Addendum (from August 2018): It’s a long time in ‘the future’ from when I first penned this post and holy shit have some of my views changed! I have done a 180 (actually, somewhere around 225) on two issues that I make much of in this essay: The Big Bang and Evolution.
If you’re interested in my views on Evolution please go to this post.
Those interested in the Big Bang and why it’s unlikely to have ever happened should give Electric Universe a serious study.
Ironically (sort of), my change of views on these matters does not affect my rant regarding Jan Irvin and his continual use of logical fallacies while endlessly espousing ‘the Trivium’.
Okay, that’s all I have to say from 2018. (I’ll make short comments below…)
#
This essay refers to Jan Irvin’s podcast interviews with physicist David Harriman, Part One of which can be found at:
Part Two:
Misleading as they were, I nevertheless found the interviews interesting and even enlightening. To fully understand the essay that follows, the reader should give them a shot (you get the idea pretty quickly in Part One). In fact, in spite of (or because of!) my critique, I do recommend Gnosticmedia.com, the podcasts. And Irvin’s work on MKULTRA is fascinating, maybe groundbreaking (as I say in one of my emails to him). That Irvin has done worthwhile research is what makes my essay important, I think. People listen to Jan Irvin. Problem is, he’s got some serious psychological problems, as we’ll see.
A big reason for writing this is the email exchange I had with Irvin (which illustrate his ‘problems’), plus his rabid, religious even, devotion to ‘the trivium.’ In case you’re not familiar with it, according to Wikipedia:
The Trivium is a systematic method of critical thinking used to derive factual certainty from information perceived with the five senses — sight, sound, taste, tact, and smell. In the medieval university, the trivium was the lower division of the seven liberal arts, and comprised [of] grammar, logic, and rhetoric.[1]
In other words, critical thinking (of which I am an adherent). An important aspect of the trivium is it associated list of logical fallacies. There is way more on fallacies in the essay that follows, but here is a fair, though incomplete, list:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Those familiar with Jan Irvin’s podcasts at Gnosticmedia.com will certainly get more out of my effort than those unfamiliar; I must confess to an attempt at irony, especially regarding the various fallacies I accuse Irvin of committing.
For those who do not first listen to the Irvin/Harriman podcasts, suffice to say that Jan Irvin considers quantum physics to be ‘a fraud’ and ‘a joke,’ and the above podcasts are meant to reinforce this view. (Those who have read my novel, Cosmic Banditos, will recall my interest in quantum physics.)
For reasons that (to me) make no sense at all, Jan likewise is contemptuous of the big bang theory of the origin of the universe. Based on the science I know, I take exception to this also.
Jan’s view – or his lack of one – on ‘evolution’ (or as I put it, ‘How the fuck we got here’) is a side issue dealt with.
Having done some interesting research on the CIA’s underhanded influence on the culture of the U.S. of A (feminism, the hippie counterculture, etc., etc.), I believe Jan Irvin has gone off the deep end in his assumption that pretty much everything is a CIA black op (this is only borderline hyperbole).
But point being: Some may enjoy my critique, get a chuckle or two out of it, maybe even learn something; others will find it pointless and boring. But either way, here it is, in the form of an open letter/email essay…
#
Jan,
I am only now answering your last email (dated August 11th) because I find it distasteful to try to have a back-and-forth with someone who ignores my main arguments but sees fit to list my personal shortcomings – real or imagined (generally accusing me of his own weaknesses) – obviously gaining steam as he writes, until finally lapsing into outright outrage. This reply was one of those jobs one keeps putting off.
Here’s how you wound up our last correspondence (from the August 11th email and I’m putting your emails extracts in bold, mine in italics). I believe in context your first sentence could be said to be ‘dripping with sarcasm’:
But please, don’t study the material and don’t understand it. It’s fully your choice. Clearly you’ve already made up your mind about the facts you’ve not studied. My interview with Harriman should not in any way be a substitute for the lecture series or his book. That should be obvious. [Actually, it’s not obvious, not at all. If you can’t make your point in over three and a half hours of an interview with an ‘expert,’ something is lacking somewhere, IMO.]
Not only do I stand by the statement that QP [quantum physics] is a joke, but I gave you a 10 hour lecture series and a 2800 page book to back it.
I get it, it’s your religion, and to question that, you’d have to question everything.
I leave you to Jesus.
Jan
You leave me to Jesus, Jan? Where did that come from? In fact, where the blatant hostility came from is a valid question (more on this to come).
