Science misrepresents the object of its study as something independent of theory, then it asserts the theory (an abstraction) as the knowledge of that object, which begs the question.

Science is semantically inconsistent at every step of its operation, and is qualitatively no different to the magic of the Stone Age shaman. It only ‘works’ if you already believe it.

The nominal past/history changes continuously, as a matter of logical necessity. There is no ‘true’ past, but only an idea of the etiology of the ‘present’ ideas, which we call ‘the past’ in an act of semantic inconsistency. https://philpapers.org/rec/KOWTT

Nobody needs a permission or a mandate to do what is right, nor can a mandate create the authority to do what is wrong.

Nothing can be inferred about the probability/risk for any specific individual from population-level statistical data, except if all individuals in the population are identical. Randomised controlled studies construct the abstraction of an ‘average individual’ and then apply that abstraction to different individuals, which is nonsense. Specifically, knowing that random selection from a given group has X probability of identifying an individual with a condition G does not imply that every individual in that group has X probability of developing G, or that all individuals have X probability of developing G. Medical doctors nevertheless routinely assert this nonsense.

I am sure the ruling power has good reasons to tell the little people about Epstein and how corrupt the ruling power is.

Double-negation has the sense of negating (opposing) the negation: p ≡ ¬(¬p). To deny double-negation-elimination (the opposite of the opposite of p is just p) is to deny the sense of negation. Negation is essential to thought, hence to deny double-negation elimination is to deny thought. Another way: to negate/oppose the negative is to affirm, or else the concept of negation/opposition is inconsistent.

Edit: if I reject the premise that ¬(¬p) does not imply p, then to reject my rejection does not imply an affirmation of ‘¬(¬p) does not imply p’, therefore implies nothing relevant; it is not a counter-argument but a non-sequitur.

To deny that not(not-p) is p, implies that it is not p and it is not not-p, therefore is z and not-z, where z=not-p, therefore contradiction.

Evidence-based is nonsense

Any assertion of ‘evidence’ is a confession of the incapacity to prove. If you cannot prove what you assert, then you are absolutely ignorant, utterly dependent on forces that you do not even conceive of and cannot control. Whatever you cannot prove (that it cannot be otherwise, or else contradiction) is pure subjectivity, it is made up, even if you can persuade others to believe in it. Evidence is mythology, epistemically irrelevant. Life is mythology.

The laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle and identity in plain English:

Nothing both is and is not, [non-contradiction]
neither is nor is not, [excluded middle]
or is what it is not. [identity]

All three forms have the same underlying sense:

not(is and not-is)
not(not-is and not(not-is)), therefore not(not-is and is)
not(is that and is not that), therefore not(is and not-is)

Another way:

The opposites do not make up a whole.
The opposites of the opposites do not make up a whole,
The opposites are not a whole.

All three forms reduce to: the opposites cannot be unified.

The 'three laws' are just one law

The foundation of your enslavement is the idea that being is independent of meaning, that it is something given, already determined, rather than created as an idea and ritualised by mass persuasion. Belief is slavery.

Science is never settled primarily because politics in science is never settled.

Aliens are logically impossible. Extraterrestrial ‘life’ is logically impossible. Anyone in the Gov claiming the knowledge of aliens is lying. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-alien-life-forms-are-impossible

All the celebrity tech CEOs are just PR representatives of the ruling power, fulfilling its strategic aims. Nothing they publicly say is their original thought, but a corporate noscript they are given to recite.

Someone with an IQ of 150 is far more proficient at persuasively defending their delusions than a person of an average IQ. The majority is thus passively persuaded to act as if the delusions of the intellectual elite were ‘common sense’.

The government (a terrorist organisation that controls your area) will give you instructions in case of critical emergency. Psst… aliens are logically impossible.

The conclusion that follows from the premises is always ‘baked into’ the premises. This is just what implication means, and the function of proof is to make that which is implicitly ‘baked in’, explicit.

The distinction/non-identity of countable units is preserved by the difference of their identification/position in the set, and thus does not require different symbols to express their count: 1+1+1 has the sense of p+q+r, where each term is a distinct unity, therefore 1p+1q+1r. When algebraic addition is concerned with the count of the terms of the unit-class (arithmetic), the differentiating terms are omitted and only the count of units is retained, hence 1+1+1, or {1, 1, 1}, which is defined as 3. All algebraic addition reduces to the unit-class.

Unity is irreducible, a fundamental property of identity, therefore sense. Every instance of consciousness is a unity.

The proposition p→(¬p→q) [*2.24, and its equivalent at *2.21 of Principia Mathematica] is formally correct, but it cannot be consistently interpreted as ‘from contradiction anything follows’, or that ‘contradiction implies any proposition’, because with the contradiction being asserted, the connective ‘implies/follows’ loses its sense. From contradiction nothing follows; contradiction has no sense (non-sense/null) and is the end of the logical evaluation. By definition of implication, the above form is equivalent to p→¬(¬p∧¬q), therefore ¬(p∧¬p∧¬q), therefore (p∧¬p)→q, or (/)→q, which is equivalent to (/). Any instance of non-sense (/) is equivalent to every instance of non-sense: it is just non-sense (/). Another way, it does not makes sense to say that ‘contradiction «implies», as this statement itself implies contradiction.

Measles is healthy, actually.

Human health cannot be decoupled from the endemic viral challenges under which it evolved. Prevention of the natural interaction with the virome must be considered contrary to health and likely to have severe evolutionary consequences, whereas endemic infections, being statistically normal, are by definition healthy.