Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been misled from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. "Listen but don't trust." That is the key. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there; purposeful exploitations designed to mislead us from the truth.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. But the Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. "Listen but don't trust." That is the key. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there; purposeful exploitations designed to mislead us from the truth.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. But the Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there; purposeful exploitations designed to mislead us from the truth.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. But the Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there; purposeful exploitations designed to mislead us from the truth.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean that "nobody does this at all." Some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is implying we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake often.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles (premises, or axioms) of any logical construction are. The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is by definition "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles of any logical construction are (premises, or axioms). The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intends.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles of any logical construction are (premises, or axioms). The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.) which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intended.

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles of any logical construction are (premises, or axioms). The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.

Sorry I didn't respond to you the other day. It was a good question. I'm not entirely sure that it was asked in earnest (if you really wanted my opinion, or just wanted to "prove me wrong"), but I will assume it was asked in earnest.

Every time I visited a response to this question in my mind, I didn't know how to frame it in a reasonable time. I got caught up in all the necessary context for any response that will make sense.

That is why my responses are often so long.

In the case of your question, the processes of reason that we currently employ have been mislead from their intended formulation. Ibn al-Haytham is considered to be the father of the scientific method (or at least a huge part of it, depending on who you ask). His founding principle of that methodology is below. It doesn't just fit for science though, it must be applied to any process which uses reason (logos) for that process to progress as its formal construction intended. This applies to any reasonable system (formal logic, scientific investigation, model building, etc.).

“The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration and not the sayings of human beings whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of of its content, attack it from every side. he should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.” – Ibn al-Haytham

In order to investigate anything, you must call everything that has come before the enemy. That doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to it, but you should never trust it, nor should you trust your own conclusions. This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in a persons life (all decision processes), but it applies universally in any process of reason. A "process of reason" is a formal process. It has rules that make it self-consistent. Deviation from those rules is "unreasonable." But deviation from the rules ("errors in logic" e.g.) is only one possible mistake. The other is in not appreciating what the founding principles of any logical construction are (premises, or axioms). The most common error that I find in most arguments is in the hidden axioms; the ones that people don't even realize they have injected. The ones that are "obviously true." (I make the same mistake.)

While he doesn't state it explicitly, al-Haytham is stating we must be the enemy of all that has come before, and all that will ever be, in the formal processes of reason because all conclusions are based on unproven axioms, and/or hidden axioms injected without explicit statement which are also unproven.

We have forgotten how to do this. I don't mean it's "nobody does this at all," some people do realize this and employ it in their science or other logical endeavors, but we are not well taught in how to do this. On the contrary, we are taught the opposite. We are taught to trust the experts. We are taught to trust consensus. This training is ubiquitous in the media, but I have had formal training in Academia in how to do this as well. For example, I have been trained in what steps to take in how to discern what is a "good paper" and what is a "bad paper" based not on the research or arguments contained within, but in who wrote it, how many citations it has, how many people believe it to be true, and who the publisher is. This is how we are trained as scientists. My investigation into every single one of those things we are trained to trust has led me straight to a single source in every single field of study; the Cabal (specifically clan Rockefeller).

So the first thing we need to do to gain knowledge and discern Truth is to “become the enemy of it.” We must listen to it. We must listen closely to what has come before, but trust it not one iota. In addition, we need to look outside of “consensus,” or “what is accepted” not just because doing so is a founding principle of any process of reason, but because there is so much purposeful guidance (fuckery) in there.

But the processes of reason are not the only path to truth or knowledge. The Universe (or the Source of All Things, or God if you prefer) is talking to us all the time. We are constantly telling the Universe (or Nature, or Source) what it is. We put our definitions, which are often wrong and always incomplete on it. We insist that it conform to our models. The Truth is whatever it is. And it speaks to us all the time. We need to learn how to shut the hell up and listen to it. This learning how to shut up and listen is not a common skill in those who pursue knowledge. It is an incredibly fruitful path that is barren in Academia.

This is the core of the paradigm shift. It isn’t anything that others haven’t understood before, rather it is stuff that humanity in general, and Academia specifically has been trained to forget.