Here’s the part of my previous email that I assume you were responding to in your tirade about my close-mindedness (I’ll leave it to the impartial reader to decide whether your accusation of close-mindedness was projection):
: The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest? [Note: this is a direct quote from you, clearly meaning it as a refutation] Ok, Jan, if that’s in any way a refutation [of the Big Bang theory], isn’t there a logical fallacy around here somewhere? (Insert smiley face) In fact, you guys [Irvin and David Harriman] talked a lot about so-and-so’s philosophical beliefs in the context of ‘Maybe that’s why they believed in quantum physics.’ I would ask how their pre-conceived beliefs made the physical experiments come out the way they did….
A direct quote from Harriman: ‘[The founders of quantum physics] didn’t want to give up causality [on the subatomic level of reality] but they had no choice. The experimental results left them no choice. They reluctantly had to be loyal to the facts.’
Harriman repeats this general idea several more times in different words, which means that your own expert-guest disagrees with your oft repeated hypothesis that QP (quantum physics) resulted from pre-conceived philosophical beliefs. (This was merely a bald assertion on your part to begin with; you provide no evidence and anyway, to repeat: pre-conceived beliefs do not affect experimental results.)
But in any event, trivium-wise, you are guilty of the Appeal to Motive Fallacy in bringing up the possible philosophical beliefs of the founders of QP.
in point of fact, quantum physics has more predictive power than any theory yet devised by science.
Directly or indirectly, Harriman makes this point more than once (including in the above quote), and the point that had QP not had the strongest possible predictive value, it never would have gotten off the ground.
Here’s another direct Harriman quote: ‘There’s an enormous amount of observational evidence in favor of it [QP].’
This aside from the technologies – that really WORK – that resulted from its tenets. (I don’t care much about the philosophical beliefs you maybe can associate with it.)
Not only does Harriman repeat this but so do you, indirectly (I don’t have the patience to find the exact quote but it’s there.)
If anyone is wondering where you came up with QP as ‘a joke,’ there’s plenty more to come…
Speaking of logical fallacies: That some idiots (or operatives) make a film called ‘What the Bleep Do We Know’ (or whatever) has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the theory they are abusing [I refer to New Age crap here], any more than you can blame [the science of] evolution for the psychopaths that came up with eugenics. Again, a logical fallacy [on your part] lurks…
Then I respond to your scornful dismissal of Big Bang theory:
…The Big Bang theory is simply an extrapolation from the fact that the universe is expanding. That’s all it really is.
Talk about logic. Hey, [if the universe is expanding] it must have been smaller yesterday, etc. It’s a lot easier to imagine it continuing to shrink [looking back into the past] than assuming that at some point it stops (shrinking), and that was the way the universe was for all time in the past. So at some point everything must have been ‘at the same location [aka a ‘singularity’].’ If you have a better theory [than the BB] – given the expanding universe, which has been known since Hubble’s findings agreed with Einstein’s theoretical extrapolations – I’m all ears.
Was there anything in the above to cause your hostile reaction? Accusing me of having a religion? Talk about projection! Do you know what the phrase ‘I’m all ears’ means? It means I’m listening. So whence comes your insult about my close-mindedness?
I’m really tempted to go on here about the BB theory, and how experimental data has upheld it… oh, hell, I’ll insert a bit from good old Wikipedia:
Addendum: Please see my note from up top (in 2018). My acceptance of the BB was based on the ‘observation’ that space is expanding. Again, see Electric Universe theory and, more specifically, the work of astronomer Halton Arp, who showed conclusively that space is not expanding. (If it were actually expanding, a ‘big bang’ could indeed be inferred.)
I wrote this essay before I realized the extent to which mainstream science has bamboozled us.
‘The Big Bang theory offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and Hubble’s Law.[3] As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The known laws of nature can be used to calculate the characteristics of the universe in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures.[4][5][6]While large particle accelerators can replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model, these accelerators can only probe so far into high energy regimes. Consequently, the state of the universe in the earliest instants of the Big Bang expansion is poorly understood and still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.’
Say what you will about Wikipedia, but this is pretty accurate, re the generally accepted Big Bang theory.
You and Harriman made an extremely big deal out of your assertion that the BB theory is a ‘creation theory,’ as if this label invalidates it. Aside from the fact that the theory only deals with the evolution of the universe from ‘an early time’ – so it’s in point of fact not a ‘creation theory…’ (The last two sentences of the Wiki quote are particularly relevant here.)
