same as I read your post and then you beat me to it :) seems that we to revisit the philosophy versus engineering question. as someone who was trained as an engineer, but but appreciates philosophy, I think there are many important distinctions. Contrast with one of our chief nitwit scientists Stephen Hawkings who said "philosophy is dead."
 
The opposition lawyers admitted "Dershowitz had produced travel records to establish he couldn't have been present during the supposed misconduct, in addition to other allegations to refute the claims against him."
I get your point. my experience in looking into this particular topic has led me to believe that who ordered understand the truth I have to read between the lines, but you may legitimately field otherwise. and, of course, my way isn't a preferred way of investigating and can lead to a lot of mistakes, but I think it's the only way to counterbalance the "wall of Lies" legal tactic that's always at play when someone is facing these charges. I also want to follow my own advice and not stare too long into the abyss. I certainly want to know I'm wrong but I don't want to fall into the game of being excited about every new bit of horrible data I discover.

I'll leave this thread within the thread with a videos from someone I may invite on skeptiko:

and remember, Alan dershowitz never saw Jeffrey Epstein with any underage girls.
 
Contrast with one of our chief nitwit scientists Stephen Hawkings who said "philosophy is dead."
Yes, not only am I a critic of Hawking on that, I contend that he did not understand the subject. Philosophy is definitely not dead. Hawking forgot that skepticism is philosophy - and skepticism is more important now than ever. Skepticism is where we err in science most often - it is precisely this shortfall in philosophical skill, which renders scientist, public and mankind alike - vulnerable to lies dressed up with p-values or arrival distributions.

This is where our dark agencies of Bernaysian Social Engineering conduct their dirty work - inside skepticism (philosophy). Hawking both missed this, and was rendered vulnerable to that condition as a scientist (as are 95% of scientists). I have hired hundreds of scientists and engineers, and I contend that none of them are trained in skepticism, and less than 5% even really knew what it was. This is part of the Social Engineering process: stripping philosophy from its role as the substrate of science - leaving science blind as to its ethical execution.

Hawking further expounded, here to give the quote more context:

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, ..."Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

These are not questions of philosophy, contrary to what Hawking contended. These are questions of science. Scientists have always been the 'torchbearers of discovery in our quest for knowledge'. Philosophy can never pretend to step in and replace science in answering these questions. As philosophers, we are constrained from such action - by the knowledge of philosophy itself. As a philosopher I am not a scientist; I cannot step in and pretend to issues answers in lieu of science.

As an ethical skeptic, your first duty of philosophical acumen is not to execute the scientific method per se, which is straightforward in comparison. You are not here to promulgate conclusions, as that is the habit of your foe (the fake skeptic). Your ethical acumen is necessary rather, in spotting the clever masquerade of science and knowledge.
It bothers me that Hawking would spend his entire life inside science and the thoughts underlying why we do what we do, inside science - and yet never grasp this principle. Philosophy cannot step in and usurp science, as that is not its job.

However, his second context framing in green above helps shed light on what I think he was striving for. I contend that one does not just 'become' a philosopher - nor does a degree get you even one step closer to being one. A philosopher must bear a kind of qualification record before being acceptable as such. A philosopher is not made by memorizing Kant, Plato and Nietzsche. Rather a philosopher is built through a life of cuts and bruises - a generalist's trial of arduousness. The same reason why a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy wears 'hash marks' on his forearm, and is well respected for it. According to the statement

One who’s boots bear the mud of the road less traveled by, should carry also a loam of ideas less thought of.
Now this is what we do lack. Perhaps what Hawking meant falls more in line with my criticism of philosophy, that most of its proponents do not/did not possess the basis from which to really be a philosopher. They are/were missing key aspects of knowledge, experience and life - these are my qualifications for a philosopher - below. As such I tend to get a lot bored with 'shadows on the cave wall' paradigms, or endless casuistry as to why God does or does not exist. That is not philosophy...

