Wednesday 23 August 2017

TheAcademicAgent can't reason, and ThePeoplesRhino can't read


When TheAcademicAgent directly contradicted himself on twitter, and Jack pointed out the contradiction, ThePeoplesRhino denied it (here):


When screenshots were adduced to juxtopose TAA's incoherent pronouncements, ThePeoplesRhino again denied the contradiction (here):


To justify his denial of the contradiction, ThePeoplesRhino appealed to his poor memory, and blamed Jack for posing tricky questions (here):


Then, as the content of the screenshots was reiterated, ThePeoplesRhino claimed that they had been decontextualised in order to misrepresent TAA (here and here):


In short, ThePeoplesRhino appears to be struggling to comprehend a basic contradiction committed by TAA on twitter—so I'm here to help him out. In order to make myself legible to ThePeoplesRhino, I have attempted to write this post very simply and repetatively, so that even a child could understand it.



Step 1: TAA claims that the LTV is unfalsifiable

First, Jack asked TAA (here): "What exactly do you think the prediction of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is?"

Then, in direct response to this (i.e., in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall), TAA declared (here): "It's just a BS non-falsifiable prediction."

When Garl Margs (here) noted that this tweet conflicts with TAA's attempts elsewhere to falsify the prediction, TAA responded to this (i.e., still in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) by reiterating (here): "It's unfalsifiable because no limit is named. He can just say "oh it'll happen in 200 years". They don't make a specific testifiable claim."

Here is the full exchange, unedited:


In short, TAA has clearly stated here that the LTV's prediction (the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) is unfalsifiable. By now, this should be completely unambiguous - even ThePeoplesRhino should be able to understand what TAA is saying here (provided that the former understands basic English).


Step 2: TAA claims that the LTV is false

TAA also claimed that the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall is false, i.e., empirically falsified by evidence which he adduced. Here is the context:

First, Jack tweeted (here): "What exactly do you think the prediction of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is?"

Then, AA (here) directly responded to that tweet (i.e., in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) by declaring: "1. It's not a law. 2. It's just a BS non-falsifiable prediction. 3. Increased automization will cause profits to decline over time."

Then, in direct response to that tweet (i.e., still in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall), TAA added the following further comment (here): "Is easily disproven if one considers the profits generated by an algorithim at a high-tech trading firm."

Here is the full exchange, unedited:



TAA clearly states that the LTV's prediction (i.e., the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) is "easily disproven," which is another way of saying false. (Once again, I can only pray that my words can somehow get through to ThePeoplesRhino, and that he understands what TAA is saying here.)


Step 3: Unfalsifiable vs. False

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is one which is consistent with all possible evidence, i.e., nothing can falsify it; the flipside of unfalsifiability is unverifiability, since the hypothesis doesn't generate predictions for specific evidences which can be empirically confirmed or disconfirmed.

By contrast, a false hypothesis is necessarily one that is falsifiable, i.e., generates predictions for specific evidences that can be confirmed or disconfirmed; in the case of a false hypothesis, the latter has occurred (i.e., the predictions have been disconfirmed).

Hence, calling a hypothesis both 'false' and 'unfalsifiable' is incoherent.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's revisit TAA's aforementioned tweets:


As we can clearly see here, TAA claimed that the LTV's prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall is unfalsifiable, and then, IN THE VERY NEXT TWEET, claimed that the prediction has been falsified.

Clearly, TAA is contradicting himself. May God grant ThePeoplesRhino language-comprehension abilities, such that he is able to understand TAA's predicament here.


Conclusion

By now, it should be clear that TAA directly contradicted himself, by claiming that the LTV is both false and unfalsifiable.

If God is gracious, then perhaps ThePeoplesRhino will finally begin to comprehend TAA's extremely obvious contradiction. If he does, we must extend kindness to his poor benighted soul: no doubt ThePeoplesRhino will try to ameliorate his blinding idiocy by retrospectively recasting it as nothing more than "lol XD random trolling"—no doubt he will attempt to claim that he merely adopted the persona of a complete dipshit, for the lolz.

In these matters, we must be forgiving.

No comments:

Post a Comment