/lit/ - Literature

>>20329928
His work a scathing condemnation of the very existence of academia so I imagine he's not taken seriously.

Pseud, obviously. If you think that he said anything groundbreaking in his manifesto, then you're probably too young to be posting here.

>>20329928
In the math side of academia, yes.
In the social sciences side, not really (even though several academics praised how articulate and insightful his essay was.

>>20329928
I wish /lit/ was smart enough to realize that Ellul and Spengler said all of this decades before Kacyznski did

>>20329928

Neither, he's a curio.

>>20329928
his autism was severe enough that he moved out in the woods and lived alone in a tiny, one room cabin.
and mailed bombs to people

>>20330024
I wish /lit/ was smart enough to realize the attack on Kaczynski's unoriginality is entierly irrelevant and lazy considering originality was never his intent, and, if anything, the existance of others before him who have had similar concerns only strengthens his point.

>>20329928
a massive lazy pseud

he was a based retard

>>20329928

no but that's more of a badge of honour given the state of "academia"

>>20330263
this

I heard on the Hermitix on him that there’s going to be a huge revival in interest with him, especially when’s gone which looks like soon.

>>20330055
Based

>>20330300
Huh?

>>20329928
You really think academics can handle him?

He's not taken seriously or regarded as a pseud. He's simply not regarded at all. People are too busy trying to resurrect Foucault or do a heideggerian reading of their niche subject to read the Unabomber

>>20329928
>>20329943
>>20329948
>>20330011
>>20330024
>>20330046
>>20330055
>>20330061
>>20330095
>>20330238
>>20330251
>>20330263
>>20330268
>>20330300
>>20330301
>>20330305
>>20330316
>>20330345
Reminder that Kaczynski's IQ was measured at 136 after being captured, which means that he was a midwit this whole time.

>>20329928
Skrbina is technically in academia, and he has been one of the biggest promoters of Kaczynski.
I want to buy Skrbina's "Metaphysics of Technology", but it's too expensive and I don't like reading dense works on PC.

>>20329928
I've not read his work but it seems a bit odd to be concerned about what academia thinks.

If you went back to the 13th century, do you think you would gain a more "accurate" view of reality from talking to an Oxford student or a peasant? I think the answer is that you would gain a far more in-depth conception of what the ideas current in academia were from the Oxford student than you would from the peasant, and the student would probably be able to hold a conversation for longer, but nothing he told you would necessarily be more "true" than what the peasant knew. The Oxford student, for example, might have a far more in-depth view of the theological interpretations and implications of the fall, but this expertise makes it no more or less likely that the story of Adam and Eve is true than does the far more rudimentary knowledge of the peasant.

Academia is hardly different today. While it might provide depth to certain views and perspectives, the foundations of those views remain as unfalsifiable as ever, and can be considered a product of their era.

>>20330238
I want to see a picture of the person who wrote that absolute shit

>>20330305
I’ll tell you when you’re older

>>20330367
>Unfalsifiable
What are you even doing here

>>20330387
The one thing I do like about Kaczynski is that he was a sex not gender absolutist. In other words Gender Critical before it was invented.

>>20330395
Being a faggot on lit, where do you think you are?

>>20330395
I have a basic understanding of logic and what constitutes fallacious thinking?

>>20330415
"Unfalsifiability" is not considered a good criterion for much of anything anymore.
It is a very silly thing. The Quine-Duhem thesis already makes it almost entirely useless, and the fact that there are many sciences that do not make predictions, and hence make no falsifiable claims, but nonetheless are sciences or scientific (e.g., paleontology, botany, the theory of evolution) should really hammer home the point that "falsifiability" doesn't matter much.
Popper took physics to be the paradigmatic science that all other sciences should be like. That's pretty stupid, honestly. Expecting Linnaean taxonomy, to conform to the procedures and standards that you want at the particle accelerator just shows one has a way, way too rudimentary and primitive notion of what science is.

