Posted: Nov 13, 2018 9:03 am
So, this "truth mill" ... how exactly is it defined, again? Only deciphering the wibble of JamesT's posts adds an inordinate amount of extra effort that probably isn't worth expending.
However, if this concept is simply a shorthand for force-fitting data to presuppositions, in the manner that has been subject to much discoursive ordnance by myself and others here, then all he seems to be doing, is admitting that our critiques of this process are entirely right and proper, though, as per usual, in his own hilariously idiosyncratic manner. But he probably doesn't want to go down that road unless forced to, because this would require him to turn the weapon on his own assertionist bollocks.
Though there's another problem that looms large here, namely, that his outpourings contain within them, an implicit inability to differentiate between ideas that are mutually reinforcing because they are both logically valid and in accord with observational data, and ideas that are reinforced by the use of rectal fabrications as mortar between the bricks.
However, if this concept is simply a shorthand for force-fitting data to presuppositions, in the manner that has been subject to much discoursive ordnance by myself and others here, then all he seems to be doing, is admitting that our critiques of this process are entirely right and proper, though, as per usual, in his own hilariously idiosyncratic manner. But he probably doesn't want to go down that road unless forced to, because this would require him to turn the weapon on his own assertionist bollocks.
Though there's another problem that looms large here, namely, that his outpourings contain within them, an implicit inability to differentiate between ideas that are mutually reinforcing because they are both logically valid and in accord with observational data, and ideas that are reinforced by the use of rectal fabrications as mortar between the bricks.