WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’ In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ‘TRUTHFUL KNOWLEDGE’

In Propertarianism (Natural Law) have a very precise definition of ‘truthful knowledge’ that isn’t open to interpretation. We don’t use the word ‘true’ knowledge, and we don’t even use the word ‘true’ very often, except to say ‘that’s not true, or that can’t be true”, and tend use the world ‘truthful’ or ‘truth candidate’ instead.

I suppose for greater clarity for newcomers would could say that by “Truthful Knowledge” we are referring to the most parsimonious and consistently correspondent statement possible, that is as free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit, as the scope of human language and human knowledge currently tolerates.

And I could criticize myself for using that Truthful Knowledge which to the inexperienced, immediately invokes via-positiva justificationism, when I mean via negativa ‘a surviving truth candidate’.

So when we say we are making a Truthful Statement, it is one that has SURVIVED the test of Testimonial Epistemology:

The Operational Sequence of Universal, Testimonial, Epistemology:

experience ->

… free association ->

… … idea ->

… … … ‘wayfinding’ ->

… … … … hypothesis ->

… … … … … critical testing (falsification) ->

… … … … … … theory ->

… … … … … … … publication (market testing) ->

… … … … … … … … Law ->

… … … … … … … … … metaphysical assumption(acculturation).

In that phase of Critical Testing we attempt to construct an operational description of a sequence of subjectively testable operations, (which is a very densely loaded set of terms), that adhere to a very strict grammar.

This form of ‘strict construction’ exposes (quite readily) whether we know what we are talking about or not. And shows us where we need to add clarity before we can make a truthful statement.

Then we use a checklist to ensure that we can WARRANTY to others that we have done due diligence, in ensuring that we do not engage in the many problems of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, and deceit.

This list includes a set of consistency checks. They are:

– Categorical Consistency: identity consistency

– Logical Consistency: internal consistency

– Empirical Consistency: external correspondence

– Existential consistency: operational language and subjective testability

– Moral consistency: Reciprocity (which we have a very strict definition of as well: consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externalities)

– Scope Consistency: (this one is hard) but it means have we

…. (a) fully accounted for call costs?

…. (b) defined the limits – at what points does this statement no longer apply?

…. (c) tested the parsimony – (this one is very hard) have we overstated our case, and can this be stated more precisely?

Because humans ourselves serve as a STANDARD OF MEASURE in relation to other humans due to limited differences in subjective testability; and because of the difficulty in making a series of operational statements, while at the same time surviving the checklist of six dimensions of actionable reality, it is almost impossible to be held accountable by others for speaking a falsehood.

This is what we mean by ‘Truthful Speech’. Your warranty that you have done due diligence that your speech will do no harm.

Curt Doolittle

The Cult of Non Submission

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

The Aesthetics of Agency

The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine