New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler - Letter to the Colleagues

Dear Researchers of the World, Adolf Hitler Researchers and Others

There may be news for the Adolf Hitler Research for how the ugly things started to happen. As usual, I write to you in the hope that you like it, that you find it useful, with 5 contributions to Mensa (DE), setting me at 190+.This is a tip, an informal message.

New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler research - Causes to his rise: After much investigation into human nature, especially lying, and psychiatric issues, mSomatism too, I find that Adolf Hitler may have come to power mainly out of 2 causes:

1. The lack of personal weapons in the German population. I bet with Wild Wild West, that most U. S. Americans would have one or more personal weapons at this point, also rifles (lever action incl.). 

2. There would be the special rule in navel-gazing Germany (we're BIG, 40-50 millions, whatever) that would allow anybody who could gather a larger mass of people and claim power by this gathering, that he (man dominant, sorry women) would win Germany and become the leader of the nation.

Extra: at the same time, big Germany has its many affiliations elsewhere, also suppressed by the settlement with France that costed heavily. That they aired thoughts with the U. S. Americans, still with their weaponry and good at it too. Excited with some approval, the Germans begin to pick up on crazy ideas, still due to the lack of personal weapons in their population, allowing much insanity to happen, under under-paid police. So the Germans report back to homeland from New York, with only the crazy ideas, "because only these ideas work with us, or that, "you corrupt Germans... well, well, you can talk to them", while massive people showed up with an ever-idiot A. Hitler "because he was friend with everybody".

So with the failure to reason behind the personal weapons of many, and consequently without the power to assassinate the crazy people too, Adolf Hitler takes power and coarse political rhetoric takes hold, "the Jews are to blame", plus others, "we're the best in the World", "we are HUGE, we take over the World", or whatever.

Conclusion: not only corrupt forces like that. No, the lack of personal weapons has made the German people inclined toward the corrupt mind, and that other factors made this inclination/disposition cascade/gather force so for Germany to make many idiot-mistakes, many that lead to dubious invitations, to fx. Henry Ford and others, and set crazy-Nazi-Germany ready for WAR! Insanity evidently most clear! Agree?

Before you "send this out": I have made "Financial Radicalism" and "Tri-Sturm-S", plus a bit.

Yours sincerely,

L. F. Olsnes-Lea

(Norway)

PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power.

Hitler Research - Warning!

Given the new research on Hitler by the period between World War I and World War II, I can safely state that to object to other people's security "is to lick Hitler's a*s most intensely" and he can't be known for cleanliness along with his taste for carnage/carnal taste.

To ending up intensely doing something under Hitler's a*s may be considered a considerable loss of intellectuality! You may very well be considered to have no say in the World at all. Alternative H*ll/purgatory?

PS (outside letter more): The letter must be considered sent to the UN with strong encouragement for arming the World populations to greatest degree, in order to live up own UDHR, especially, Article 3. The right to (decent) life... (This is not entirely what the article says.) - 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ - "Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."! Hurry! Make haste! (For progress to happen and severe cases of people being treated... not fairly...)

Hitler is not a Christian. The reading of Christian Dube, a German, who has written about Hitler's speeches in the most linguistically analytical way!

Reasoning:
Report on Hitler's Speeches by Christian Dube, (loosely, excuse me) The Religious Language in Adolf Hitler's Speeches

While Hitler is good in using God (even in terms of this "white" by "telepathy" or thereof), I object to Hitler being religious on these grounds:

His deluded use of God (Gott) 41 - 11 positive.

Other, selected:
The Bible, only in 1940, 5 counts. (Bibel)
Christianity, only in 1935 and 1937, 5 + 1 respectively (Christentum)
Christian, only in 1935, 1939, 1940, 2 + 1 + 2, only (christlich)
...
No, I only believe in devotion to the Superhuman Nazi and that the "white" bankvaults to be ready to consume "idiot" human and lay down flat with animal nature, New York, possibly, receiving "Auschwitz" ready for "waste". Utter crazy Nazi-Germany readified!

I am capable of reading the most advanced and sophisticated German now. There is no room!

Somehow, the Hindenburg airship has become a motivator for all sorts connected to pre-World-War II !

Other striking words: heiligen, Heiligkeit, Katholik/en, katholisch, kirchlich, Protestant/en, Reformation (Rev. M. Luther), theologisch... ! No Abraham's people possible for Hitler. He sacrifices EVERYTHING, with his deluded words to his Reich-followers!

Himmel must also in. 1 count, 1940.

Besides, Under Hitler and under Unemployment here on my blog.

I may be entitled to have solved ALL Critical Theory by a suggested solution to A. Hitler's way to power and Nazi-Germany as read about in history books.

So I do this NOW! (And by this contribution, I'm awarded quite a bit of honour in European history of thinking!) Thanks for the attention.

I remind people of the awful (European) shame that's implied by failure to act in this context. Much with Sir Neville Chamberlain and his successor, WE NEED TO ACT WITH CLARITY OF LEADERSHIP AND BROADLY, much like in the early days of Labour movement, i.e., the need for mobilisation of the military to equip the people toward Human Rights, universally, for being able to present character to other countries as well.

Other: I may d*mn well accept 100 % Un-employment if logcis fail to take hold/get to the relevant heads!

Moving the society into action for getting all people equipped toward Human Rights (expressed as Universal Agenda by UN, given the UDHR), we have 3 options:

1. Getting the army mobilised directly, securing the equipment to the population.

2. Using the Labour and Employer organisations in shoving the army into action by mass-shutdown of production, giving the national assembly the order to get it done, using the army or not, in "war"-general sense, all people into the mix.

3. Labour and Employer again, but this time by mass-demonstrations and mass-"bombardment" to the Internet message groups, email lists, all and all, leading to the same result as above.

Equipment: yes, minimally 1 pistol/revolver per home, + optional non-lethal weapons, 2 or 1 only, pepperspray or tazer.

This text is implying a further general availability to the people for rifles, shotguns, combi-rifles, revolvers, pistols, peppersprays, tazers and stun-guns by weapons/sports shops.

The Question of Personal Weapon and Personal Security - UDHR Article 3

There's a question to NRA (National Rifles Association) if they are supporting the World in acquiring weapons for all, making it law or making it a Right in their nation...

I expect them to give an affirmative and that they are therefore in-line with the State Department. I want to write this as a heads-up for UN and most/all other nations in expecting a given behaviour from USA in aftermath of "Financial Radicalism" charges to Nazi-Germany, in making their efforts to improve the World, also in terms of humanism/human rights/humanistic progress.

So it goes:
* U. S. (American) State Department gives its public statement for the normative personal weapons rights to everywhere in the World
* So does the NRA.
* So does the UN.
* And Pentagon plays with it, displaying the use of the personal weapon.

This is inline with the sales, Worldwide, of the non-lethal weapons. That USA owes us, outside its nation, these efforts, until we too have achieved it, as far as possible.

In short, I WANT/RECOMMEND MUCH CAMPAIGNING for all and everywhere, having suggested the (mobilised) army to take part, over a 14 days period. Remember that this is about the decent family life for everyone. If not decent families, then life everywhere maybe broken DOWN!

