You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive:

You need a bit more of a lesson I think…. Because you’re stuck in a primitive: justificationism.

1. empirical = observable. In other words, to test against existential possibility in order to eliminate information supplied by imagination that is not present in observable reality.

2. truth claims = we can make proof claims (justifications), but we cannot make truth claims, only claims of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Even if we can performatively speak a truth we can never know that a more parsimonius version of the theory we utter is not yet possible unless we speak a tautology.

3. yes, those observations from which we identify general rules without the necessity of further criticism are a special case of empirical observations that we are not so lucky to find a discount on the warranty due diligence against error, bias wishful thinking and deceit. like prime numbers or reductio arguments the a priori can occur. However, very few other than reductio statements can be used for the purposes of deduction without definition of their limits (I will happily give examples).

4. I have not exempted my argument from its implications, I’ve merely stated that no means of expression in any formal language can possibly achieve what you have suggested. Just as the liars paradox is fallacy, any such statements are fallacious if we can (as I stated) appeal to additional knowledge outside of the statement itself. Ergo, we do not test logical statements abut reality by the limits of the operations of logical expression but by the appeal to correspondence with reality, the appeal to existential possibility in operational languge, the appeal to reciprocity in moral matters, and across all of these appeals, the definition of limits, and parsimony, and the observation of full accounting. In other words (and I realize this is hard for you to grasp) rational recursion is just an excuse to avoid informational discovery. In other words, an excuse for ignorance. Which is precisely why the medieval theologians and ancient lawyers invented the technique. (See Pilpul).

There are these people called Popper, Kuhn, Tarski and Frege, and Kripke in language(allegorical-meaningful systems) – who almost got it right; as well as cantor, godel and turing who eventually got it right independent of language (operational-existential systems).

If you were able to hold this discourse with me you would not have made the errors you made in the first place.

If you search for the ability to speak truthful statements then you can follow me. If you are searching for excuses for your existing frames of reference using the arcane methods of reasoning you use, then you will not find much help here.

I don’t do excuses.