>>20330438
>that do not make predictions, and hence make no falsifiable claims, but nonetheless are sciences or scientific (e.g., paleontology, botany, the theory of evolution)
You're going full retard here. Those fields certainly make falsifiable claims. The problem, if you want to call it that, is that we can't construct experiments to test those claims and have to rely on historical data. Dinosaurs never existed is a falsifiable claim

>>20330456
>The problem, if you want to call it that, is that we can't construct experiments to test those claims
.... which is literally Popper's definition of when something is unfalsifiable.

>>20330438
All sciences are based on unfalsifiable premises, and that is still an important point. The fact some branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified doesn't make this fact any less valuable to keep in mind.

>>20330359
Literally who?

>>20330466
>.... which is literally Popper's definition of when something is unfalsifiable.
No it's not. Constructing an experiment is not the same as verifying a claim. Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

>>20330471
>All sciences are based on unfalsifiable premises
Jesus no they aren't. Fucking /lit/ man. Inductive sciences are not based on unfalsifiable premises. Deductive systems like math are.

>>20330480
David Skrbina
He has talked to Ted Kaczysnki a lot over mail.
He has also published collections of his works.
He is a university professor.

https://www.davidskrbina.com/

>>20330011
>In the math side of academia, yes.

Lol no. His thesis was on boundary functions. Nothing I've heard about his work as an academic suggests he was especially bright. The whole "child math prodigy" thing was fabricated by the media after he went rogue to make his story more alluring.

>>20330488
Imagine talking down to someone on this subject without even knowing about the problem of induction or apparently having no idea of Hume's work.

>>20330532
Falsifiability implies a belief in causality. When Popper was talking about falsifiability he was differentiating it from unfalsifiable. If you go full Hume they're the same thing.

>>20330547
I am going full Hume, so my original point still stands.

>>20330649
>I am going full Hume, so my original point still stands.
In that case your original point doesn't make sense >>20330471
>The fact some branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified doesn't make this fact any less valuable to keep in mind.
If you go full Hume no claims of any sort can be falsified.

>>20330657
>If you go full Hume no claims of any sort can be falsified

Yes exactly.

>In that case your original point doesn't make sense

Why?

>>20330657
>>The fact SOME branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified
If you don't accept causation every claim at every level of every science is unfalsifiable and that is clearly not what Popper was talking about.

>>20330675
>The fact SOME branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified
If you don't accept causation every claim at every level of every science is unfalsifiable and that is clearly not what Popper was talking about.

>>20329928
>Is Ted Kaczynski taken seriously in academia
um .... no. of course not.

>>20330691
>If you don't accept causation

It's not a question of not "accepting" causation, it's a question of considering it unfalsifiable. Two separate things. Hume didn't believe that causation didn't exist, he just didn't believe it was possible to produce definite proof of its existence.

>every claim at every level of every science is unfalsifiabe

Yes.

>that is clearly not what Popper was talking about.

Why do you think I care what Popper was talking about? I haven't mentioned him once. We're not debating Popper, we're debating whether it was correct for me to use the world "unfalsifiable" in this post:

>>20330367

>>20330717
>Why do you think I care what Popper was talking about? I haven't mentioned him once. We're not debating Popper, we're debating whether it was correct for me to use the world "unfalsifiable" in this post:
Ah my bad I thought you were >>20330438. In that case you need to read more philosophy to understand what we're talking about by unfalsifiable

>>20330717
>Why do you think I care what Popper was talking about? I haven't mentioned him once. We're not debating Popper, we're debating whether it was correct for me to use the world "unfalsifiable" in this post:
Ah my bad I thought you were responding to >>20330438. He is talking about Popper's unfalsifiablity.

>>20330730
No, I don't think I do, given that you have provided no arguments for why it wasn't cogent to use the term, beyond asserting that Popper, a shit-tier philosopher, created his own definition of it.