Note: That to mention the (central) Article 3 of the UDHR doesn't necessarily entail only one article. No, the consequences are thought to influence, critically or not, many/all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association, note on singular vs. text above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Department.

This also connects with explanations of universal duties from and to one-another and in being human one-self and bringing this humanity to others as well, from old, "making other people able to _hold_ the Bible" themselves too"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_values.

Please, remember the important Universality Principle of Ethics.

The Case for USA above Europe and Everywhere Else

1. Industry production (by reliability also) is high in USA, entailing healthy, functional people with beliefs in their society.

2. I understand the corrupt minds very well and how the guilt from failure to duties abroad influxes into USA on the "macro-scale".

3. USA has now carried out a large social welfare reform gently moved in, to remove much contradiction inside its nation in terms of Human Rights. Importantly too, the legal system ... allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police.

Sub-point ("reiteration"): Insecurity (by physical insecurity, "a door open") as insistence to the neighbour, universally, can have dire, negative consequences.

3. Importantly too, their legal system has higher standing in terms of crime, allowing the citizens autonomy and initiative to react to deeply upsetting criminial scenes in the public and not in particular fear either to tip the police and for deeper intuitions of decency, dignity and human worth (than in Europe, elsewhere, hence the "necessity" of "meatshops", crime you can't talk about, the "necessity" of torture, etc.).

To cut the usual "smile of idiocy" from European thinking, that the Universality Principle of Ethics as safety-webbing is easily DESTROYED if one sits there trying to say that the Principle and Insecurity to the neighbour (with a possible disposition of acceptance by torture to the neighbour) by refusing to accept the personal weapons (max. 5?) and non-lethal weapons to ALL, denying these bloated psychiatrists these aloof statements over sanity as THEY have allowed "vampires to walk in broad daylight", like "educated torturers" and serial-killers, 10 or more!

The academic usual at the end: Instantly, I submit to the Objectivity and more powerful arguments if they exist as well as the best data-sets to these (academic) matters of political science/legal forensics.

The court issues: theology and psychiatry are traditionally alike banned from the courts in terms of presenting Legal Objectivity. They are only, especially psychiatry now, allowed to enter for testifying as experts to a given (narrow) aspect.

In addition, legal blindness is the Cardinal Sin that condemns either of the acting parties of the court, including the judge. (The judge is continuously under the duty to not become legally blind, i.e., corrupt or "insane".)

Corruption analysis - given the fact that the population lacks (personal) weapons, also the non-lethal, the lack of legal system journalism/crime journalism (CNN does in fact have a "Justice"-section under its U.S. edition) and use of threats against the population to extended degrees, widely and deeply. Then the subconscious aspects by this, assessed by non-carnivore-psychologists, the ethical assessments to how much mental burden this implies.

Let us say that the lawyers'/barristers' is "governing" prior to this analysis of corruption in the World as premise. We get:

1. Lawyers/barristers (repr. The Lawyers Association, see special English name)
- who are:
the lawyers/barristers
judges (also the divide between former police-lawyers vs. the barristers/(U.S.) lawyers of finances/banking)

2. The police (w/ the police lawyers)
- who are:
The police (3 years or less of college education)
The prison guards, the prison authorities (same)
The customs (same)
Scotland Yard/FBI/Equivalent
The internal affairs/Special affairs for police corruption/misconduct
The finances authorities
The credit exchange authorities
The data-information authorities
Postal- and tele-communication authorities

3. The military - parts or much people, unknown

4. The physicians association - parts or much people, unknown

Legal blindness defined: in the courts, psychiatrists/psychologists and theologians, please, make the confirmation with history books (for yourself to be convinced, straight), are not to make any particular judgment on matters of right and wrong, legally. They are held outside entirely, down to being ordinary people for this aspect. So the truth is that "legal blindness" has its own special standing in the courts for making the correct ruling, the dutiful parties, first and foremost, judge and two lawyers/barristers. Psychiatrists/psychologists and theologians are only called in for expert statements/assessments/verdicts and that this is told to you given very special considerations over "power in the courts" for the benefit of the entire population it serves.

So when this is being read, this must be considered to relate to a special type of autocracy-/despotism-rule that results from POWER-FIXATED (first and foremost in physical sense - brutal violence, torture, weapons, threats, everything) people who act in what most people name a democracy, given the media reports "of shining weather and happy faces"!

So for the two dots in history, span or not, given the pan-out, you can figure out the very time-relation yourself, the French state-terrorism and the rise of A. Hitler to POWER!

Note that Europe has no particular weapons history for the weapons in its general population after the swords and spears have been put on the heap. Especially for Germany, this must present itself absolutely... serious? That they have special incentives for acting unless utter shame? Thus, I may be correct, right?

While we're waiting to stand up _by_ the gun, here's the "Under the gun" by The Sisters of Mercy as inspiration. - "To fire at will...!"

All political attempts man_dated for as appropriate!

One version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XozUZF3ml5w - Ehh, good blood?

Regarding Elie Wiezel, all respects, in Aftenposten, 2014-01-27, also being of North European descent through several hundred years (esp. 1900 – 1946 and Nuremberg), I’ll choose instead the more factual route for now by “USA Theory”, so to speak, computer-simulating (by USA data-set, inviting both mathematicians, Applied Mathematics and Wolfram, the program) a possible other destiny for our uneducated Hitler, setting necessary Kripke lines by 1925 and 1933 up to 1939.

(Holding of course on to two others, the non-lethal weapons and the neuro-meters, unsettling to read L. Ron Hubbard’s “0 – 8 The Basics” and the Ethics tone scale!)

By my investigations into the corrupt minds:
The main sentiment for "Weapons to the Population" is that it is easier "to take a bullet" than to endure (threats of) torture!
Implicitly then, by these weapons, the instances of torture are (significantly) reduced!
This is inline with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in "Stopping the torture"!

Mind you also how torture plays a bigger part in both generating widespread mental burdens by only one instance and how torture "helps" generating the corrupt minds, also in being a significant threat (to family life).

The "Hitler Direction" is the direct, overhanging threat to the World yesterday, today, tomorrow and until we have finished it off by its existence!

Over the Perfect Employment in the World and the Story of Hitler (more...)

By S5 modality logics, one CORRUPT decision leads to "5 others", necessarily the monster arises...! (In God's name...)

Here on the Blog, these together:
What is Written...: Against Unemployment
What is Written...: New Theory for the Rise of Adolf Hitler - Letter to the Colleagues
What is Written...: Psychiatry and the Modified Somatist Position
What is Written...: The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science

The Human Being of Law - The Legal Duties of the Future

One should remember that the divide between right and wrong, is by some people considered the start of civilisation and that this effort stands on top of history that extends more than 2000 years of human thought and anguish for the missing steps up here. As this is noted, we start:
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system.

2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.

3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM, of the science, and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.

4. Legislation is on top. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak.

Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for securing best-practice legal work.

You should note my point on Gödel, the German logician, in Phil. Notes, that this text  leaves no room. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for.

Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak). Thus, this comes natural.

I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for the dubious parts of the World)...

I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you need legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.

When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information, by the privacy laws, as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.

Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services. Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again. Extra efforts should be made to secure system for this, that doesn't fall to crime/corruption.

A possible interpretation by myself of the original 9th Amendment from the Constitution of USA:
How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute.

This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost).

Remember still, though, that Law Enforcement has to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going.

Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.

An inevitable list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:

1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism, that is, "monkey business", of "energy problem", as fixation or modus operandi, from the lunatic is here addressed specifically.

2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past. Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.

3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.

4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.

5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.

This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)

The difference between de jure legal person/human being of law is key in this text, as should be clear to all, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by www.brreg.no. On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is novel in legal theory, that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"!

The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, www.brreg.no ): well, well, it relates to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and_corporation_by_estoppel.
The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/opinions-on-philosophy-of-law-maybe-bit.html.

Term: person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
See also: corporation party - from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516.
I add the Norwegian terms just for the possibility of misinterpretation to become zero. There is also a slight development of language that I'd like to address:
Juridisk person.
Fysisk person.
(Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)

Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.

There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.

For the legal systems to progress further from this year, 2013, as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have lied most blatantly!"

Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).

Practical example for the common societies:

On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,

Start
Go www.google.com/search
Do

has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"

Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.

Some practical implications for the highest legal matters, the military and the intelligence services:

A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22820711. That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!

Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism.

Advice to the public: You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...

Notes:
1. However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
2. I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.
3. This text is repeated so that it becomes more clear to people around the World. It also holds great importance to all of humanity and may imply a historical shift in near future.
4. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
That my work in it has effectuated: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the full extent of these to the  people's benefits. See specific text for best wording (above, else).
5. I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and that I know this is worthy for the Nobel Prize of Literature or the Peace Prize in the extended sense, people relying on the future of humanity.
6. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!

References:
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.

--------------------------

A sub-note to The Human Being of Law is this, as matter of underlying support, given the complexity of the nature of human being and much ground to improve on, legally:

[Text to the attacks on "The Stranger": ]

Additional Considerations to the "Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers", also known as "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple.

Under John Lennon's Imagine still, a sharing of story between two friends occur, of the dangers of the World and how to solve them, specifically the ones described by "The Stranger" by Camus. At the time of writing this could have been under "Hey Jude", Beatles, too, but this reference has been beyond me at the time.

The story we speak of is a loose version of the text to follow, Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers (not homosexual here, but rather in the sense of two male friends who may happen to double-date time and again, i.e., perfect lovers). With notions of "flow psychology", not entirely described as flow psychology at the time and feeling a great rush of history reading, "of flying on oceans of time", I write:

[No room (for them)/"instant"] Full organs, The Stranger isn't the Bible. Full guitars blow! [Maximum power.]

The text without the vocalisation of the above, but there by assumptions.

The text,
[Text, ending with vocal "end-signature": Perfect lovers slash perfect strangers]
After text, it should be noted that as a friend to friend "trick", in finding a friend to stay with, one is asked to consider "Perfect Lovers slash Perfect Strangers" as a slider that one seeks to improve, at least as a matter between oneself and the other person.

"Go!" ("The Stranger" no more?)

A note on psychology, with "Don't talk to strangers", Karl Marx forgets that estrangement from the means of production, fails the higher target of ensuring non-estrangement of human kind, that McCarthyism in ousting communism succeeds in three, 3, targets, the human rights, the democracy and the psychology to go, human being to human being. It's complex to be find the best line for human beings and the story of the human being, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens extend some 200 000 years by loose memory. Check yourself, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU.

Marked by Christianity, McCarthyism wins through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy, USA withholding both Religion and personal weaponry while ousting Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel).

The French are now up to the arms in Pierre Duhem and Christianity and Family, Monarchy and France, while "Abolition" has to leave the scene for the next 100 years at least, by my own estimate. Death penalty, by Payment Slips Laws (slip laws) and common-sense punishment of criminals, should be in everywhere, for the same 100 years, give or take some.

France going at its matters, USA and World (France incl.) may take on a new kind of corruption fighting by McCarthyism 2.0, a much more refined McCarthyism that has "the right people with it", like the broader, transparent set-ups of "Citizens' Commissions of Law and Order" and wide public coverage (avoiding hysteria and foul play at the same time).

The World is encumbered by many issues, but with USA at a headstart, I've encourage EU, China and Japan to rush the same way too, leaving the bug(g)s (as in sandbogs) of corruption behind.

This text only speaks for the rare or moderate uses of the death penalty.

There is no neck-over-head pro-death penalty from myself to this, The Human Being of Law, that also has to comply with "Accordance-Realism-Pragmatism-Utopianism" (ehhh... Utopianism in the scope of 200+ years) of Political Theory.

The Human Being of Law - Definition

The use of "The Human Being of Law" in this context refers to an ideal of the human being and the fact that this particular achievement does the following: it represents "The Theoretical Legal Guarantee for Being the Human Being" in such terms that now Rule of Law and the legal systems will always provide the reach for achieving the best of human kind in terms of the ideal of The Human Being, of Humanity, and that this is as big as it's possible to get in Science of Law, the Legal Sciences!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Science_of_Law.
Doctor of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence: From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.

Legal philosophy has many branches, with four types being the most common. The most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law, ranging from contract to tort to Constitutional Law. Legal encyclopedias, law reviews, and law school textbooks frequently contain this type of jurisprudential scholarship.

The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The purpose of this type of study is to enlighten each field of knowledge by sharing insights that have proven to be important in advancing essential features of the compared discipline.

The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law itself. These questions seek to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural underpinnings of a particular legal concept. The Common Law (1881), written by oliver wendell holmes jr., is a well-known example of this type of jurisprudence. It traces the evolution of civil and criminal responsibility from undeveloped societies where liability for injuries was based on subjective notions of revenge, to modern societies where liability is based on objective notions of reasonableness.

The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more abstract questions, including, What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?

Four schools of jurisprudence have attempted to answer these questions: formalism proposes that law is a science; realism holds that law is just another name for politics; Positivism suggests that law must be confined to the written rules and regulations enacted or recognized by the government; and naturalism maintains that the law must reflect eternal principles of justice and morality that exist independent of governmental recognition.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

Mine: Formalist!

Formalism is by this realised by conventions of linguistic science and the Conventionalism of Poincare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventionalism.

See for instance Formalism by Martin Stone in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law by J. Coleman and S. Shapiro, OUP, 2002, repr. 2004.

My "Human Being" presides over these notions from history describing human as animals. As a start for exposing this literature, I've chosen to start with Aristotle's Politics where humans are being described as political animals in what I see as the start of a plan to make a structure for the transition of humans from animalistic humans to human beings. Aristotle lives in 384 to 322 BCE in (Ancient) Greece.

Recommendation, The Human Being of Law:

I recommend that the people who go away "in" suicide can do so with legal silence, i.e., the laws concerning the suicide victims themselves must be erased/abolished for not being valid anymore (or enter legal sleep).

This follows the logic "after the Bible" so to speak, that a person is either admitted "in" to "herb" euthanasia/suicide or offered credible/definite protection against the attacks on this person's belief (in God) or adviced to seek suicide elsewhere "with blessings to go", so as to not condemn anyone "with a heart of malice or any else thereof".

