A LOT OF TRUTH SCIENTIFIC METHOD (DUE DILIGENCE FOR TRUTH) Truth as used in scie

A LOT OF TRUTH

SCIENTIFIC METHOD (DUE DILIGENCE FOR TRUTH)

Truth as used in science : the study of the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) by the construction of physical and logical methods of measurement that reduce the imperceptible and incomparable and undecidable to that which is perceivable, comparable, and decidable given the limits of human ability.

D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

1 – [T]RUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

2 – [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

3 – [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

4 – [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

5 – [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

6 – [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

7 – [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

8 – [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

THE DEMAND FOR TRUTH

1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

CATEGORIES OF FALSEHOOD

1 – ignorance

2 – error

3 – bias

4 – wishful thinking

5 – suggestion

6 – obscurantism

7 – fictionalism (PseudoMythology/Theology, Pseudorealism/Idealism, Pseudorationalism, Pseudoscience)

8 – deceit.

THE SPECTRUM OF TRUE TO FALSE

+5 – The Analytically True (Tautological). Logical

+4 – Apodictically True (non contradictory) Rational

+3 – The (ideally) True (most parsimonious possible in human language) Rational and Scientific

+2 – The truthful (that which we have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the tests of consistency in the categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational-incentive, reciprocal-moral, and fully accounted.)

+1 – The truth candidate (that which we have not yet found false but have not yet fully exposed to due diligence)

0 – The undecidable (that which we can say is neither true nor false nor possible)

-1 – The False candidate ( which which is possible in the process of failing due diligence)

-2 – The Falsified (that which has failed due diligence and cannot be otherwise than false.)

-3 – The (ideally) False (the most parsimonious possible in human language)

-4 – The Analytically False (Self Contradictory)

DIMENSIONS OF ACTIONABLE REALITY

1 – categorical (identity)

2 – logical (internal consistency)

3 – empirical ( correspondence. external consistency.)

4 – operational (existential, temporal, experiential consistency )

5 – rational (rational choice given incentives at the time)

6 – moral (fully reciprocal: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition upon others by externality.)

7 – scope (fully accounted – without cherry picking)

DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

5) is it a rational choice by an actor at the moment in time with the information at his disposal?

6) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

7) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)