Is Ted Kaczynski taken seriously in academia or is he considered a pseud?

Attached: unabomber.png (313x188, 11.49K)

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

this

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

Based

Huh?

You really think academics can handle him?

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

Reminder that Kaczynski's IQ was measured at 136 after being captured, which means that he was a midwit this whole time.

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll tell you when you’re older

>Unfalsifiable
What are you even doing here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literally who?

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

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

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

davidskrbina.com/

>In the math side of academia, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes exactly.

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

Why?

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

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

>If you don't accept causation

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

>every claim at every level of every science is unfalsifiabe

Yes.

>that is clearly not what Popper was talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

That's not how math works

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

Attached: 1646614463991.jpg (820x1024, 132.95K)

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

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

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

> you don't believe in causation.

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

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

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

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

>he cares what academics say
oh no no no

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

> caring about modern "academics"

NGMI

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

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

(you)