The Legal Context:
The laws are abolished/erased by traditional approach as 1st step. Then the next steps are to make the case for more formal euthanasia/social code suicides, in dignity, by understanding the hardship some people go through and leaving life in escaping it all, as should be plain, death being the highest price to pay (and not for these "psychopaths" to seek torture in full before the last breath on Earth).

The Religious context:
In a sense, this above text provides a 3-Options respectful approach to people of (deep) despair, one of which is most desirable, to be able to protect the fellow human being of religious faith ...foremost.

Thus, at least for a start, this person of despair is requested to seek a person (inside Church) worth of trust.

Formalism as project toward book can be given this title:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

"Inner note": Formalism is to be known publicly:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!

Formalism admits NO deficiencies to other aspects of Jurisprudence and Phil. of Law.

"In citing the Martin Stone article of Formalism by Oxford Handbook, as above/former."

The Human Being of Law
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.

Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)

(This is a new position to be known in the World, as with Accordance Realism-Pragmatism-Utopian.)

In addition, time in logics can be solved like this:
Predicate logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
Sentential logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...

(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...)

Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal...

Frame logics for time, doing it properly/by stiff structure, the logical schema is presented by the below,

UoD: Everything (by default) for all frames/both frames.
t(1):
t(2):
t(x, as many as needed...)
[The declared list, general/definite, i.e., by predicates x and singular r, s, t, u, all that's needed from a to u, as usual.]

Argument, Frame 1 - Code: Fx. the murder, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(1): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame 2 - Code: Fx. time elapsing after, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(2): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Argument, Frame X - Code: Fx. time all else, time so and so, including year, possibly, all legal reasoning entailed, physics reasoning for physics, etc. ["Heh-heh-heh", also for the political attempt]
t(X): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]

Warning!
To think that "any legal system walks", failing the Police Act and police instructions in rife manners, approving every state crime and every criminal, prompts this:
"The condition of our legal system has coerced me into these killings. I'm without guilt. You are the atrocity, preventing everyone their rightful life!"

To say that the use of the word "torture", people to people, makes this only worse because "in one sense or thousands", the use of torture, secretly, moving in the bling of academic title after is d*mn FACT, a mere rope "as passion with the twisted mind looking for perfect evil"!

There is a worsening fact too now that the Human Being of Law has been established, making these failures to duties and lawful behaviour most evident!

"That violations of my Human Rights, Articles [xyz], UDHR/ECHR..."

The Legal Systems of the World - The "Developed" Countries

The definition of a legal system that defeats itself is one that promotes crime as acceptable/"allows crime openly" among the general population.

Because states/nations are acting like this, suppressing various alarming statistics, one being the instances of torture, the law-abiding/lawfully behaving citizens are pushed into being logical dissidents to their states/nations.

Their "weapons" as straight facts or not, at the disposal:
Betrayal in return (because the state/nation isn't...)
The political attempt (with many targets now)
All other demonstrating acts (as d*mn objection)... Everything...

(Examples of big failures: China and the one-child policy and WWF, with parts of Greenpeace or not, and their promise to deliver leadership by "national parks" that has turned to... 7,1 Bn people... much insect-culture on the planet...)

The World has entered a dangerous condition! (Black laughter or not!)

PS: The two largest human rights organisations make this no better, HRW (with the personal weapons) and Amnesty International (with European peace and law ideals)... always with "calm down" as one of the loudest responses... psychology concerns...!

PS2: Logicians looking for fuzzy logic expressions, police state (unwanted = 0) and democracy (wanted, maximally as idea into reality = 1). How is yours? (Rather than one of the "glider" expressions, one from one of my original accounts (2 exactly) on (D)Arpanet as newsservers/discussion boards.

To add strength to the World more:
All national assemblies are bound too, as much as the highest level courts are bound to laws and regulations and truth on a "no-mistake-basis" (also by "overturning principle" by the properly qualified lawyers). We write:

The laws are to work deeper and simultaneously strengthen the already existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the notion that any law can pass is only brain-hypothesis-entertainment with no value as such other than to entertain fantasies of "this and that"! (I.e., taken out and shot in being shameful!)

Police too, checked from all angles, the 3 perfect parts form democracy! With media serving the public, being the 4th, crucial parts being, for the time being, legal system reporting and reports on weapons, lethal and non-lethal, outside World too.

However... By police state and fuzzy logic:

To gain a reading of the police state as degree into your life and your view of society, effectively, you only need to "factor in" your own personal unrest/uneasiness/worries in order to have a clue of where to set the fuzzy logic value! Good?

The Humanistic Oath for Leaders!

There is this suggestion to require ALL LEADERS to lay down a humanistic oath, committing them to proper leadership in accordance with laws and regulations, incl. the Human Rights (ECHR/UDHR)! This may make all these leaders liable to harder punishment or harder sentencing in the Court of Law!

The above is logically placed, also, with "100 % Society", as ...
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/05/100-society-matter-of-political-science.html - The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science.
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/11/straight-addition-to-100-society.html - A Straight Addition to 100% Society - Philosophy of Politics.

On Terrorism - To kill a media hype. Proper use, please.

An analysis is forthcoming.

Who are the fake terrorists? Who are the real terrorists? We may list a history of terrorism in the future for a concept that's for sure a /narrow/ concept, i.e., only /rarely/ should it ever have the theoretical possibility for appearing at all, when used correctly.

Then we have the individual terrorists...

UNA bomber - explanation

McVeigh - explanation

Breivik - explanation

Boston bombers - explanation, indeed with the typical radical muslim beard to go, very long beard there, you fans of Jon Stewart show.

With terrorists appearing "magically" with an Al-Qaida-kit for terrorism and police Photshop-ped videos, declaring oneself enemy to all of human kind "because the police's opinion of the "terrorist" isn't one to speak of. They may have had a character, but police must turn it down /this/ time. "Let the future tell, police officer says." Besides, they should have the gone the usual psychiatrists' route "down" society and starting with the torture of kids and youth because then they become "safe", police says more, "but only on the black side"."

So this is it. I can't take more "magically appearing terrorists" declarations in media, only for the illusion of people taking on smugness.

You wouldn't touch the toe of their shoes unless it's HUGE for a country like USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism - Originally, terrorism = state terrorism (logical identity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army (in lack of political attempt, see political theory), also ANC, PLO, Black Panther, RAF, individuals, the holes inside laws and regulations for allowing ordinary people's rage against something terribly wrong. Just check yourself, the truly expert political science literature. Now possibly defined as "political activism by violence".

For the IRA, please, pay close attention to the box on the end of the article, citing several aspects to the IRA, Irish_Republican_Army.

Under Breivik and others:
If now it is proven that the police (for example in Norway) has contributed to a kind of "unreasonable culture" by police work, let's say, also by "tough interrogation methods" and "much apprehension", then I'd say this speaks for a type of higher legitimacy of attacking "lower" targets, like a youth camp by the Norwegian Labour Party.

Note (for "interested"):
One is still required to read the political theory to understand the "political attempt", FR: attentat, see also political violence, and how it is intended "to operate" in society, even tacitly under laws and regulations.

The reading requirement is also demanded from the "whelps" connected to Utoya, from the Breivik attack and the close ones to these. This is expert discussion and these "little ones" are simply not up for it! That I do not intend to take part in their (long) process of mourning.

The Notion of "Advocacy of Suicide"

The command of my language. Proper use more?

People can't advocate for crime because there are no laws and regulations for crime to advocate under. Therefore, advocacy of suicide is possible to some extent given that you are wording it correctly and mind the context to the proper limitations.

Therefore, I can justifiably write "advocacy for suicide by the right to die in dignity", such as being struck with terminal cancer and wanting to die from it at a hospice. One has no, by a malice of mind or other, the rightful demand to make people suffer awfully or beyond "reasonably"/mildly. This creates extra force to this notion of "advocacy of suicide" in this rightful sense.

The other, the "criminal advocacy for suicide" is a kind of honing for teasing people to do stuff that can kill them, only because one is able to detect that they may be a bit/more off the balance than people in the right mind, the more steady people. Given that life is hard and that many people go through a depressive phase, whether silently or not, the police strikes down on these cases and given a bit of a misleading naming by "advocacy of suicide" rather than "criminal encouragement/enticing to suicide" or "criminal advocacy of suicide" or "...to suicide".

Good? Proper use message enhanced?

Criticism of Kuhn's Paradigms - Building Babel's Tower - Philosophy of Science - Star no. 3 over the 6 Nobel Prizes

Intro: I am happy to present you Star no. 3 of 3 stars over all the 6 Nobel Prizes, including Literature, also as science, and Peace, as Political Science. Economics isn't questioned really for being science, probably mostly referred to with being made up of Mathematics. Some may also add that I've destroyed Thomas Kuhn's book, but I am also, as with Kuhn, born into time and build on the work of others.

Introduction (to this argument itself) and Argumentation.

This is the case for Cumulativism in the expression of Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology, (ICT).

It's clear to me that if the Paradigms of Kuhn are supposed to be true, they have to be logically equivalent. I believe Kuhn states that one isn't able to choose rationally any Paradigm, you are more or less drawn into one by all sorts of strange reasons whether they be feelings, social connections or what. You have this Ptolemaic System. Is this supposed to be equivalent to Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Copernicus' Heliocentric Worldview? It's obvious they are not equivalent. It's also obvious the various worldviews hold different cognition based on different assumptions and observations. Let me add the technological development that has made extensions to our eyes, like the Hubble telescope.

It's therefore established that these K. Paradigms are "chosen" or chosen relatively closely temporally. In this, one first problem is to come up with something at all. Each of these are also building on assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation. Maybe we get 2 or 3 "Paradigms" to choose from. As these Paradigms are considered, elaborate testing is going on, perhaps coming up with something.

Today, what are our options in choosing from paradigms? We have perhaps these 2 or 3 theories in quantum physics. I sense that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! This means competition is open. We can't certainly begin to doubt observations in space and come up with a different astronomical worldview. We have to say that technology nails something for us. Again I point to advances in other fields that are not actually considered by these scientists in this paradigm.

Conclusion: We have this giant landscape in science (2009) where advances happen all over. Scientists are connected by the internet to exchange agreements, thoughts, and differences of opinion. They are probably expecting new technology and checking for relevant work done elsewhere on Earth and ISS, all-other-wise. There are, I guess, numerous problems in science currently that are being investigated like the dualism of photons and what have you. Then, it's impossible to determine any single paradigm because everything is interconnected and is developed in unison everywhere. It's impossible to make an incision around particular efforts as a consequence. The "community" lives and dies together. Besides, as I see it, today, most disagreements are theoretical and thus not subject to empirical testing. How is Kuhn doing? I think he looks bleak!

Further: In the case of the Paradigm of Einstein's Relativity, shouldn't one acknowledge both Einstein and Riemann on it? As I've pointed out, it's impossible to make a "jump" in time and come up with our science, let's say, 500 years ago or 2500 years ago. This should be blatant and clear! I thereby come up with a second conclusion, that we are in effect "climbing a mountain, science-wise" or "scaling that Babel's tower, science-wise". I think I can say that we know that back in time, people have been more wrong or less objective than we are today, but this may have been necessary! It can't be said definitely, but the scope of the development through history lies there. A new theory of evolution, science-wise?

When I use the word "truth" in connection with paradigm, I mean of course that it's the concept of paradigm that's supposed to be true. I must be crazy if I say that the Ptolemaic worldview is supposed to represent truth, I mean of course, the paradigm.

One of my arguments here is that technology may be the whole engine of cognition and scientific progress. Does it matter to consider paradigms if the Ptolemaians have not had the chance, i.e. aids to see with, the corroboration of observations, to make the cognition that are required to become Copernicans (I may have left out some mathematics here and more). So you seem to have skipped the argument of the technological requirements of scientific progress. If it's technology that makes scientific happen, does it make sense to call it a paradigm? It's obvious that technology represents the inter-subjective.

Can you truly say that our future scientific progress doesn't have a broad inter-subjective, "objective", character in that everyone will recognise the right theory to believe in because it's technology that will decide those beliefs?

So all in all, I think it's better to see science as a whole doing gradual advances in the light of the development of "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, i.e. conceptualisation and speculation". All science is broadly based therefore only the scientist-spearheads make the mistakes while cognition of the best alternative is inevitable.

I also note that scientists are well aware they may be wrong! Isn't this counter to Kuhn who is asserting that scientists are blind when they are in a paradigm and that they die with it. Because the scientists die (of old age and whatever) and are those who are driving the paradigms, new paradigms emerge. Is this the case today? I think not. I fail to see that Kuhn is happy with underlying, historical work in explaining his paradigms.

I try to establish cognition as a function of history, especially in the sense of technology with writing "we have to say that technology nails something for us." I believe it's clear that technology isn't subject to paradigms.

A thought strikes that is already implicit. Kuhn can really be accused of crudeness in creating the paradigms because he's ignoring those processes leading to the paradigms in sufficiently thorough terms. Call my assumption contextualism or what you want, but it's derived from "assumptions of concepts, models - theories, and underlying, historical work whether this is mathematics, (naive) remarkable discoveries, development in technology such as telescopes, magnifying glass, general thinking of what reality should be, ie. conceptualisation and speculation". As Kuhn fails to deal with these processes properly, his argument of paradigms is an illusion.

The concept of paradigm is wrong, ie. first question. The science that makes up these "paradigms" is historically false, too, but at that stage in history, that science is still very reasonable. The current science is, of course, the best we have. You know there may be troubles if I use the word "objective".

I say there's definitely cognition in science when the theories are being tested (I don't want to go through the whole HDM and otherwise here) and in the meanwhile that advances in other fields, especially the development of technology, come into play and seal the deal cognitively. You admit that Kuhn makes a point of "strange reasons", but I say that in my argument there are no such "strange reasons" (I don't account for crazy scientists).

I believe Kuhn makes the point that scientists in a paradigm are blind, have no cognition, of advances that competing scientists make. Again, I take it further with technology, it's the technology which is definitely cognitive, that decide the cases where scientific progress can be made.