42 Critical Knowledge/Experience Qualifications of a Philosopher – Ancient or Modern

1. Predictive strength of evolutionary phylogeny to DNA/Historical extent and influencing factors inside evolution​
2. Planck intervals, spacetime and boundary conditions​
3. Turing principle and nature of computation/been a cryptographer​
4. Expansive and extensive nature of our universe/Probable ubiquity of other life in universe​
5. Archaea/cyanobacter appearance timing and development​
6. DNA/RNA replication, stops, codons, transcripterase, conservation, expression​
7. 3rd letter of the DNA codon codex boxing & protein progression​
8. Inflationary universe and time-space malleability/dimensionality​
9. LaPlace transformation calculus and higher mathematics​
10. Solar and post-solar mass gravitation/Chandrasekhar Limit​
11. Theories of special and general relativity​
12. Wealth of paleontological data​
13. Wealth of pre-Biblical archaeological and civilization data​
14. Managed a scientific lab or been on a team making a significant scientific discovery​
15. Extent of hominin lineages and overlap/progression with homo sapiens sapiens
16. Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance/Observer Effect​
17. Have advised a head of state on what his/her nation should do & be held accountable for the results of that advisement​
18. The absence of evidence for a Worldwide flood​
19. Warfare/Faced death/Been shot at​
20. Have played an instrument, written, played and sang a real, complex and heartfelt song​
21. Have taught a class and had students remember you​
22. Lived in more than 1 or 2 countries​
23. Have grown a garden​
24. Have designed a super-large structure & then lived or operated in it​
25. Have designed, managed & been accountable for a process involving 1,000 people or more​
26. Have observed first hand, grand scale corruption in governance/power​
27. Sailed at least 3 oceans/survived in wilderness at least 3 days​
28. Been over 120 ft deep in the ocean​
29. Periodic table of the elements in detail/organic chemistry/metallurgy/exotic materials​
30. Binomial distribution, bounded distributions and theories of probability/arrival distributions​
31. Hypothesis testing theory/p-value amaurosis and risk/anti-fragile/tail theory​
32. Modeling, simulation and outcome theory​
33. Have started and run a business and failed​
34. Have started and run a business and succeeded​
35. Have had families and lives believing in and depending upon you​
36. Had someone they love die in their arms/Had your children severely injured or killed through social malice​
37. Have had a Near Death Experience/Seen a UFO​
38. Exhibited difference-making leadership under dire circumstances, while leading more than a handful of people​
39. Have overcome through their own research and discipline, a major health/threat to life issue or almost died​
40. Have put their life on the line for the innocent, and against an empire​
41. Volunteered for a homeless shelter/been homeless​
42. Have saved someone from dying​
 
Last edited:
Hawking further expounded, here to give the quote more context:

Speaking to Google’s Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, ..."Most of us don't worry about these questions most of the time. But almost all of us must sometimes wonder: Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead,” he said. “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Particularly physics.” Prof Hawking went on to claim that “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.
great post. Let me to respond to the"myth of progress"part of it. a friend recently sent me this from Alan Watts. I think it relates to the problem:
I am reading an interesting book- The Supreme Identity, by the mystical philosopher Alan Watts. It's not a quick read, but is full of great concepts. Here is a quote I thought you'd like. After talking about how religion such as Christianity focuses on Biblical miracles, he says: "It is not, after all, surprising that the culture which has made so great an issue of miracle is the culture which produced technology. We believe in technology because it 'gets things done'..." He is in a sense saying that fundamentalist Christianity which focuses on the 'empty tomb' is a subset or special application of scientific materialism. Interesting correlation.Both are surpassed by the metaphysical or mystical.
it seems to me that this is what's going on with Hawking and philosophy... he's blinded by the miracles of science.
 
Last edited:
I haven't yet finished that podcast, and it made me feel depressed.

All I can say, is that if even a tiny bit of the stuff about Trump is true, he must have enormous leverage over the MSM - because one tiny bit of that would pull him down at once! Yet if he has that leverage, how come he doesn't rein in the MSM more generally - I don't get it!

As a non US citizen, a lot of that stuff rattled by me way too fast - people I had never heard of - however, if you are sure he is genuine, your idea of doing a joint exploration of 'climate change' would be an excellent idea.

