Disclaimer

I really don't need a disclaimer to be told that no information can be trusted, but for all of you who like it nanny-wise and feel better if explicitly told that all content has to be mistrusted and who have enough spare time to waste reading disclaimers, here is my official disclaimer.

This website presents ideas and information developed by Mato Nagel, hereafter referred to as the author. The site and the site elements are provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis. The author expressly disclaims all representations and warranties of any kind with respect to the site.

Additionally, all the usual disclaimers listed on this Wikipedia page, of course, also apply to this website.

The author explicitly warns that some of the ideas presented here are not (yet) mainstream science and remain subject to further discussion and change.

Special attention is drawn to the epistemological concerns developed here about abstraction and uncertainty.

OF NOTE: Disclaimers are so common on all respectable websites, so one has to wonder why a disclaimer is necessary at all. Everybody everywhere, not only on the Internet, has to thoroughly scrutinize whether the information is useful or not. In other words, selection and intake of information is, was, and will be for ever, everyones own responsibility.

It seems this is commonplace, so I wonder why disclaimers are so common and even enforced.

Abstraction Rule

Rule

The more a theory is abstract the more general and lasting its predictions but the less precise it is in its particulars.

Rational Proof

1. An abstraction is a fauceir of thinking.
2. Its element fauceirs are abstractions as well.
3. Abstraction is just the Rule of Progressive Blinding applied to fauceirs of thinking that is from abstract elements only specific properties are selected while others are ignored.
4. The ignored ones are blinded out and therefore do not allow to be described any more.

Conclusions

• An abstraction makes sense only if there is a set of elements that can be united by such an abstraction.
• Applying an abstraction to a single element is not a scientific endeavor, but a mere blurring of the meaning of an abstraction. This method is often used as a fallacy, the fallacy of using meaningless abstract terms.
• Abstractions are only useful if they can be used with other scientific methods such as analogy or analysis that offer conclusions that in turn allow further fauceirs of thinking to evolve.

Example

I think the subject is so simple that no further examples are needed in order to illustrate. Just to mention that fauceir is the most abstract ever object of thinking. Though in some religions it is handled as such, God, on the contrary, is not the most abstract object of thinking. In Fauceir Theory God may be defined as the master of all existing fauceirs such as infinity is defined in number theory.

Abstraction Proviso

Abstraction Proviso means that theoretical predictions are true only for abstractions and not for specific situations. That stipulation follows from the rule of abstraction.

Uncertainty Proviso

Uncertainty Proviso is a restriction that has to be made to every theory or rule. Every prediction whether in physics, chemistry biology, psychiatry, or sociology involves a certain degree of uncertainty.