APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL –“It is not that we can

APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL

–“It is not that we cannot USE aprioristically deduced concepts. It’s that they are not deductive certainties”–

Michael Phillip:

Interesting. This sounds like something Einstein said a while back about concepts

Curt Doolittle:

Yes, it was his fundamental insight: he had to eliminate the frame.

And it is why Bridgman was adamant that physics must remain experimental and science operational.

ALSO

In Math it is why Brouwer (and Poincare) and Bishop have been adamant about constructivism and intuitionism in mathematics.

ALSO

In Economics, it’s what Mises was trying but failed to do with praxeology – he was too buried in german and jewish rationalism. He confused truth and morality – which is a very german thing to do.

ALSO

And it is close to what popper (inarticulately) argues

And so it’s what I’m trying to find a way to articulate: that since we think in terms of meaning and with words, we can use very loose associations to investigate phenomenon in any discipline.

***However, once we develop a theory we must demonstrate that it is internally consistent (our words or symbols are reasonably free of error), externally correspondent (testable in reality), and operationally possible (existentially possible).***

Even then we are not sure it cannot be falsified – only that we testify that it is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially possible.