I guess my bottom line is that even if Trump did all of that, it is 10^6 times less awful that politicians that get their kicks out of creating military tension and fighting unnecessary wars (possibly in addition to child abuse and stealing money donated to Haiti) - Tony Blair, Bush Jr, Obama, Hillary Clinton in the state department, and David Cameron.

David
The MSM could not expose Trump-Epstein more because their own people (the Clintons......) were involved also. How do you feel about Trump's policy in Venezuela right now, his US envoy is Elliott Abrams, a neocon convicted in Iran-Contra affairs.
 
The MSM could not expose Trump-Epstein more because their own people (the Clintons......) were involved also. How do you feel about Trump's policy in Venezuela right now, his US envoy is Elliott Abrams, a neocon convicted in Iran-Contra affairs.
I am not sure yet - he hasn't actually attacked the country so far.

David
 
Long time reader/appreciator of Skeptiko and first time commenter here. Such a high quality discussion here (as usual) that I felt like maybe it was time to jump in and add my 2 cents.

First a little relevant personal background by way of introduction and to level set - Worn many hats in my lifetime/been around and currently - and for the past 20 years - a white collar professional working in "Big Data" analysis for a Fortune 100 company (among other things). In my early to mid-20s had many OBEs - which began spontaneously due to intense Chinese martial arts practice (I think) and which scared the beejeebus out of me at first. Became comfortable with them and was eventually able to induce them at will - although over the years, life, work, raising a family, material focus, stress, etc., I have mostly lost that ability. Being analytically minded, I wanted to understand if the OBE visions were "real" or not and was as rigorous as possible in assessing that. Some of the experiences with veridical content of both current and future events beyond my physical and temporal location during the event, beyond coincidence and at extreme P levels, convinced me that there was something very real happening - and that blew my mind. That sent me on a path of spiritual exploration similar to what is regularly discussed at this wonderful venue......Also, a few years ago I sat with a top notch medium. Went in totally blind to the medium (gave a false name, false contact info, etc). She immediately assumed the personality of my recently deceased father and began firing off factual obscure info in my father's idiosyncratic manner. No fishing, no questioning, no stumbling, and delivered only highly detailed facts pertaining to events and circumstances that only my father and I would know (e.g. things we did or said years ago) and statements about things that had happened in my life since he had departed (like how I was stupid enough, a few weeks prior to the séance, to eat pasta for lunch and get the sauce all over my new light blue shirt right before going into a meeting with some top execs)....so long and short...I am what you'd call a "believer"....my position on "enlightenment" is that "wherever you go, there you are" and that's all there is to it. We are like onions. Each layer is connecting to different dimensions of infinity and there is a lock and key relationship between the layers and the dimensions within infinity. In order to get to the next layer you must have saved enough energy (Kundalini?) and cleaned up the currently predominate layer enough that you can move freely to the next. No layer is superior to another, but some of us are adventurous enough to wish to experience the totality of ourselves (all of the layers of the onion). There is a moral component. The seven deadly sins sap the energy that is needed to be free.....and don't follow leaders/watch the parking meters....... ok, enough about me...

As for the topic at hand, I think we need to be careful that we don't allow The Perfect to become the enemy of the good. It is too easy to slide into cynicism. People are flawed. Some flawed people still do good. Some very sanctimonious people end up creating much evil. I have encountered people at all levels of society that are into all kinds of unsavory behaviors and attitudes in their personal lives, yet who manage to do their official jobs rather well. That is the light in which I have viewed Trump since he announced his candidacy. Also, many people are reprehensible liars that don't think twice about falsely accusing others of some very damaging acts. Actually, some of these people gleefully do so. They enjoy the rush they get from destroying others.

