THE VALUE OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH (cross posted for archival purposes) The scope o

THE VALUE OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH

(cross posted for archival purposes)

The scope of problems [performative truth] solves is awe inspiring actually.

But if I want to (and must) morally forbid (outlaw) deception whether intentional (obscurantism) or accidental (platonism) I must show in every field where either intentional deception or accidental platonism is used, that all such uses are contrivances to obscure either a failure to understand (philosophy), an efficient utilitarianism (the verb to-be in language, and the conflation of number and function in mathematics), an analogistic pseudoscientific error ( infinity ) a necessary form of pedagogy (myth and religion). And a dozen others.

This does not mean that we cannot use the verb to-be, conflate numbers with functions, use infinity in calculations for the purpose of obtaining scale independence, or tell children fairy tales as a guide to moral norms.

It means that in philosophy we must know the difference between knowledge of construction and the testability of that knowledge, and the linguistic, conceptual, and procedural ‘hacks’ (contrivances) that allow us to stuff vast concepts through our minds which can only construct analogies within a few second window, and only out of a limited number of steps.

My problem isn’t the problem or the solution. I know the problem and the solution. My problem is understanding multitude of contrivances that we have constructed in all the fields so that I can cover all the applications such that there is no escaping the conclusion.

I don’t really like criticizing CR (or Popper) because it’s the best solution we have. But it is precisely because it is the closest to correct that it is the best candidate for reformation with the least amount of work.

—-

OK… I had to sleep on it. But I figured it out.

Performative Truth + The “Epistemic Method” (or the instrumental method, previously known as the scientific method) , in which the discipline of scientific inquiry places a premium on some outputs and discounts other outputs. By weighting different outputs we tailor the general rule (process) to the problem we wish to address. This accurately describes what humans do as a general rule. The process is universal because the problem is consistent across all domains of inquiry. However we weigh different outputs according to our needs. And as in any discipline we tend to ‘privatize’ the language within that discipline.

There is a supply and demand chart in there waiting to be drawn…. I have to figure out how that would look.