Wait! Forget I said that. Let’s just deal with your Logical Fallacies, not with any aspect of real ‘science,’ since – based on the podcast – you are lacking in knowledge of it. (This assertion is based on the observation that you do not discuss the vast and fascinating experimental data coming out of QP. So my statement is not a fallacy, ad hominem or otherwise.) So the above info about the BB theory is only meant for folks curious about what the theory actually does say.
Jan, regarding this comment: ‘It’s a creation theory,’ which you and Harriman repeated a half dozen times: how many of your list of logical fallacies is at work here? Let’s see…. Ad hominem? (or Circumstantial Ad Hominem), Genetic Fallacy (the dubious origins of an argument refutes it)?, Appeal to Motive?, Neglected Aspects? I’m not sure how many Logical Fallacies are involved in your repetitions that it’s ‘a creation theory’ (isn’t there also a Repetition Fallacy?) but let’s face it, as a refutation it flies in the face of your sacred trivium big time. Doesn’t it? (Feel free to insert your answer here…)
Harriman on BB theory (a direct quote):
‘(Physicists) make things up in (their) imagination and deduce consequences. That’s Big Bang theory.’ He then goes on to say that BB theory does not come from observation (or, induction, as he puts it).
This is more a simple, blatant untruth than a logical fallacy but suffice to once again point out – as Harriman and you must surely know (or Harriman, anyway) – that Big Bang theory developed as a result of the observation that the universe is expanding. Then it was validated by various experiments and observations, a good example being the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), a sort of ‘echo’ of the Big Bang. Here’s a simple list of the evidence that the BB theory is basically correct (including the CMB) and is in fact based on observation:
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
Yes, there are problems with the BB theory (as there are with many accepted theories, including gravity), but the weight of the evidence is heavily in its favor. Why in your podcast don’t you mention any of this evidence? I’m not sure if this is a Neglected Aspect Fallacy or represents Special Pleading. Being such an authority on the trivium, please straighten me out here.
But back to your Ad Hominem Fallacy that the theory came from ‘a Catholic Priest.’ This, I presume (in your mind) is related to it being ‘a creation theory.’ Right? But holy shit, Jan, how many Logical Fallacies (plus untruths) are we mixing into the same brew here?
Which reminds me. I tried to get your take on evolution by asking what you figured your great great (add 100,000 ‘greats’) granddad might have looked like: More or less like you or more like the simian proto-humans in Kubrick’s 2001? You’ve repeated many times that Darwin and his work is a complete fraud, so I was curious about how you figure we humans came to be here. A valid question but boy you didn’t like it at all. Here is your response:
Addendum from 2018. Again see my post on evolution for how my views have changed. To sum up here: The problem with Darwinism (Neo and otherwise) is the random mutation mechanism issue. You don’t get useful information from random copying errors. Period. Poof goes the ‘undirected’ aspect of How the fuck we got here. And again, my altered views are not relevant to my rant about Jan Irvin….
#
I am no archeologist. Why should I speculate about that which I have no grammar? It’s 100% pointless. Speculation is for people who don’t have the trivium and can’t follow evidence. I’m a researcher on mind control, the trivium, and ethnobotany – FYI. What did my father look like? Are you fricken serious?
Jan, I didn’t ask what your father looked like. I asked about your ancestor from about 2 million years ago. Do you not understand the difference? You denounce ‘speculation,’ labeling it pointless. Do you really think that the question of man’s origins is pointless speculation? ‘Following evidence’ is exactly what I’m talking about (the fossil record being just one example).
Jan, you state that you have ‘no grammar’ about evolution but later claim to have closely studied Darwin and evolution in general. Which is it? (If you have no grammar on the subject, upon what do you base your claim that evolution is a complete fraud?)
Maybe my question about your ancestor is the source of your over all hostility, since any honest answer would cause you problems with philosophical consistency; in other words, a contradiction once again lurks.
What contradiction?
You tried to debunk the Big Bang theory by labeling it a ‘creation theory,’ yet you do not subscribe to evolution as the provenance of our species.
The question being: If you don’t believe in ‘creation theories’ or evolution, how the fuck did we get here?
See what I mean? Is this inherent contradiction in your worldview – exposed by my query – the source of your hostility?
By the way, A more formal phrasing of ‘How the fuck did we get here?’: After diligent inquiry, I’ve come to believe that the human species ‘evolved’ (over the millennia gradually came to be) from simpler, more primitive life forms. If you, Jan, do not believe this – and I gave you several opportunities to say yea or nay – the question arises: Should we take you seriously in any matters that require either deductive or inductive thought? (Any more than if you believed that the earth is flat?)
This is still another question that this email/essay addresses.
By the way, anyone wanting to understand the modern interpretation of Darwin’s theory (which you call a ‘complete fraud’) ought to watch the PBS Frontline documentary on the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, which in effect put Darwin’s theory to a legal test. You can find it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI
If you go to about 38:40 into the film, you’ll find some of the latest scientific evidence in support of ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution.’ It’s pretty impressive, if not overwhelming. (Please don’t use a Red Herring Fallacy by claiming that the trial was about intelligent design. The trial – especially the above section – is largely about the validity of Darwin’s theory.)
But I do digress by bringing up hard science: Aside from exposing the many logical fallacies in your Harriman podcast (plus how seriously you should be taken in general), consider this email/essay an inquiry into the cause of your unwarranted hostility. (If you’re going to counter with ‘What does my hostility have to do with anything?’ my answer is this: It’s obvious that your hostility is based on the fact that your assertions about QP, evolution, etc. are unsupportable, which I directly or indirectly point out in my emails. Why else ‘attack the messenger,’ i.e., me?)
As evidence that your hostility is in fact ‘unwarranted,’ for the record I’ll reproduce the email wherein I introduced myself. You can skip down to the end of it wherein I repeat my email comments that indicate that your hostility came out of nowhere:
Jan,
I wrote once before. I’m a friend and associate of DELETED, recently spent a week at their place in DELETED, etc.
You may have seen me on [A PARTICULAR WEBSITE] so I won’t repeat stuff, but my film Water Time is in a film festival in NYC and next month at the Berlin festival. This is noteworthy because part of the theme of the film is that we’ve been lied to about all of human history, etc. That a film like this is in MS festivals is strange, and encouraging. Good for me, too.
I’m living on the road these days in an RV, touring and making more films and blogging. I have just under 5,000 subscribers, not all… awake. I’m working on them. While on the road I’ve been listening to your podcasts; a few dozen now with more to go…. (Aside from my film, I’ve written three books, which are pretty well thought of – plug my name in amazon and peruse the reader reviews (total of… must be near 400 now).
I’d like to be in touch with you, such is my respect for your work.
I have a question based on a podcast I listened to yesterday. You said, quantum physics is a joke. My impression is that you take quantum physics to be a part of a psy-op; something like that.
One of my books – Cosmic Banditos, a cult success (bought for the movies by John Cusack) – is about a guy who gets obsessed with it. Point being I’ve done a bit of research.
My question is Upon what do you base your view of quantum physics? Do you in fact see it as a fraud? (How about Einstein and relativity? That would seem to be in the same category. It could be abused in dumbing us down and misleading us as well: ‘Hey, Einstein says everything’s relative, so we can’t really know the truth…’ Etc.
Actually, I have a similar question about evolution. Much as I agree with your view of what Darwin’s theories have been used for, I do believe he had it basically correct in how life evolved on earth. If you – like Alex Jones – see evolution as a fraud, I would ask How did we get here?
My blog and work in general these days (going back to about 2004) is devoted to critical thinking as a way of life, quite literally, so I take these matters pretty seriously.
Your work on MKULTRA is nothing short of ground-breaking and your general devotion to the trivium, etc, is terrific; I’m with you all the way and will be recommending Gnosticmedia.com as an important research tool in upcoming blog posts.
As I say, I hope we can be in touch. I tend to zero in on specific events we have been misled about through critical thinking – I call my approach ‘the implications of impossibilities.’ In other words, when we’re told something that is impossible, what does that mean? The ‘art’ to it is following the logic/causation sometimes to other subjects.
I have a few videos that are examples of this (my Liars on Parade has over 14,000 hits). I’ll list just two below. If you want, I can send a link to my film, Water Time. Again, I like to zero in on specific lies and expose them. Your work in putting critical thinking in historical and other sorts of contexts has been a real eye opener for me. Don’t take this message as being in any way critical – except re quantum physics, which I can assure you, is not a joke. I’d be happy to explain why it cannot logically be a fraud, if you want. Maybe I am mistaken about your view. I hope so.
Being on the road, I’m offline a lot, but I look forward to hearing from you.
Allan
End of email. Notice these extracts:
I’d like to be in touch with you, such is my respect for your work.
and…
Your work on MKULTRA is nothing short of ground-breaking and your general devotion to the trivium, etc, is terrific; I’m with you all the way and will be recommending Gnosticmedia.com as an important research tool in upcoming blog posts.
and…
Your work in putting critical thinking in historical and other sorts of contexts has been a real eye opener for me.
and my closing…
…I look forward to hearing from you.
Allan
Pretty nasty stuff, huh? Is anyone else out there wondering whence came your hostility?…
But speaking of creation/evolution, here’s how you responded to my observation that you were in fact guilty of a Logical Fallacy in trying to debunk the Big Bang theory via the Ad Hominem or Appeal to Motive Fallacy (take your pick) of labeling an early supporter as a ‘Catholic priest’:
…don’t dismiss the entire lecture series and focus on the comment about Catholics, which is true.
First, I didn’t say anything that would lead any reasonable reader to think that I had dismissed the ‘entire lecture series’ – in fact I complemented you on many aspects of it. Here’s a quote from the email preceding the one that apparently upset you so much:
Harriman’s a fascinating guy and you’re a good interviewer – due diligence, etc; well done.
Does that sound like I dismissed anything, let alone everything? How fawning does one have to wax to keep you happy, Jan? Or to prevent a tirade of insults?
But what I find truly mind-blowing here – for a guy who can hardly keep his trap shut about Logical Fallacies (hence my capitalization) – is that not only do you not admit that you committed a Logical Fallacy, but – and I gotta shout – YOU REPEAT THE LOGICAL FALLACY AGAIN!!!! in your email, with your ‘which is true’ tag. I mean don’t you, Jan? Don’t you repeat the Fallacy by saying ‘which is true’? They must have meaning, these words, otherwise you wouldn’t have written them. And the meaning is – clearly – that the priest revelation is somehow a refutation of the BB theory. Holy shit!
Come on, all you Jan fans, am I right or not? Let’s get down and trivium-ize our asses off here. You know, grammar and rhetoric and so forth. Not to mention the quadrivium, which somehow involves dance. Hey, Jan, can I substitute surfing for dance in your way of critical thinking?…
I’m starting to get sarcastic so let me skip to my favorite of your Logical Fallacies and see where that leads us. (As you might see from the essays at my website, Banditobooks.com, I’m very much into ‘Implications.’ What does such and such – a lie, say – imply in the larger or more complex or historical sense. You might take a look at it, in the ‘Essays by…’ link.)
My favorite of your Logical Fallacies needs a bit of a set up. In extrapolating on what you call ‘the measurement miracle’ (which is itself ad hominem, given your scorn for ‘miracles’ coupled with the fact that experimental scientists do not use that term), you interrupted Harriman by asking for Ayn Rand’s definition of ‘Logic.’
‘The art of non-contradictory identification.’ This is Harriman, quoting Rand. (Frankly, my initial response was, ‘Huhhh?’)
Your response was to laugh and say ‘Thank you,’ as if your philosophical point needed no further support or explanation. Your laugh deserves comment here. You do a lot of laughing during the interview and I don’t think I’m far off in defining most of it as being an Appeal to Ridicule. Derisive laughter after all contains no information. Does it, Jan? I mean in terms of grammar. Your derisive laughter is the equivalent of shouting ‘What bullshit!’ Isn’t it?
But the laughter after the ‘Thank you’ was of a different sort: It was meant to say, ‘See what I mean, folks!’ Correct me if I’m wrong here, Jan, or if I’m not wrong please define the Logical Fallacy of which this is an example. (What information does your laughter contain? ‘None,’ correct? Yet it’s meant to reinforce your argument. Right? Where’s the sacred trivium here?)
But back to Ayn Rand’s definition of Logic; I believe herein lies the root problem that a critical thinker should have with the whole premise of your Harriman podcast.
Your use of Rand’s definition of Logic to buttress your case is a classic Appeal to Authority Fallacy, but it’s more than that. Bear with me because herein really does hinge the fatal weakness in the premise of the interview. Appeals to authority are, I believe, of two types, strong and weak, strong being an opinion/information coming from a genuine authority on the subject at hand. (But even this sort of Appeal is a Fallacy, for reasons you, Jan, have explained many times.)
But Ayn Rand as an expert on Logic and quantum physics? Let’s see where that question takes us… (as I say, I’m into implications)….
Later, from Harriman, quoting Rand directly: ‘One of these days I [Rand] will have to get around to looking into physics….to see what it’s all about…’
Harriman then repeats a Straw Man Fallacy that is all over the place in the interview, quoting Rand when she says that quantum physics implies that reality is ‘unintelligible.’ (This of course in spite of the admitted fact that she knows nothing about QP; or to put it the way you would, she has no grammar on the subject.) This is a Straw Man Fallacy that you really like, Jan. You repeat it in all kinds of ways. Like this in an email to me (and again, this is rife with sarcasm):
Quantum physics is real, [therefore] you can’t trust yourself. Reality doesn’t exist. You create the world and all guilt in it by the whims of your mind.
In the interview you also say something about QP implying that ‘The change you get in paying for groceries is unknowable.’ Words to that effect. Again: ‘Huhhh?’
A friend who has listened to most of your podcasts and is tiring of your trivium rants sent me this similar quote, from a different podcast, still referring to QP: “oh, and you don’t have to worry about what change you’re getting at the grocery store because none of it matters and don’t worry if your car isn’t in the parking lot…you can’t ever be sure if your car will be there or not…”
And all this is supposed to be a result of the tenets of quantum physics!
This nonsense is coming from your mind, Jan. It has nothing whatever to do with quantum physics. Between you and Rand, your ignorance of QP is… but I myself am on the verge of lapsing into Ad Hominem…
A better way of saying it: Find me an accredited quantum physicist who will agree that QP means ‘reality is unintelligible.’ And while you’re at it, answer me this: If quantum physics implies that reality is unintelligible, how could it be the most predictively accurate theory in the history of science (which is the case, as Harriman himself directly indicates)?
Unintelligible directly implies unpredictable. Doesn’t it, Jan? Yet QP in fact makes the (experimental) world eminently predictable. Isn’t there a problem here, if not a Fallacy?
Yet none of this is to be found in your podcast. Ever hear of balance, Jan? But I suspect that ‘balance’ is included in the Neglected Aspect Fallacy. So put another check next to that Fallacy.
Still another way of exposing your Straw Man: How does QP make calculus unintelligible? Or my joy in surfing? Or any aspect of life?
As an aside, speaking of Fallacies: who is Ayn Rand’s most famous disciple? I’d have to say Alan Greenspan, the guy who helped precipitate the worst economic catastrophe in the history of the world, and who said (to the world) that his whole philosophical worldview ‘was a mistake.’ Ever see that clip, Jan? Ever see that photo of dear Ayn in the Oval Office with ‘her star pupil’ Greenspan and whoever the current psychopath-in-chief was? (I realize that this paragraph is itself a Fallacy, but I couldn’t help myself with Greenspan…)
This is the Ayn Rand you’re appealing to in your Appeal to Authority Fallacy, right, Jan? Making it sort of a Double-Whammy Fallacy.
But let’s move on, as I’m again skirting a Fallacy line myself, although I’m not sure which one…maybe the Don’t Overdo Being Right Fallacy…
(If I’m starting to sound as arrogant as you, Jan: This is what happens to me when I get snot-nosed hostility in response to a respectful, borderline fawning message to someone like you. It’s happened before with ‘truth’ types and I’m getting fucking sick of it.)
But, again, I digress. Let’s remind ourselves of Ayn Rand’s knowledge of QP: ‘One of these days I will have to get around to looking into physics….’ Harriman owns up, without hesitation: ‘She never did.’ Then, his apology, ‘but she found other good uses for her time,’ precipitated another Irvin laugh of approval. So, Jan, you approve of the fact that Ayn Rand does not have the grammar to speak intelligibly about quantum physics? Mmmmmm. Strange. What are you approving of, really?
But let’s get back to Rand’s definition of ‘Logic’: ‘The art of non-contradictory identification.’
I have yet to find a dictionary that comes even anywhere near to defining ‘Logic’ as Rand sees fit to do. None use the word ‘contradiction’ in their many – some verbose – wordsmithing.
Don’t you agree, Jan, that in civilized debate we should use the accepted, i.e., dictionary, definition of important – no, vital – words and terms we use? Isn’t it… arbitrary… to pick a definition because it helps our argument? Which Fallacy is that?
You can do your own dictionary-scanning but most of them define Logic something like this:
: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
: a particular way of thinking about something
: the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
Again, find me an accepted definition of Logic that is anything like The art of non-contradictory identification. By the way: Rand defines Logic as an art. An ART? Think about defining Logic as an art, Jan… How exactly would it work with, say, debate? If Logic were an art, doesn’t that mean that, well… anything goes as long as it ‘looks good’? Do you not see how utterly full of shit that definition of Logic really is?
I’ll just spit it out: Your Harriman podcast depends on this premise: ‘There are no contradictions in nature.’ And where did you get this beaut? From a long-dead Greek who lived and blabbed way before the scientific method, let alone quantum physics. (This goes for most of the philosophers you quote ad nauseam in your ‘arguments’ against QP.)
In point of fact, whether or not there are contradictions in nature is a matter that should be settled by observation, i.e., the scientific/experimental method. Not by simply declaring it to be true.
