re: “I Never Err”

RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.