WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH? (Note: for followers, pls note the use of these

WHY DO WE NOT PURSUE THE TRUTH?

(Note: for followers, pls note the use of these series/sequences/spectrum of decidability)(Q:how would the argument differ without them, if I relied on advocacy for testimonialism as an ideal type, instead of illustration by spectrum? )

—“If [propertarianism and testimonialism] were attractive would it not pull us from philosophy? (convince us?) “— A Friend

Would not religion pull us from superstition?

Would not philosophy pull us from religion?

Would not science pull us from philosophy?

Would not testimonialism (complete science) pull us from science?

Or, is religion all that is possible for some of certain limited abilities, philosophy only possible for some others of certain limited abilities, science only possible for some of certain limited abilities, and Testimonialism only possible for some of certain limited abilities?

If not everyone is pulled forward by each technological advancement in decidability, then why do we see both the retention of superstition, religion, philosophy, and science, and why we see innovations in superstition, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and (in the near future) pseudotestimonialism?

We do not choose what is true for our means of decidability. We choose what is useful. If superstition, religion, pseudorationalism, philosophy, pseudoscience, science, pseudotestimonialism, and testimonialism are useful for different groups for different purposes, because of what we can ‘get away with’ in each discipline given its lack of precision, or openness to fraud, then we should expect people to seek what is beneficial to them with each technology of decidability.

And that is what we see.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine