August 25, 2023

Science is methodology, not opinion. The methodology of science is based on the most reliable measurements possible as evidence.

Rationality is the same thing as science at the social level but without the direct measurements. Observations with logic provide the evidence for rationality.

A large part of rationality is explaining claims. Explaining is methodology, not opinion.

Rationality is the process of aligning upon the objective realities of the universe which define life and solutions to problems. Explaining claims is an important part.

The purpose of explaining claims is to give people the information and evidence they need to decide for themselves. Otherwise, realities are being imposed upon them. It is disrespectful to impose realities without the necessary information for evaluating.

Opinion is sort of the opposite—imposing realities. Opinion could be an attempt to make the best guess possible; but doing that needs to be extremely limited and clarified.

So opinion tends to merge into judgement, while judgement is a part of all evaluation. But opinion means no clear evidence can be produced; which means opinion is not a methodology.

Human life can only be sustained and problems solved through an objective process, not through the subjectivity of deriving realities from one's own limitations; yet corrupters, who must be power mongers to prevail, assume all that is good and right must be derived from themselves, because being winners is the test of rightness and virtue.

Power becomes truth, knowledge and virtue by the test of being winners by mongering power.

Reagan said, if you have to explain, you are already a loser. That means he assumed the purpose of life is to be a winner and rationality is for fools.

The "Reagan revolution" was a process of changing the social standards, which Reaganites called "a new normal." When Reagan got elected the second time, he said it was "morning in America." Morning means the dawning of light, which shows that Reaganites were trying to change social standards—and of course in the wrong direction.

A noticeable characteristic of conservatives is that their realities are not only opinions but absurd opinions, such as an election being stolen, when all results showed otherwise, or Trump's criminality being nothing but politics.

Opinions can be of different quality; but there is very little place for opinions in rationality standards—some, but not much. And then opinions need to be clarified as such, not imposed as unquestionable facts.

That means the lack of proper methods of communication by conservatives is socially unacceptable. Yet conservatives assume they are the center of the universe in defining rightness. Conservatives are trying to exterminate any state of existence that they do not define and control, which is the path to Nazism.

It is in fact because of corrupters' conflict with the universe that they assume they are the center of the universe. If the universe doesn't exist as a reference for reality, what does? Nothing but themselves could be a suitable reference for existence under such conditions in the view of corrupters.

Corruption is like gambler's addiction. The more gamblers lose, they harder they must try to succeed. Similarly, the absurdities that corrupters promote can never accomplish what they want, so they get more determined in their effort to succeed at the impossible.

Correct (constructive) methodology removes those corruptions from existence. Using the right methodology will always move constructivity forward. In fact, that is exactly why corrupters avoid proper methodology. They don't want to get to a justifiable result; they want to prevail by dominating other persons which is always destructive.

The methodology of rationality is to relate to all surrounding realities that are relevant by explaining claims. Doing that is a mechanical, objective process which does not impose any particular conclusion. It allows each person to decide what the resulting conclusions should be. Generally, the conclusions are obvious, but they are not imposed.

Even if a person knows nothing about a process, to use the rationality procedure is fool-proof in clarifying the limitations. To describe relationships to objective reality for what one does know, regardless of how little, clarifies the limitations and does not impose anything.

Under conditions of rationality, the quality of reality continually increases. It doesn't have to get to any end point; it simply increases in quality with every description of related, objective realities. If someone has a correction or improvement to make, it adds to the result.

That's because the objective realities of the universe define life and solutions to problems. The human responsibility is to align human existence upon the objective realities of the universe. Humans are not sources of realities for that purpose. Humans can have subjective concerns; but they are supposed to be personal and out of the social domain.

When corrupters do none of that, they are destroying the human process of solving problems, which results in replacing constructivity with destructivity for their own benefit at everyone else's expense. Yet corrupters assume they are superior persons, because they know the right way to succeed in life as winners. Being winners means degrading other persons.

Opinions have a slight place in the rationality process. Sometimes it becomes necessary to add an opinion when insufficient evidence exists for objective realities. Then the basis for the opinions becomes relevant in determining reliability. Knowledge is needed for reliable opinions.

Of course, opinions go far beyond necessity, even in semi-rational standards, as people try to promote something. With clearly defined circumstances, the opinions can be taken for whatever they are worth.

There is a high tendency for incompetent scientists to promote their opinions as scientifically worth something. There needs to be a lot more skepticism about scientific opinions.

Real scientists do not express much for opinions outside evidence based descriptions; and since the general public does not usually understand the evidence, there is not very good communication of science in society, while incompetents and frauds tend to speak for scientists, prevent real scientists from criticizing and shove real criticism out of existence.

That's why the fakery of greenhouse gases became unquestionable consensus in spite of the ridiculousness of one molecule in 2,500 in the atmosphere destroying the planet. None of the related realities are explained for such frauds, which is why corrupters have know-nothings do the telling—they aren't expected to explain.

Judgement is needed to determine relationships between realities; so the result might look like opinions. But there is a lot of difference. When the purpose is to align upon objective realities, the degree of success can be taken for whatever it is worth based on evidence. In fact, when descriptions are objective, evidence becomes recognizable.

In other words, opinions are not just bad guesses at objective reality; the whole process is different in promoting opinions. The surrounding realities and evidence are ignored, when opinions replace rationality.

All elements of corruption are included in using opinions to replace objective realities, such as imposed values, clipped communication (such as "on par with coal") and subjectivity as personal impositions.

With explanations focussing on objective realities as surrounding realities, even if getting claims wrong, proper methodology is established, so corrections can be made.

The methodology of rationality includes creating and applying laws. Conservatives ridicule the application of laws to their criminality saying it is nothing but politics; and they retaliate with subjective values. They assume imposition of subjectivity and values is superior to the use of laws required for creating ordered existence.

The reason why rational persons create laws is the reason why corrupters assume the laws are invalid. Laws prevent corrupters from destroying life, while corrupters assume the purpose of laws is to prevent them from succeeding. For corrupters, the concept of succeeding requires destructivity, which translates into rightness for corrupters in their quest dominate, prevail and destroy enemies to be winners.