>>20330748
You still didn't explain why you put
>The fact SOME branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified
some in there if you think all of science is unfalsifiable.

>>20330748
The purpose of Popper's definition is to eliminate theories like there is an evil clown that hides behind you but you can never turn fast enough to see him, no technology can capture proof of his existence, and everyone lies to you about whether he's there to make fun of you.

>>20329943
That's not how math works

>>20329928
He's considered to be a hack who ripped off Ellul after reading him at a young age and a bad writer to boot. That doesn't mean he's wrong though

>>20330788
Anyone who puts one of those recording devices is their homes is a knuckle-dragging mongoloid.

>>20330757
Because some branches make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified, while all branches are based on primitive claims that cannot be falsified.

>>20330837
>Because some branches make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified, while all branches are based on primitive claims that cannot be falsified.
This is redundant for you since you believe that all non-primitive claims can't be falsified since you don't believe in causation. The distinction you're making here doesn't make sense

>>20330845
> you don't believe in causation.

Hume didn't not believe in causation, he just didn't believe you could ever create definite proof that it existed.

>This is redundant for you since you believe that all non-primitive claims can't be falsified since you don't believe in causation. The distinction you're making here doesn't make sense.

The nature of a claim being non-primitive is that works within a certain framework. The framework that science uses is one that assumes that some claims are falsiable.

>>20330859
>The framework that science uses is one that assumes that some claims are falsiable.
Which is exactly what I said here >>20330547
>Falsifiability implies a belief in causality.
So returning to what I originally stated there are no unfalsifiable statements in science since science doesn't just assume some statements are falsifiable like you claim it assumes all statements are falsifiable or they aren't science

>>20329928
>he cares what academics say
oh no no no

>>20330024
if you make this "critique" it just reveals you've never even read him since he says he was never trying to be original

>>20329928
> caring about modern "academics"

NGMI

>>20330024
+ Heidegger too in his Question concerning Technology from an anthropological, epidemiologic and oncologic standpoint

>>20330872
Yes, and I take science at its word that it believes that. But my own view is Humean.

>>20330348
(you)

>>20330916
That still doesn't explain why you singled out some branches as making non-primitive unfalsifiable claims. In your view every claim is unfalsifiable and in the view of science every claim is falsifiable. Neither way makes sense of what you said.
>The fact some branches also make non-primitive claims that cannot be falsified doesn't make this fact any less valuable to keep in mind.

>>20330524
>the child math prodigy" thing was fabricated.
That's why he was at Harvard at 16 and a professor at 25, eh? Or was Harvard in on the ruse too?

>>20331651
You don't have to be smart to go to harvard. Just have the right connections.

>>20330524
Kek, great way to out yourself as a brainlet.

>>20331663
lol, keep swinging dude. What connections did Teddy have?

>>20329943
Condemning academia isn't the reason he's not taken seriously, retard.

>>20329948
I took his manifesto to heart. That is my goal to live in the woods. Then I wouldn't have to take meds. The entire thing is groundbreaking you fucking psnigger.

>>20331687
What is happening in the city that is making you take meds then isn't also in the woods?

>>20329928
he's still cited in mathematics papers, some people get very funny with their citations of him

>>20331710
Everything in the city is tainted and feels fallen. As long as I take pills the chemical lobotomy will continue, the woods is my only recourse.

Ted is honestly more respectable than a lot of other ‘naturist’ thinkers.

>>20330348
Glowies are using every tactic to smear him. Not surprised.

>>20330348
>136 IQ
>midwit

>>20330524
LARPing pseud. I bet you suck at math, lmao.

>>20330524
lol dis nigga failed basic algebra at high school and he thinks he's an expert for reading plot summaries on a thai takeout forum

>>20330061
only good post in this thread ignore anything else

>>20331796
Sincerely, Are all those men homosexuals?

