“Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the cha

—“Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place.”—

PROPERTARIAN POSITION

The operationalists have corrected this view: how you imagine your theory is irrelevant – how you propose your theory and therefore testify to its construction is not. Or better: how you bring the product of your thought to the market requires that you warrantee it is non-fraudulent, and free of harm.

Because scientists and academics and public intellectuals and priests have brought many harmful warrantied products to market – and unless such intellectual products are operationally constructed, one cannot demonstrate that he did not create a hazard by his actions.

Popper confuses the process of guessing: tautology, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing, and intuitive association, about existential phenomenon – with axiomatic deduction and induction as practiced in the logic of constant relations (mathematics and sets).

There are no logical constraints on the production of theories – we can imagine theories by any means we can possibly arrive at them. The only constraint we place upon theories is in the publication of them; because in the publication of them we must know that you have warrantied your speech from harm, just as you have warrantied a law, product, or service from harming others by your due diligence.

We can test our theories through internal consistency (logic), external correspondence (testing), hardening (falsification), and operational definitions (proof of existence, the absence of imaginary information, the absence of cognitive bias, and the absence of allegorical deception.)

Because theories in every theoretical discipline, just like products in any industry, are capable of causing harm. In fact, harmful theories are second only the the great plague in the harm done – and even that is open to challenge. In fact, it is most likely that harmful theories have produced the greatest disasters affecting man in history.

Free speech, dueling, Libel, Defamation and Slander co-habitated well. One could stop lying himself, or via the courts. Each individual could defend against the spreading of deceit by his own action etther by physical threat or by threat of the courts. But with the incremental loss of dueling, libel, defamation, slander, we slowly lost the means of protecting ourselves from harmful gossip. Worse the academy began to adopt gossip systematically.

There is no need to return to dueling. However, it is quite possible to prevent politicians, the academy, the press, businesses and private individuals from the spread of harmful, dishonest and erroneous theories.

All that is required is that we grasp that there is nothing particular to science about the scientific method. It is just the method we must use if we wish to speak truthfully? whether a statement is internally consistent (logical), externally correspondent (tested), hardened (via falsification), and existentially possible (operationally defined).

Why should we be able to distribute harmful theories any more than we can distribute harmful products, services, and policies?

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine