Tuesday, July 29, 2014

It's Just Starting

From Investor's Business Daily:
"Politics: Give us your poor, your tired, your future Democrats waiting to be registered. That's what some in the party are saying as they urge the president to pursue immigration goals even if it hurts in the '14 midterms.

In other words, damn the political torpedoes and full speed ahead in the fundamental demographic and political transformation of America.

"You'll always have members whose political vulnerability they tie entirely to immigration," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. "We didn't make progress when we were in the majority because we were being protective of those (members) on immigration reform. At some point do you worry more about the future or do you continue to put off the inevitable by not taking action?"

For Democrats such as Grijalva and Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., amnesty and the political benefits stemming from it are inevitable. They are quite willing to use children to exploit the inherent compassion of the American people if it means ensuring the political future of the Democratic Party through the gratitude of millions of illegal aliens allowed to come here and stay.

Gutierrez recently told a La Raza conference that it was only a "down payment" that President Obama gave the Latino community with his Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program that halted the deportation of 600,000 of "our people":

"Now it is time for the president in the United States ... (to) free the mom and dads of the DREAMers and to go further — be broad and expansive and generous."

And just how many would he eventually like to sign up? "I think we can get 3 or 4, maybe even 5 million people," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." If you can't persuade voters, you can always import them.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has noted, "the president is considering a grant of 'work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants.' He says DACA has been widely misinterpreted as applying only to children. But in fact, DACA applies to individuals up to 30 years of age and provides actual amnesty papers, photo ID and work permits to illegal immigrants who can then take any job in America."

Now we have the president proposing to Central American leaders that we send the equivalent of college recruiters down to their countries with applications and "permisos" and to transport, presumably at taxpayer expense, those who would otherwise sneak past the Border Patrol — sort of a Berlin airlift for illegal aliens.

All of which is designed to fundamentally transform the demographics and politics of the United States and to punish Americans who believe, as President Reagan did, that a country without borders is not a country."


Shizmoo said...

Been reading your blog for a long time and I know this is off-topic and I apologize, but was wondering if you could give your thoughts on something because you know a lot more about the topic than me.

I recently learned that science commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

1. If theory x were true then we would expect to find Y
2. We find Y
3. X must be true

So science basically just deals with falsification and can't ever prove anything because the cause could be anything like an invisible entity, etc. So as weird as this sounds, science is a flawed and irrational tool. The only thing we can say about science is that its useful aka pragmatism which is inherently irrational. Is this right?

Stan said...

Hmm. That's interesting.

Yes, that is a faulty deductive process, known as the "undistributed middle fallacy" (aka affirming the consequent).

Here's one way to look at it, as best as I can ASCII it:

X and Y are two different sets. The desire is to prove that Y is a subset of X, and that all Y's are part of X. But that looks like this:

[ X {Y}]

But the complete story might be this:

[ X {Yn ] Y }

This shows that Yn (a particular case) could belong to Set Y, and occurs in the conjunctive space between X and Y. Further Y(n+p) might occur outside of X altogether.

Another issue is that Y could be an epiphenomenon of X, (as Hume pointed out), and is not actually caused by X.

Hume also showed that universal consistency is observed, but is not guaranteed, so that it might be probable that what is true today will be true tomorrow, it is not guaranteed. This has to be assumed, and it usually is. But if total consistency exists, what is the source of that law?

Shizmoo said...

I guess my question is, we can't scientifically prove anything because we lack absolute proof? Lets say we are standing on a road thats dry and its about to rain. It starts raining and the road is now wet. I can't scientifically prove the road became wet from the rain?

[Hume also showed that universal consistency is observed]

How did he show that from particular experience? Wouldn't that require an universal mind.

Shizmoo said...

Thinking about it more one could just switch the conditions around and avoid the fallacy:

1. If we find Y then Theory X is true
2. We find Y
3. X must be true

So I guess this means science isn't based on a logical fallacy?

Scorpio said...


I suggest you read the debate Stan had with Martin about the authenticity of Evolution.It's one of my favorite debates,as Stan addresses nearly all of the fallacies of Scientism and that of Evolutionists.


This is an extract from that long debate but it's really interesting:
Extrapolating from a fact(oid) is not empiricism. It is forming a hypothesis. It follows this process:
(1)IF (factoid T) THEN Hypothesis Q.
(2)Test Hypothesis Q experimentally (physically); Measure experiment closely and accurately within current technological limits; compare measurements to hypothesis expectations; either adjust hypothesis and repeat for differences between hypothesis and experiment, or repeat as is for confirmation.
What is happening in evolution is that the first (1) is being declared TRUE, and that process (2) is not required, not achievable, not a factor in declaring TRUTH.
Now aside from science, even empirical science, not being able - ever - to assert TRUTH, the assertions of "evolution is TRUTH" are false. It does not even rise to the status of empirical science.
Forensic science is always based on conjecture, even the "smoking gun" evidence. Only observing the actual event is total validation, and for historical events, that requires witness testimony - also questionable. Forensics is not able to declare TRUTH.
So a request for empirical confirmation is not a request for more factoids, it is a request for an observation of the actual event of evolving (see post for criteria) new features, useful for grabbing and holding an environmental niche

Shizmoo said...

Hmm from that extract Stan says two things:

[Now aside from science, even empirical science, not being able - ever - to assert TRUTH

Only observing the actual event is total validation]

How is this not contradictory? You observe empirical evidence.

Scorpio said...


It seems Stan has been offloine for a couple of days.I'm sure he has an explanation.Let's wait and see.

Stan said...

Hi guys,
I'll be around awhile this a.m. but then it's back to work for a few days. It's good weather to be catching up on farm issues.

Shizmoo is right; for historical events I was trying to explain the difference between inferences taken from historical data which will always be incomplete, and the replicated observations of deductive empirical experimental testing of hypotheses.

But the terms I used were not proper, and "total validation" is incorrect. Probably I should have said something more like this:

"Only observing the actual event(s) can produce a factoid which can fit into an inductive sequence, in preparation for a deductive hypothesis, which will be testable empirically.

So inference without observation does not rise to the level of empiricism, it is at the level of imagination, which is not testable nor falsifiable: it is science fiction, aka 'Just So Stories'."

Let's use the swan example. Swans were observed to be white, without exception, so an inductive conclusion was made that "all swans are white". But what if that conclusion were made without ever observing a single swan?

Observation is necessary. Historical evolution is inferred from unrelated facts: skeletal remains of similar-yet-different animals existing at different geological layers. Those are the only actual facts.

For an example of breathless evolutionist creation of completely made-up stories to accommodate skeletal remains, read Coyne's "Why Evolution is True", (don't buy it, try your library).

For fun, make up your own stories. They're as valid as any.

Scorpio said...

Atheists will require absolute proof or total validation from theist claims but when pressed for evidence from their side,only then will they concede that science cannot provide 100% truth,only approximations.

But either way,evidence for macro evolution does not even closely resemble empiricism.