How could we know there are no contradictions in nature? We observe. We do experiments. You’re the one obsessed with induction (observation) yet you assume to be true a property of nature that you just flat made up (or was made up by someone else) because it sounds right. Because of its elegance. (If this has a familiar ring, the use of beauty/elegance as evidence is a sin you accuse Einstein and modern physicists of.) Isn’t your whole premise – plus your arrogant insistence that QP ‘is a joke’- dependent upon there being no contradictions in nature?
To repeat: Are you going to Appeal to a dead Greek to prove your case? Or will you try some version of ‘Everyone knows there are no contradictions in nature’? No, you wouldn’t do that: the Bandwagon Fallacy is Trivium 101…
In other words, your premise, i.e., your definition of Logic, i.e., your ‘debunking’ of quantum physics, is nothing but a long-winded example of assuming the point that is at issue: the Begging the Question Fallacy.
A reminder: The purpose of this email/essay is not to refute yours or Harriman’s view of quantum physics but rather to point out that your interview podcast – specifically, your comments and leading questions and half-baked philosophizing and derisive laughter – is an example of one Logical Fallacy after another. I may be wrong, but I don’t think you missed a single one – although I didn’t get around to bringing up your Red Herring Fallacies (there’s more than one). Hey, maybe we can put your Red Herrings under the Neglected Aspect Fallacy, which is a good Umbrella Fallacy…
Jan, through sheer crankiness I’m lapsing into poking fun at the trivium, which is actually a useful tool in critical thinking. Problem with it is this: Someone like you studies it, then it becomes their religion, then it becomes their life. Which has an unfortunate result: You start believing that by definition nothing you come up with could possibly be wrong or a fallacy or just plain balderdash. After all, you’re a master of the trivium…
But to sum up: The arrogance of your views on hard science – be it evolution or relativity or the uncertainty principal – brings to mind a quote from the physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who, when confronted by a nonsensical theory, would label it ‘Not even wrong.’
Allan Weisbecker
P.S. Unlike you, Jan, I’m interested in the general worldview of people who claim to have something to offer, intellectually. In case anyone reading this is curious about what I’ve been up to they can go to my website, Banditobooks.com. The ‘Essays by…’ is worth a look also for the radio interviews I’ve done. (Jan, if you’re still reading, you should check out my ‘Orwell’ essay, aspects of which apply to you.)
I’ve recently released a documentary film that is screening at film festivals in the U.S. and abroad. You can see a trailer (and read Jon Rappoport’s review) at the site. I also provide a link for a free viewing.
I’m currently traveling across the continent, blogging and making films. My latest film is a paean to the sea, and to my interest in all aspects of how the world works, or really works, as opposed to what we’ve been told. It’s only 8 minutes and has gotten great reviews. It can be seen here:
One more, and it’s an example of the kind of critical thinking – and the exposure of untruths – I’ve devoted myself and my work to:
Looking forward to hearing from you.
Hold on… One more thing that’s bugging me… I’ll quote the whole of your email paragraph I extracted from earlier:
You already have all the answers. You’re telling me all you know and have no interest. Apparently even this doesn’t apply to you. Quantum physics is real, you can’t trust yourself. Reality doesn’t exist. You create the world and all guilt in it by the whims of your mind. There’s 11 separate realities, none of which you’ve seen, and you most certainly can’t trust yourself to look things up and study them, and there are contradictions in nature – because, well, Einstein, a moron and fraud, a third rate mathematician, said so. https://archive.org/details/TheManufactureAndSaleOfSaintEinstein-ThePropagandaOfSupremacy
Jan, although I haven’t read any of your books so I don’t know how you write when you have an editor and/or are not vibrating with righteous indignation, the above paragraph is barely literate. The first three sentences do not appear to be rationally or logically connected – to what are you referring when you write ‘Apparently even this doesn’t apply to you’?
But that’s an aside. What interests me is your labeling of Einstein as ‘a moron and fraud, a third rate mathematician’…
Is it an Appeal to Authority Fallacy if I quote your source, in this case David Harriman? In your podcast Harriman labeled Einstein as a ‘genius’ in one context, then, in referring to special relativity and obviously to Einstein himself, separately said, ‘Clearly this is the work of genius.’ May I ask why you didn’t correct Harriman and point out that Einstein was a moron and fraud, plus a third rate mathematician? In the context of the podcast – the fraudulent history of science – this certainly was a logical place to do that. I mean, you not only correct me on Einstein but accuse me of all kinds of intellectual shortcomings (attacking the messenger). Why let Harriman off the hook?