>>20333002
No and that's what makes it frightening

>>20330367
>but nothing he told you would necessarily be more "true" than what the peasant knew
Imagine believing this. And no, I'm not someone who thinks that "academia" is the arbitrator of everything that is true or false. Academics have broader minds and knowledge-bases, flat out. They have spent more time considering vastly different viewpoints and so have a more reasonable view of reality compared to the uneducated.

>Peasant: believes in literal witches, devils, an anthropomorphic God, a pit of demons 3 fathoms below the surface of the Earth, probably doesn't even think about the fact he pays taxes, just pays them because he has to and gets angry if too much is taken that it becomes hard for him to survive
>Average monk / medieval scholar / university attendee: knows God as either an unmoved mover and/or ultimate transcendental reality through carefully reasoned and contemplated philosophy, considers anthropomorphism and idolatry as sheer ignorance, knows that magic is rubbish superstition, has intellectual theories about the necessity of taxation and the ideality of the ruler/ruled relationship, contemplated the various psychological mechanisms of man and the implications that has for the state and for interpersonal relationships

Alternatively, if you want to argue "nothing is true", then you have literally nothing left to stand on. Academics, as generally superior beings compared to the lower classes, are by default still superior to the peasants, even if what they think is not "true." Because what the peasant thinks is not "true" either, the difference is the academics are brighter and more capable.

>>20330416
Where is there a rule of logic where falsifiability is considered a gauge of truth or falsity? You're confusing logic with the scientific method.

He's considered a crazy retard who mailed bombs, if he's ever brought up, and he isn't.

>>20330456
>Dinosaurs never existed is a falsifiable claim
The existence of dinosaurs is presupposed for paleontology to exist as a science, because it is the study of dinosaur fossils. "Science" is establishing links between variables, which requires hypothesis and falsifiability. Stating that something exists or didn't exist is not really scientific method, it is just discovery of a fact. Scientific method is the link between facts using hypothesis, control, etc.
>Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
There is no hypothesis involved in the assertion that "dinosaurs exist." This statement is literally unfalsifiable because we know that they exist now.

>>20330501
>Skrbina
Isn't he also Kaczynski's attorney?

Ted did nothing wrong

>>20329928
It reads like a teenage diary
When I first starting reading it I thought I was reading a parody version before I realized the truth and became distressed at the hordes of imbeciles who take this shallow schlock seriously

>>20330263
>>20330268
>>20330316
the fucking state of this board

>>20333327
Can you articulate anything you think is obviously wrong with it?

>>20333333
Wasted get
Fuck you
Cringelord

>>20333337
>Can you articulate anything you think is obviously wrong with it?
Its not even at level to be dismantled, its a embarrassing regurgitation, a shallow and insightful collection of random subjects explored by people 10000x more intelligent at a 10000x deeper level from across the globe for the last 1000 years. There is nothing of worth to be found in it
>>20333338
ahhhh yes sorry you super smart geniuses children felt insulted, those academics simply cannot handle the great ted k!
Kek
Shit board, always feel cringe when I wander in here

>>20330348

167 (Genius) in his youth and 136 (High IQ) as a psychologically damaged, socially isolated 54 year old.

Stupidity comes for us all, to be sure, but Ted was arrested while still intellectually gifted.

>>20333346
Love Ted K because it proves how useless iq is in any subject that actually requires creative/critical thinking and awareness of complexity

>>20333345
>Its not even at level to be dismantled
So you can't.

>>20333358
>So you can't-
-bring myself to waste my time doing so. Same reason I don't "dismantle" a 10th grade english paper

>>20333333
Sexy sextuplet get, fucking the state of this board

>>20333333
Incredible get stating the truth of the matter.

He is not considered, period

>>20333363
>Same reason I don't
Same reason you can't*

>>20330061
He shat in a bucket and biked to town and attacked meritocracy by bombing mailmen edge harder you looser

>>20330367
Lots of words to say “if it worked for gran it work for me” you fucking midwit