We must be on guard regarding conspiracy theories as well. In the layer of society where the movers and shakers dwell, there are all kinds of real characters; some quite unsavory by normal standards. Only an inflated highly self-confident ego can make it there - nay, would even want to be there in the first place. With that kind of ego comes a sense of power and power is corrupting. It is impossible to operate at that level without brushing up against - even associating more closely with - the unsavory. The founders of this country and its Constitution understood this all too well; which is why we have the internal checks and balances and the ballot box. They knew you have to take the good with the bad and, hopefully, in the balance, the good is heavier.

Saying that Trump (or Dershowitz) is guilty of sexual misconduct because he knows Epstein, took an airplane trip with him or went to a party with him seems ridiculous to me. There's a lot of biased filtering going on there. Many people in business and politics have been at least that close to Epstein. Again, it's not like you or me who could remove Epstein from the guest list because of his rotten proclivities. He's just one of many dirty people in those circles, for reasons outlined above. If you dropped Epstein, you'd just have to deal with someone else like him. Disclosures over the past couple of years should make it clear that evil is rampant at that level of society.

Finally, how does it impact you or me if Trump likes young women/girls (assuming for a minute that it's true)? Yes, it could leave him compromised to enemies that have proof - but that is a point that helps sway me toward believing that the stories are false. If there was proof, it would have been used and Trump would be hiding in disgrace in one of his properties. The only piece of "intel" that suggests any proof is the Steele Dossier, which the FBI said was "salacious" and "unverified", which, in intel speak = "crap". And they had to go all the way to Russia to get this crap. Think about it.
 
Never was a big fan of Hawkings, I felt his disability landed him to cult status. When I told people that they were really pissed. Liberals? lol.
His "the world will end in 2050" quote was really you think it won't they way humans are mistreating the earth?
 
Didn't catch the video, but seemingly it seems pedophilia is a pretty big problem across all cultures regardless of socio economic status or religion.
Recently many Chicago public school officials get fired for misconduct related to this very problem. Teachers, principals, coaches, security guards etc
 
It was Trump who said that "If we invade Iraq, we should get their oil." Monroe Doctrine my foot, bet the oil companies are salivating. Hope his overlord Putin will put an end to this nonsense.
I happen to agree with the notion that if we have to free a people from their murderous dictator, that we should be able to recover expenses if possible. I felt that way when Bush went into Iraq and when the US went in again after 9/11. The idea that we have to spend billions of dollars to protect our interests without any chance of reimbursement when the means for reimbursement is available makes no sense to me.
 
I happen to agree with the notion that if we have to free a people from their murderous dictator, that we should be able to recover expenses if possible. I felt that way when Bush went into Iraq and when the US went in again after 9/11. The idea that we have to spend billions of dollars to protect our interests without any chance of reimbursement when the means for reimbursement is available makes no sense to me.
 
I happen to agree with the notion that if we have to free a people from their murderous dictator, that we should be able to recover expenses if possible. I felt that way when Bush went into Iraq and when the US went in again after 9/11. The idea that we have to spend billions of dollars to protect our interests without any chance of reimbursement when the means for reimbursement is available makes no sense to me.
With all due respect Andrew, I really don’t know how to reply to this post. To me, it either points to naivety or a wildly differing view of ‘right and wrong’ to mine. :eek::)
 
I happen to agree with the notion that if we have to free a people from their murderous dictator, that we should be able to recover expenses if possible. I felt that way when Bush went into Iraq and when the US went in again after 9/11. The idea that we have to spend billions of dollars to protect our interests without any chance of reimbursement when the means for reimbursement is available makes no sense to me.
I agree. Our interest WAS the oil. In Iraq that is what we were protecting; that and fulfilling Israel's strategy for keeping its enemies weak (which backfired to some extent by strengthening Iranian/Shia influence). If our interest has anything to do with removing savage dictators for the common good, then the members of the commons must pay us. Only a foolish people would expend tremendous amounts of treasure and much blood just to play at being Captain America Goes Asiatic.
 
I'll leave this thread within the thread with a videos from someone I may invite on skeptiko
I'd certainly like to hear an interview with this guy, but as a general rule I think it is better to stay roughly on-topic - ψ and related matters. Certainly I would avoid running two political interviews one after the other.

David
 
Last edited:
Top