When I write "paradigms are not true" I intend to say that Kuhn's invention or use of the concept of paradigm in his theory or description of the structure of scientific revolutions is wrong or mistaken or faulty or an illusion. There's no doubt that Kuhn is serious with his book, but this is obvious! Otherwise, I'll do exactly what you have written! Thanks!

Note: Some people may point out that some paradigms happen as a function of "accidents" or unforeseen events. I'm thinking of penicillin or whatever, but I want people to have in mind that these investigative people have been through education and what (Einstein is a Ph.d. when he comes up with the relativity theory, not that it is an accident) and are usually in the process of rigorous research. These people, like Sir Alexander Fleming, are extremely attuned to pick up remarkable events. I don't think any such possible situation is weakening my attack on "paradigms", Kuhn's book. This is so because they are building on that foundation of assumptions that is historically set. I don't deny there are excellent scientists, but they are a part of history, "standing on the shoulders of giants".

I will work on the history of science part. We'll see where it gets. One start may be to draw in as much people as possible into the relativity theory as an example and also make an analysis of assumptions that have proved crucial to Einstein's work.

My point with the technology is simply to emphasise this, it's a blatant truth that some people work on astronomy and some on the substance of glass, i.e. telescopes. In this way, discoveries, the work on theories, in a wide sense, happen in an almost impossibly identifiable manner. So many people are involved in any field of science and continuously so as one field doesn't stop the other in times of less progress.

Copernicus has had a library at his disposal and it leads me to the notion of corroboration of observances. What has been the Ptolemaians' opportunity to systematise and archive their observations? There may be other angles into it. Just this also: Claudius Ptolemaeus, 90 A.D. - 168 A.D. and Nicolaus Copernicus, 19 February 1473 A.D. - 24 May 1543 A.D. Equal pre-conditions?

Along with the point that science, and so technology, is being developed all the time in every field, I think when it comes to the readily applicable technology, it's inter-subjective. The cognitive value of the Hubble telescope is striking. This makes me think that as soon as technology is developed, from that very other field of science, i.e. electronics and what else, that is used in astronomy for example, can decide scientific disputes quite easily. Let's think of x-rays in the case of a broken leg or something thereof. It's bad to say it this way, but I'm in difficulty of finding an outstanding example. I can also point to advances in computing power to the fields of science that can have great use of that.

I have no wish to say there's no theory in technology and that as such, it's just one theory to another. Still, the efforts are obviously broad as theoreticians working with logic in computer-circuits have no idea what the user end is. Similarly, scientists in remote areas may unknowingly work toward a common goal. The other side is that relative transparency in science allows scientists to check for better equipment and "methods" in the interconnectedness. I have the sense that when technology (the host of theories that underlie it) is brought in, one has a clear idea of its utility. (I should perhaps be more cautious here, but I take it from the use of scientific instruments in satellites.) May it be possible to create a giant scientific map of theories in every field and then calculate their upper boundary of discovery? That sounds like some Devil's work. I'm not sure if that's possible to calculate. If you use MRI in some cognitive science, you say that the theory of the MRI limits the cognitive science's aspect in this case, to create theory that is useful? Not only that but this is supposed to be some sort of "self-validation"? I think I disagree (strongly). Let's think of chemistry. If we use some sort of device to analyse chemical compounds, that is a case of self-validation? Even if we agree that the device is calibrated to detect some compound, it's use is not given in determining the world. This should be clear.

There's no chance in identifying one paradigm that isn't affected by the development in the other fields, concrete or abstract. The actual "paradigm" is so fundamentally connected to both the history leading up to this and the contemporary efforts in other fields that it's useless to bother calling it paradigm. There's no explanatory force beyond this particular problem that has gotten stuck and that the other fields of science lack the ability to make it unstuck, progressing. I may be inaccurate with the phases of Kuhn's here. Please, bear with me. However, the point is made.

As progress happens in every field and is thus broad, it's impossible to say which advances in which field will prove crucial to any other field. The applicability of discoveries is not for certain. Yes, I'm definitely looking for a better or simply more comprehensive and interconnected, i.e. different, historiography of science if it's possible to acquire.

This should be said, I rely on the cognitivity of science being worked with and that scientists are able to see the futility or success of their own theory, work. As you have pointed out, back in the old days, this probably has taken a whole lot of time and that people have perished before some decisive event would happen.

I think a "paradigm" in Kuhn's sense is the emergence of an important theory of science that people at that time view as "true", "reliable" or whatever thereof and that it's being worked on and corroborated, perhaps, with the additions of ad-hoc sentences or corrections. The period of the dominance of this theory is this "paradigm".

With the word "cognition" I mean "that which one can grasp or understand with one's mind". It should be fairly common. As for the choice of theory to work with I guess I'm a kind of Popperian, that if the theory one scientist is working with gets bashed, nulled by the work of others, this one scientist is very much able to understand it and shift the efforts to some other theory. Equally I think the opposite is true too. All in all, scientists are able to recognise their own and others' failures or successes in working with theories.

What I'm thinking of when I say that technology is cognitive, is that the results of using this technology definitely are inter-subjective, like looking at some kind of imaging, spectrograph, the rest. That there's no doubt about the utility of this technology.

Let's assume some scientists are working on glass and optics and some other scientists are working on astronomy. Now, the scientists working on glass and optics come up with an improved telescope. The scientists working on astronomy are wondering about the features on the moon or something and use this improved telescope. If the scientists working on astronomy get new knowledge from this, are we then supposed to consider this invalid because "the developments this theory (on the substance of glass and optics, basically mathematics) allows on the "right" theory of the features of the moon and thus that this constitutes "some sort of self-validation"? I must say that this is false! Are we supposed to doubt the mathematics expressed through glass? Can we predict the use of advances in science applied to all of nature? Definitely not!

It's obvious that technology relies on theory, but sometimes it may be a lot more pragmatic than f.x. a theory in astronomy or cosmology. The point is still the interconnectedness in all of science, more or less! As such, these considerations may not be new, but I've yet to see anyone making a good case for it, ie. historiography of science, an actual work published digitally or at least in paper, (multi-volume) book.

Necessarily, my attack on Kuhn includes that scientific revolutions and paradigms are considered pop-culture. The truth is that advances in science are gradual and progressive. At least, the data collected is clearly cumulative and perhaps corrected. It should be exciting to see what levels on can achieve in micro- and macro-scopes in the sciences. My exposition, view of scientific historiography, consists of the three factors, Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology (ICT). This will make the best explanation of the history of science and defeat Kuhn's theory of "Paradigms".

Concerning the status of paradigms through time, I have to admit that I'm wrong in equalling the paradigms regardless of time. Let me quote Kuhn from SSR, 3rd ed., chapter 9, p. 96: wrote:

Quote: "...After the pre-paradigm period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has in fact demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought..."

If I find more of these instances I'll quote them too.

The amount of data is in every matter considered independently of "paradigm" or phase of history of science you're in. If our perception of gravity changes significantly, it's no more gravity. It's something else. That is, it's the data that guide us in making appropriate concepts and descriptions. This may be seen as causal, but I think it represents something else. The word "gravitare" means to attract or so and it fits nicely the observation we have of seeing things fall to the ground. It sounds basic and I'll try to look for a better example or two.

