Phenomenological Metapostneopositivism

(Prolegomena to the Methodology of Antiscientific Inquiry)

1. It’s no accident they say, “beyond the facts” (or “lurking behind the facts”)—for facts conceal essence.
1.1. Facts take time, yet yield little meaning.
1.2. Essence is not what is, but what ought to be.
1.3. To operate on meaning, one must seize essences with the bare hands of reason.

2. A beautiful hypothesis needs no facts—except those it consents to use.
2.1. A beautiful hypothesis will stand somehow—even if some facts don’t fit.
2.1.2. It’s just that the worthy facts have not yet been found.
2.2. Better to neglect a good fact than a good hypothesis—facts are plentiful.
2.3. Facts without a hypothesis are white noise; within one—a waste of time.

3. If reality fails a hypothesis, it’s reality that’s at fault.
3.1. If a hypothesis fails reality, then reality isn’t ready.
3.2. The most reliable foundation for any hypothesis is self-reference.

4. The beauty of a hypothesis redeems any fact—and even its absence.
4.1. But no fact can redeem an ugly hypothesis.
4.1.2. Unlike the factual, the beautiful is always true—because it is irrefutable.

(2010, before post-journalism; what used to be “postmodernist” exercises for the few has become daily routine for many.)

---

See also books by Andrey Mir:

• The Viral Inquisitor and other essays on postjournalism and media ecology (2024)

• Digital Future in the Rearview Mirror: Jaspers’ Axial Age and Logan’s Alphabet Effect (2024)

• Postjournalism and the death of newspapers. The media after Trump: manufacturing anger and polarization (2020)

• Human as media. The emancipation of authorship (2014)

---