THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUT

THE CHALLENGE OF USING PROPERTARIANISM’S TESTIMONIAL TRUTH: ‘TESTIFIABLE’, ‘TRUTHFUL’ AND ‘SCIENTIFIC’ ARE TAUTOLOGICAL TERMS.

I don’t use the criticism ‘unscientific’ because my definition of that term is terribly precise and not close enough to the vernacular to convey the same meaning.

I use the terms ‘truthful’ and ‘untruthful’ – after a great deal of experimentation – to refer to scientific and unscientific at this greater level of precision, where the terms ‘scientific’ and ‘truthful’ are tautological.

Unfortunately, that definition of scientific and truthful presents argumentative hurdle that prevents people from making meaningful (allegorical), pseudo-moral (normative), rational (internally consistent), logical (non operational), macro-economic (pseudoscientific) arguments that are not necessarily false in their entirety, but are necessarily not true in their entirety.

Which is terribly frustrating, because meaning (association) is something we so desperately want and need.

Imagine how christians felt when they were chastised for unscientific argument – when that meant ‘unempirical’. That is how rationalists feel for being chastised for using ‘untruthful’ when that means ‘non-operational’ (non-existential) and ‘unwarrantied’ (warrantied by criticism against imaginary content).

Rationalism – in the Kantian and continental sense – has lost all standing. It was invented as a means of deceit, and remains a means of deceit. Philosophy independent of truthfulness – just as claims of science without truthfulness – is an exceptional means of conducting deception.