From SSR 3rd ed. p. 96 about Normal science and cumulation:

Quote: "Normal research [as opposed to outside the specific paradigm], which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems..."

I think Kuhn mentions a number of times that in his theory, Normal science is cumulative. This is opposed to my view that science is overall cumulative in the data gathering.

As such, if it's only "normal science" that is cumulative then it should be indeed possible to claim that "paradigms" are equal in standing because previous gathering of sense-data and speculation are obsolete in Kuhn's language. This is abruptly wrong in my opinion. One only needs to look to the steady progress of technology to get a clue of this. Not only that, but I've made it a main point that science very much interacts with technology. Technology is, as we all know, just a different expression of science that is worked out in other fields than where it's applied, typically in the scientific experiments in this regard and usually decisively so.

Are the data thrown out? No! In the experiments that are taken to support the Caloric-theory, there are inaccuracies. These inaccuracies lead to misinterpretations and to the faulty conclusion. I think, if we carry out the experiments today in the same way they have been then, we should get the same data as in the past. Obviously, we look at those data very differently now than back then. We are probably able to identify where they have gone wrong and how the set of data may be corrupt or at least inaccurate. At times, I find that Kuhn isn't separating between the generation of experimental data and the inferred theories thereof. Rather the correct view should be that all sorts of experiments generate a data bank of past experience. If the experiments have been carried out correctly in the past with that technology and accuracy of the time then it's just to repeat them and we get the same data over again. Past experiments are inter-subjective or objective within the boundary of what they have available at that time. We continually use this history to position ourselves for the future, not to repeat ourselves.

Concerning the Ptolemy astronomy versus the Copernican astronomy. There are still these factors that may have contributed to the progress possible. One should have in mind that this is a period of 1300 years:
1. Increasing number of astronomers and people contributing to astronomy.
2. The formalisation of specific educational training of astronomers.
3. Increasing observation gathering incl. increasing documentation of observations, perhaps also more accurate.
4. The printing press is developed some 150 years ahead of Copernicus, further making his library of astronomy actual. There's also the development of writing equipment and the quality of paper itself.

There you have it. Has this been included in the account made by Kuhn? Not that I know of.

It says in "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" p. 17, Philosophy of Science - The Central Issues by M. Curd and J. A. Cover, "On some occasions, at least, tests are not requisite to the revolutions through which science advances. But that is not true of puzzles."

Kuhn makes a point in "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" implying that puzzle solving promotes science better than Popper's testing of hypotheses, but when Kuhn does this, he forgets that the actual astronomical observations can be tested against the explanation that best fits the picture of the set of observations. This is actually the case with the anomaly of Newton's system where the perihelion of Mercury has been out of line. The anomaly has been bothering astronomers all the time up to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. This is written on p. 85 of Donald Gillies' book, Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century.

This may be some of the reason why my criticism of Kuhn has been made possible. He has devoted himself in too great a degree to linguistic constructs and less to the objective facts concerning the actual scientific observations that in a sense represent Scientific Realism. This can partly explain his motivation to hold the Theory of Paradigms even if it's in fact been written appx. 8 years after 1. ed. of "The Structure".

Further: I've been reading Kuhn some more and I find this striking statement: Kuhn, SSR, p. x, Preface write: Quote: "Though subsequent events have somewhat relaxed those restrictions and have made possible simultaneous independent publication, this work remains an essay rather than the full-scale book my subject will ultimately demand." It's quite astonishing that the followers of Kuhn call his work definitive when he surely haven't bothered to finish it. This is written in February 1962 and Kuhn lives to 1996. It looks sloppy by Kuhn. I wonder how many excuses that are going to be made on the grounds that the book is unfinished. It makes me think of an analogy with the religious character of Jesus who can be said to be more holes than substance. At least, everyone can now see how the Complexity part falls into my pocket.

To make the distinction fully between Kuhn and myself and why my description has more use than Kuhn's, beside being true, is that with my theory of ICT it should be possible to determine the careful steps that lead to a successful theory in a complex picture of historiography of science rather than the very crude image given by Kuhn and his incomplete work, by his own words, of The Structure!

Preliminary notes follow.------------------------------

Kuhn, SSR, p. 4, writes:
Quote: "Nor does it make less consequential the particular constellation to which the group, at a given time, is in fact committed."

The sense of mine is here that Kuhn seems to incorporate this into his beginning paradigm of normal science where the alleged puzzle solving takes place in order to reveal anomalies to theory as science is developed. I like to draw a comparison to ancient Greek history and suggest that its scope certainly entails Einstein's work. What does this mean? I point out that one is dedicated to the best no matter what one's situation is. Therefore, I think, it's equally good to suggest that one is attacking the current theory as much as one is making confirmations to it. The message is that the observations are calling for the theory's future, whether one is "friendly" or "hostile" to it. It's my impression that Kuhn puts a great deal of theory-laden observations into his foundation of SSR, (clearly) to the extent that he blurs out the distinction between (experimental) observations and theory that's tested. As one knows, the theory is supposed to be defined in a way that makes testing possible, otherwise the experiment is useless or not an experiment at all. Does this mean that the ancient Greek have been committed to anything less than to the best of their ability? No, because they at that time needed more observations and the appropriate observations. Those, as we all know, haven't been achieved or developed, especially technically, before much later.

------------------------------

Some further writings of various kind.

I've been reading the article, "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?", before SSR has arrived from the bookstore. It's funny why Kuhn bothers to reiterate his puzzle solving and compare it against Popper's testing of hypothesis. It should be clear what Kuhn says before bothering to say that his view opposes Popper's.

It turns out that puzzle solving is formulated in ch. 4 of SSR. The very chapter is named "Normal Science as Puzzle-Solving".

Missing pieces in physics! Missing pieces in the other fields of science! So, the question is, are we in crisis in Particle Physics according to Kuhn? We have currently a situation akin to the one in Newtonian physics where the anomaly of the perihelion of Mercury is known.

This also comes together with our ability to make observations without being dependent on theory or without fusing our theories with our observations. I think we are just forced to carry on with scientific investigations regardless of what Kuhn's analysis tells us and, at the same time, without being blind while doing so.

------------------------------

I just like to add, having learnt of Ian Hacking's "Interactive Kinds", that it may be just as an effective term to describe the history of science as my "Interconnectedness, Complexity and Technology (ICT)". Also, "interactive kinds" reinforces "natural kinds" beautifully!

Therefore, you may already now want to begin to read Ian Hacking and make your own Cumulativist version of it!

------------------------------

I'm wondering about writing about the "paradigm" of the microscope to crush the notion of paradigm because the microscope (or the telescope) extends so beautifully from our natural observing capacity and through relatively plausible optics mechanisms. Eventually I hope this is to happen, the crushing of the notion of paradigm, nevertheless.

It can be worth noting the preceding history to the laboratory and why one has decided to use laboratories in the first place. Because Kuhn is explicitly unable or not willing to separate theory and necessary experiment apparatus for making the case of the theory. Thus, experiment apparatus is not some arbitrary "black magic" device, but maybe in the Kuhnian sense, charicaturely!

