MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary)

MORE ON TRUTH: OBJECTIVE VS SCIENTIFIC

OBJECTIVE (Constructive/Justificationary) – Kantian Rationalism

– vs. –

SCIENTIFIC (Deflationary / Falsificationary) – Darwinian/Popperian Science

1) A justificationary argument would rely on claims of objectivity. (via-positiva)

2) A deflationary argument would rely on elimination of subjective information. (via-negativa)

3) We achieve Deflationary (~Objective) speech by removing all subjective content from our speech.

4) We remove all subjective content from our speech by

(a) fully expanding all sentences.

(b) translating those expanded sentences into fully operational language.

(c) Testing each dimension of perceivable reality for consistency (determinism)

…i) categorical consistency (identity)

…ii) internal consistency (logical)

…iii) external correspondence (empirical consistency)

…iv) existential consistency (operational language)

…v) rational consistency (rational choice of rational actor)

…vi) reciprocal consistency (rational choice of all participating actors)

…vii) scope consistency (limits of proposition, and full accounting of internal properties and external consequences.)

(d) Restating the sentence with surviving and failed tests of consistency as a test of coherence.

6) this process will, in ordinary language, provide tests of whether the speaker in fact understands what he speaks, and that his speech is correspondent, consistent, and coherent in all dimensions. Because it is, as far as I know, impossible to state a coherent and false statement and survive these tests, while at the same time claiming it is ‘truthful’ rather than theoretical, hypothetical, or a guess.

–“every claim we make”–

(a) It means that within the LIMITS we assume or propose it is possible to speak truthfully, even if in the ideal sense – unlimited, and ideal truth – we cannot speak ‘the truth’.

(b) All speech is theoretical but some theoretical speech is trivial (non contradictory, or with implied limits).

—“Brain in a vat”–

Rationalist error. since no logic of any dimension (identity, logic, empirical, operational, reciprocal) is sufficient for truth claims, only for tests of internal consistency, then all ordinary language tests must appeal to the next higher dimension (at least – if not all) in order to make truth claim (rather than a proof claim).

It is very common for rationalists used to justificationary statements, to conflate proof (internal consistency) with truthfulness (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), with True(ideal), and True(analytic).

So unless you know which ‘true’ you’re using, most rational arguments are just victorian word games.

Curt Doolittle