My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I ha

My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the SCIENCE and LOGIC of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.

Where I differ from other thinkers in psychology and social science is that I have the experience of working on artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as counter intuitive and as difficult to learn as mathematics, reading, writing, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and engineering.

My position on the application of this science and logic is that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development. And furthermore, that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation. And that this is the scientific means of historical analysis of different cultures and civilizations.

The application of this reasoning produces a *theory*. It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But until it is sufficiently criticized by others – no matter how futile I think that criticism will be – it remains a theory. Because it is a narrative.