What other choice is there? There are indeed deep limitations to being a human being, thus we need the microscope, the LHC, the other particle accelerators, the SOHO satelite, the spectrometer and the rest!

It maybe unnecessary to say that this writing or outlining will be a total crash with "The Structure" even if his "Structure" in many senses is well told and expertly composed.

------------------------------

(I write forthcoming on quotes from SSR until I've finished reading it.)

Case studies by ICT. (Upcoming!)------------------------------

The two cases I've decided on are "Einstein and the possible contestants" and "Lavoisier and the Caloric theory of heat". I may add more cases than this, but nominally these are the two cases I desire to investigate. I think these two cases also provide enough workload and they are also sufficient to provide credibility of ICT if the work is done properly. This is just a notice to interested readers and it is going to be removed as the case studies are played out.

By L. F. Olsnes-Lea (formerly Terje Lea)

Note: The guilt of not having finished this lies totally on Norway for obstructing the normal ways to academic performance in my life, rather choosing a despicable, lunatic strategy for seeking influence in suppressing my person, thus making very awful psychological impressions to people and without bothering that this takes place too!

You may want to take note of the word "stratagem", but please add a big deal of idiocy!

Note2: That this makes me look a bit like a fool must be clear, but Norway has chosen "dumb" as virtue for itself and it has forced me to detours and greater delays. File your complaints to Idiot-Norway, please!

----

Declaration: This star of mine, rightfully, lies in my pocket! (No more stupid words, please!)

Just as an example:

Thomas Kuhn = "normal science", a special concept of his, p. 24.

Me, [Leonardo] F. Olsnes-Lea = "only normal science",

- normal science is what I insist on and that I declare all science to be, and not a step outside research ethics either.

I do not need to explain the Nobel Organisation (or a committee, over all the 6 prizes) how important this is to science. They should know my name very well by now and that they can rather read the finished paper from my hand or close to me later.

End note for legal status, by Norway-behaviour, all in all, country-wise:

As Norway has made a new rule for "valid human beings" out just a minute ago, I still miss my 30 million letters and packages and more from Postal Services Norway (Posten Norge) so, please, don't send me letters.

Thomas Kuhn has claimed that there is no principal difference between voodoo and science in works after his famous "essay", Structure of Scientific Revolutions. James Randi is probably against this (now). This is at least noted in a Norwegian book by UiO, Jo Sivertsen, "Vitenskap og rasjonalitet".

I am directly against this and his book, "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"!

The followers to Kuhn are therefore required to deliver this "scientific" voodoo film evidence to somewhere credible for evaluation BY ALL! Hah-hah-hah-hah.

The names for our plotting in finishing the ICT by one example against the SSR of T. Kuhn:

Ptolemyan (Ptolemy, ca. 90 - 168 CE) - Copernican (Copernicus, 1473 - 1543 CE) - Brahean (Brahe, 1546 - 1601 CE) - Galileoean (Galileo, 1564 - 1642 CE) - Keplerian (Kepler, 1571 - 1630 CE) - Newtonian (Newton, 1642 - 1727 CE) - Einsteinian (Einstein, 1879 - 1955 CE).

Despite some disagreements between the 3 above, with Galileo already being credibly more forceful then, decided by Copernicus(?, fraud on the internet?)/Newton! (Let me come back to this point.)

And not Krausses 1000s of religions either!

Then its for us to plot the names ourselves by time and number of observations graph, inside the x, y-axes of time and number and with a bit of "printing press"-time dot under the y-axis! The SSR (The Structure) seems ever smaller? Not comparable texts as theories by the 7 scientists above?

Note: This is one account for one data-set under MY standard (the bl**dy hardest, blog language) for Historiography of Science. Also, it is well known with us, the philosophers of science, that the data-set stretches all the way back to ancient China and one observation of Haley's Comet or whatever (need check of non-fake book not under corrupt Norway). The set is also, of course, being updated today and in the future as well, I think it's fair to say.

Note2: This comes in also after trying to identify the part where Thomas Kuhn describes this universal machine of science where he claims he can put anything in and get anything out in principle (requiring the text of a non-fake book not under corrupt Norway).

Retrying:
Despite some disagreements between the 3 above, with Galileo already being credibly more forceful then, decided by Newton, not entirely recalling the comparison of theories between them!

As I've been looking into the book, SSR/the Structure of Kuhn more, I'll make this short for the readers already now so that no "excess"/"waste of time" reading or effort is required:

The text is found on p. 76 and reads, "...that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data."

First, my point of view is that very few (understating 1, reasonably) such "constructions" can be achieved whatsoever if they are to be 1. incompatible and 2. differ significantly.

A formal note goes to the theories (with the data-sets) which are failures simply because they are theoretically too many and too insignificant to consider.

That is, these "constructions" will never differ in ways that are outside the best achievable theory (and data-set) and that the "constructions" will have little or no impact in the scientific World and much of it is probably made by "I-defy-you"-philosophers of science either way and look terribly artificial and desperate too.

This point is regarded as crucial in considering my opposition to Kuhn in providing the best Philosophy of Science, allowing me a much more refined account of History of Science by ICT. The rest of Kuhn's book (210 pages) is read in my light onto Kuhn by my interpretation of these "constructions", being a kind of general phrase for the science that Kuhn represents in this book and after.

If two lessons can be drawn from history of science, they are these: accuracy and added description. Not scientific revolutions, not cognitively new worlds!

The telescopes of history can be viewed in combination by the focusing telescope that's able to go from the view of the naked eye to the starry heavens and zooming in on a given bit of astronomical sky! Thereby you go from the weakest telescopes in history, meaning the earliest, to the most powerful telescopes in history, meaning the somewhat latest.

Please also see the improved historiography on astronomy in comparing this work of mine to Kuhn's SSR:
https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2017/01/case-in-point-astronomy-against-kuhns.html

---------------------

Swinging stone in ancient Greece vs. pendulum in renaissance Italy

Relating to Aristotle and Galileo by Kuhn and SSR, p. 118 - 125 and the difference of a swinging stone and the pendulum.

Aristotle: 384 BC - 322 BC, seeing a swinging stone, I guess, by chain or thread.
Galileo: 15 February 1564 - 8 January 1642, seeing the pendulum.
The difference between them: roughly 2000 yrs.
So, by Cumulativism, if we have 2000 years between 2 people and suppose a "revolution" as Galileo considers the pendulum I'd like people to think again because that's 2000 years of engineering history as well.

Let's list some factors for these 2000 years of engineering history:
* Measurements - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement
* Accuracy and precision - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision
* Technological ability to manipulate objects (i.e., tools and more) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance (for "simple machines")

So it proceeds from the factors above that a "revolution" hardly can be noted over the course of 2000 entire years and with the advance of the factors above.
Orderly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum.

Aristotle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Galileo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

---------------------

Additional "technical" information, non-philosophical:

By Terje Lea, September, 2009, November, 2009, December, 2009, February, 2010, March, 2010, June, 2010 and February, 2011 and so on until 2017 (today).

Note: this last comment added, 04.02.2011, has first been written on the Philosophy Now.