Angel Jose "Christopher Robert Evans Is Johnny Storm" Robles: The First Juvenile Release.

What I call homo-sapiens who are addicted to perianal abscesses.

Person 1: Are you addicted to perianal abscesses?
Person 2: Yes.
Person 1: Angel Jose "Christopher Robert Evans Is Johnny Storm" Robles: The First Juvenile Release.

by Theusurpedmammarygland February 4, 2025

Angel Jose "Christopher Robert Evans Is Johnny Storm" Robles: The First "Angie Hernandez" Juvenile Release.

.

Person 343: Angel Jose "Christopher Robert Evans Is Johnny Storm" Robles: The First "Angie Hernandez" Juvenile Release.

by Theusurpedmammarygland February 4, 2025

Christopher "Angie" Evans: The First Juvenile Release.

.

Person 343: Christopher "Angie" Evans: The First Juvenile Release.

by Theusurpedmammarygland February 4, 2025

Chris "Angie" Evans: The First Juvenile Release.

What I call homo-sapiens who are addicted to perianal abscesses.

Person 1: Are you addicted to perianal abscesses?
Person 2: Yes.
Person 1: Chris "Angie" Evans: The First Juvenile Release.

by Theusurpedmammarygland February 4, 2025

Religious Power Evolution Theory

A historical model tracing how humanity's ultimate authority figure has evolved: from Polytheistic gods (multiple, chaotic, like Greek myths), to Monotheistic God (one, absolute, providing universal order, like in Christianity/Islam), to the modern "gods" of Science & Atheism (where logic, data, and human reason are the new sources of dogma). Jiang argues each stage centralizes more abstract and powerful control over human thought and morality. The current "Age of Science" is just another religion with its own priesthood (academics), heretics (climate deniers), and promise of salvation (technological utopia).

Example: "Religious Power Evolution Theory says wokeism is the new monotheism: there's one original sin (oppression), a clear devil (the racist/sexist), a path to salvation (allyship), and an inquisition (cancel culture). It's not science; it's theology with a sociology degree."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Evidence

The interpretive gap: Evidence is never self-interpreting; it is always filtered through a prior framework of beliefs, theories, and assumptions (a "paradigm"). A single piece of data can be used to support wildly different conclusions. The hard problem is that there is no such thing as "raw" or "theory-neutral" evidence. What counts as evidence, and how much weight it carries, is determined by the very worldview it is meant to test. This creates a hermeneutic circle where beliefs shape the evidence, which then selectively confirms beliefs.

Example: Two people see the same rainbow. A physicist sees evidence of refraction and wavelengths. A theologian sees evidence of a divine covenant. A pot of gold enthusiast sees evidence of leprechauns. The photons hitting their retinas are identical. The hard problem: The "evidence" of the rainbow is not in the light, but in the interpretation. In a courtroom, a fingerprint is strong evidence only if you already believe in the reliability of forensic science and the integrity of the chain of custody. Evidence is a conversation, not a commandment. Hard Problem of Evidence.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Scientific Evidence

The problem of underdetermination: For any given body of scientific evidence, there are always multiple, logically possible theories that can explain it equally well. Data alone cannot force us to choose one theory over another; extra-scientific criteria like simplicity, elegance, or compatibility with other established theories (paradigm loyalty) must be used. The hard problem is that these criteria are aesthetic and pragmatic, not purely empirical. Thus, the move from evidence to theory is never a strict logical deduction, but a creative, sometimes subjective, leap.

Example: Centuries of astronomical evidence (planetary motions) could be explained perfectly by either Ptolemy's complex earth-centered model (with epicycles) or Copernicus's simpler sun-centered model. The evidence alone didn't decide. The choice was made based on the principle of parsimony (simplicity), which is a philosophical preference, not a law of nature. Today, the weird results of quantum experiments are explained by both the Copenhagen interpretation and the Many-Worlds interpretation. The evidence fits both; our choice is a matter of metaphysical taste, not evidential compulsion. Hard Problem of Scientific Evidence.

by Enkigal January 24, 2026