Regarding the book you cite (the above link, etc.), The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein, I googled it and could not find anyone who has a hard copy, which is unusual these days; there were hardly any links using the title in a search (a couple mentions on obscure forums), and no reviews at all. But ok, the book, all 2,800 pages of it, are online, at the link you provided.
Putting aside my instinct that anyone who writes a 2,800 page book has a screw loose to begin with (Vincent Bugliosi being a good example, with his JFK monstrosity), I gave the thing a look. I urge anyone still with me here to do likewise. (Notice I didn’t say ‘read it.’)
Scanning the beginning few pages of text, which mostly consist of ad hominem assertions (which may or may not be true), the first thing I noticed was that there are no footnotes. Jan, being the diligent researcher that you are, did this not make you suspicious?
Let me quickly point out that there are a few footnotes later on (not re the assertions that start the text), but in my view (see what you think) if you’re going to write a revisionist history of a much beloved historical figure like Albert Einstein, you ought to go out of your way to make your sourcing intelligible and easily accessible. Especially so if you’re going to begin your 2,800 pages with the words ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’
It matters not what follows in this first sentence: Jan, if you actually read this whole book… no wait, I was supposed to have studied it, not just read it, so I assume you did likewise…
But I’m getting ahead of myself (I really want to finish this up)…
There are source notes, plenty of them, in the back (given the page length, waaaay in the back). But ok, giving the author as much of a break as I could, I looked for an assertion in the first few pages that should be clearly sourced. I picked the 1919 eclipse observation by Eddington and others described on pages 12-13, and which (according to the press) verified Einstein’s predictions about the bending of light by gravity. I already knew there were some doubts about the accuracy of the eclipse observation, so I expected to easily find the author’s source for referring to the observation and everyone involved as frauds.
Jan, I did my best with the book’s sourcing. I expected that the first claim in the text (‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’) would be covered in one of the first three source notes. Such was not the case. They dealt with the provenance of relativity theory. If you can find some evidence of Einstein being a ‘racist’ in those three sources…. I’m here and listening.
What I found was that the source notes were numbered but there was no way to know to what they referred…(There were also pages and pages in German.) In other words, in the practical sense the source notes were useless. Therefore, the book is useless. That’s the way it works, Jan, with research. Or don’t you know that?
Jan, Albert Einstein may very well have been ‘a fraud’ (many scientists are, by the definition of plagiarism), and his place in the history of science may very well be the result of his participation in a Zionist conspiracy, but…
1. Einstein was neither a moron nor a third rate mathematician.
2. That you expected me to study a 2,800 page unintelligibly-sourced book that starts with the words ‘Racist physicist Albert Einstein…’ so you and I could ‘have a conversation’ indicates that you yourself have a screw loose.
Again, I’m looking forward to hearing from you. If you (or anyone out there) have trouble finding me, you can always use the contact link at Banditobooks.com.
#
Note to the general reader: After indicating he had read the above essay, Jan Irvin responded (by email) with:
However, it appears that you’ve studied none of the prerequisite material provided you. At the top of the trivium study page it says: “NOTE: Beginners should start at the BOTTOM of page 2 and work your way UP. Interviews, videos and information on studying the classical trivium and quadrivium of the 7 liberal arts. More information about the trivium and quadrivium may be found at http://www.triviumeducation.com”
In other words, he read it then erased it from his mind. Ignoring my observation that the book is unintelligibly sourced and therefore useless, he also wrote:
I cited you a 2800 page book that shows how [Einstein] committed academic fraud. You cite my note to you to study this publication, but did you actually study it? If not, why not? How can you expect to understand things that you’ve not studied? That makes no sense.
What can I say that I didn’t say above?… More classic Irvin:
As you’re refusing to study things, and believe that you have all the answers without doing so, the only thing left to do is leave you to Jesus [what is with this Jesus thing?] – leave you to your beliefs and refusal to study ALL of the material as laid out and already explained to you. [Explained by… by the all-knowing Jan Irvin! And he accuses me of… whatever…]
My semi-humorous comment that Irvin maybe has a screw loose appears to be the case. I would feel sorry for the guy, except for his insufferable arrogance and hypocrisy.
So: if you find this essay worthwhile, spread it around, and use contact@gnosticmedia.com to suggest that Jan does respond to it. If he gets enough emails, it might shake his loose screw… loose…
One more thing: To add full-blown irony to his nonsensical reply, Irvin included the below epigraph, implying of course that it applies to me.
I will leave the reader to suss out the irony here…