Reality or Alternative Facts?

WTF IS AN ALTERNATIVE FACT?!?!?!

The truth is that we are here, and that is amazing and largely unexplainable. As “subjective impairments” of the same greater universal reality, we have no way of knowing when we identify objectivity. Even though we can only see about 5% of light and use 10% of our brains, we tend to find better information and methods for everything through research and development when that is where we put our effort. Know that we were in fact created, somehow. Only astrophysicists can make a credible conclusion on how. Therefore, more importantly, know that we are almost physically incapable of knowing when we identify the who’s, what’s, where’s, when’s, why’s, how’s of our creation, the magnitudes of free will, and other age-old struggles of religion.

When did ancient history end? I’m not sure it quite has yet. The psychology of groupthink intersects with a great variety of the topics supporting the hypothesis that modern analytics are still stuck in the “12th century” in many ways. The groupthink of postmodernism exemplifies the phenomenon of “alternative realities” because it is quite literally a “labcoat science” doctrine advocating for this lack of reasoning. Several paradoxes underly the postmodern perspective. Somehow, the idea that all thoughts are opinion has become popular. Subjective interpretation only goes so far. While postmodernism has correctly identified that each individual person is limited to the influences of their perspective, it totally ignores the observable, universal reality we all share. We must always remember that science is an ongoing process of finding new information by replicating past tests.

How can a postmodernist possibly say all information is equally an opinion? If the world were purely subjective, no interpretations can be wrong. How could there be any boundaries to what falls outside of reality if all interpretations are all equally valid? The first major paradox is contained in the fact that the word “ambiguous” does in fact have a strict meaning, therefore so do all other words by nature, and everything is not equally ambiguous. Everything cannot be called a “tree” realistically, nor does the word “tree” mean anything. Not everyone has the same “opinions” on how to fly a commercial airplane or build a skyscraper. There are facts! How have these absurd ideas that became “scientific” in 1979 hit the mainstream so effectively? Plenty of realities like gravity, mathematics, and etymology are not even close to ambiguous. We all must think more deeply about why and how the most rudimentary elements of conversation have been thrown into question.

If a tree falls and no one hears it, it makes a sound because scientists have finally been able to show that sounds are some kind of wave in the environment that have little to do with our ears, minds, and other senses. Our ears are an evolutionary result of sounds in the environment around us instead of the other way around. Our subjectivity is simply not that special. The intents and motivations to exploit people’s analysis of the subjective and objective themselves are not simple, but highly explainable after a very technical analysis of analysis itself. However, anybody’s inductive-deductive reasoning may be inversed in comparison to eachother. Distortions of how certain variables may apply to one’s subjective scope of reality like the colorblindness of some seem to be a means to exploit a small amount of the total of credible information on a given topic in favor of supporting the notion that the world around us is entirely subjective. Just like in the case of sounds, colored lights are not inherent of a person. Chemical differences in the matter in the object being observed, in your eyes and brain, and in the photons of light and air around it determine what colors we see. Just because our body consists of 1/4 of the categories of sight, that does not mean it consists of any more than 1/4 of the total variables in that mathematical equation! What are the motivations of making everyday people think they can “control reality with thought alone?!”

The second major paradox with postmodernism is contained in the definition of reality. Many people falsely think Mt. Everest is the tallest single mountain on Earth. Mauna Kea is the tallest single mountain on Earth because it includes the part of the mountain under the ocean. The difference between a postmodernist and everyone else is that a postmodernist would say that the false answer is “their reality,” in denial. The dangers of conflating false answers with “alternative facts” like this should be obvious. People who research primary sources often say that professional society is full of injustice, and those who do not often perpetuate the same, almost-scripted denials and justifications for unlawful “white collar” activity. The same people often say given topics are intersectional and full of complex factors while the others cannot grasp the relevance of what they may call a “tangent.” Why is that? Can a person who has not been exposed to enough of the relevant information on a given topic speak equally credibly on that topic as someone who has? Can we even distinguish when someone has not been exposed to relevant information and does not understand the difference anymore? Very little is black and white. The clinical implications of perpetuating this kind of detachment from reality, by a mainstream that is still attempting to characterize “questioning authority” as a personality disorder, contain significant elements of criminal law.

Use a universal calendar converter to put the current year into perspective. Consider the fact that there will be a future that is totally unrecognizable to us. Do you think people in the 3rd century or 13th century would recognize the modern world? They would probably be very surprised by our everyday norms separate from our technology. Galileo was burnt at the stake for simply publishing what we now find obvious. Humans had already been observing stars for thousands and thousands of years. Galileo published that the Earth is likely not flat nor the center of the universe based on now stellar bodies revolve around it in an annually predictable manner, namely retrograde Mars. Whether planets revolve around the Earth in space was not very observable before Galileo or modern technology, but to be able to see through the “evidentiary standards” of religion slowly started becoming easier.

There is a complex disease successfully talking over the world right now. People who soundly reject professionalism do so after recognizing the tendency of “labcoat science” to lie on behalf of the powers that sign their paycheck, while the other side is inflaming the problem by asserting that the theories which are not as conclusive as gravity are conclusive forever. Unsound rejections and “ideological statements” of science are not particularly focused on the scientific method. Having more experience with one topic does not help one’s “merit” in a separate topic. Such static understandings of the evolution of the replicable data are ignorant to the scientific method! The widespread attitude to replace replication with absolutism illustrates the intersection between the second and third paradox. Postmodernists tend to avoid a questioning and analysis of the methods that produced the theories less conclusive than gravity, and they sometimes even project to the positivity or negativity of asking questions instead. One simply cannot address the causes of negativity when they are busy drowning it out with blind positivity. A blind-positive attitude cannot resolve a question of the real-world without action and circumstances. Exerting energy to focus on maintaining positivity to comfort yourself in the face of a given challenge often inflames the negativity of the challenge. Whether it is peripherally positive or negative to ask questions has little to do with the central information in question. Selecting a hundred-dollar bill over a penny is not a choice, it is practically human nature. Preselected alternatives are not “choice.” Choices are choices, but choice is boundless and truly ambiguous because they are based in pure subjectivity.

Coming Soon

An introduction to common educational "social conditioning" inoculation doctrines and tactics in the US.