2019-01-26 10:25:02

@IvanTheHeathen

Don’t hold back. You deprive me of good criticism and others of similar doubt from an advocate.

So let’s dance, I’ll correct you, educate the audience, and create a test of falsifiability for anyone attempting criticism.

WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY DEBATING?

So first, yes, you’re making an inductive rather than informed argument – meaning a ‘seems like’ argument, and you haven’t once demonstrated awareness of the central arguments or addressed them.

Secondly, you are making an accusation that is not only the OPPOSITE of my line of reasoning, but in doing so demonstrating the problem I seek to correct.

So, lets educate you on the bare minimum of the content so you have some idea what you’re arguing against other than your imaginary straw man.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

How do we prohibit ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms of sophism in all its forms, pseudoscience in all its forms, and supernaturalism in all its forms, and outright deceits, from commercial, financial, economic, political, legal, and academic (pedagogical) speech, by use of the law and its market competition, while not limiting or prohibiting truthful speech? In particular, how do we prevent both platonic sophisms of idealism, and abrahamic shophisms of pilpul, critique, and their applications in theology, philosophy, math and the logics, interpretation of scripture, text, history, and law, and their reformation as the pseudoscience of marxism, the sophism of postmodernism, and the denialism of feminism?

PROPOSITION

  1. It is possible to complete the scientific method such that any TESTIMONY given in defense of an accusation of either falsehood or ir-reciprocity or both, that imposes a cost on the ‘informational commons’ – the commons upon which the public depends for commercial, financial, economic, legal, political and academic(pedagogical) information – has failed a test of due diligence against ignorance(pretense of knowledge), error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-framing, suggestion-obscurantism, the fictionalisms and deceits.

  2. it is possible to do so by this argument:

Whereas man defends investment of:

  1. Time,

  2. Effort,

  3. Resources,

  4. Forgone opportunity

  5. Reproductive Proximity

And Where defended investments consist of:

  1. Self-Property â?? Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.

  2. Personal Property â?? Houses, Cars, â??Things”, etc.

  3. Kinship Property â?? Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.

  4. Cooperative Property â?? Organizational and Knowledge ties.

  5. Shareholder Property â?? Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.

  6. Common Property â?? Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.

  7. Informal Institutional Property â?? Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.

  8. Formal Institutional Property â?? Religion, Government, Laws.

And Where reciprocity consists of:

  1. Productive

  2. Fully informed

  3. Warrantied

  4. Voluntary transfer

  5. Free negative externality.

And Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of no less than:

  1. Murder

  2. Harm

  3. Theft

—

  1. Fraud (in all forms)

  2. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons)

  3. Blackmail

  4. Rent Seeking.

  5. Conspiracy

—

  1. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well)

  2. Conversion (Poisoning the well)

—

  1. Immigration,

  2. Predatory Warfare

  3. Conquest

  4. Genocide

And Where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in:

Speech

  1. Intent to lie.

  2. Intent to deceive.

  3. Failure of due diligence against falsehood

  4. Carrier of falsehoods, lies and deceits.

  5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies and deceits.

  6. A genetic predisposition to lie and deceive. And Where due diligence must expose pretense against: 1. Ignorance and error.

  7. bias and wishful thinking

  8. suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing. 4. fictionalisms (the sophisms, pseudosciences, and supernaturalisms)

  9. outright deceits.

And Where truthful speech consists of that which survives tests of the hierarchy of dimensions conceivable by man:

  1. categorically consistent (identity)

  2. internally consistent (logic)

  3. externally correspondent (empirical)

  4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)

  5. rationally consistent (rational choice)

  6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)

  7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)

  8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)

And where:

And where both Display Word and Deed are limited by:

  1. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.

  2. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.

Therefore:

  1. If speech survives the dimensional tests of consistency of dimensions conceivable by man, is limited to that for which words and deeds are open to restitution, and where such speech is warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution either directly or by insurer, then due diligence against falsehood and reciprocity has been made, and no crime has been committed.

You can try to falsify that line of reasoning.

CLOSING COMMENT

In most reductive form this (epistemology), the grammars, and operational grammar, are the basis of the work. If you can understand this then the rest of the work follows.

What are the grammars? The equivalent of the periodic table for speech. In particular, operational grammar provides the means of constructing well formed statements, sentences, collections of sentences, and summary sentences. The grammars diagram (I am not sure how current it is, not very, but close enough ) https://naturallawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/periodic-table-of-speech-draft2.pdf

(Continued…)

THE PROGRAM IS ENTIRELY FALSIFICATIONARY

—“You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms.”—

Nope. The opposite. Actually I make use of tests of due diligence such that if one pretends knowledge that cannot be explained with a sequence of testable operations, one cannot possibly warranty one is uttering truthful speech, because one cannot therefore possibly warranty that he knows of that which he speaks.

You can try to falsify that statement

In fact, search my site for the word verify. If you find it at all, either (a) someone else said it that I’m debunking, or (b) as criticism of its use in general. Conversely search for the frequency of the word justificationism to get a measure of how frequently I criticize justificationary thought.

This pretty much eradicates everything you’ve said. But let’s continue.

OPERATIONALISM IN SPEECH IS A MEANS OF FALSIFICATION

Operational semantics (vocabulary) and grammar, in complete sentences, like all other mathematical, logical, algorithmic grammars, produces well form statements that are testable – or not. The reason being that *operations are sympathetically testable whether they involve thought, word, or deed. In other words, operations produce universal commensurability and testability in testimonial speech.

You can try to falsify that statement.

THE OPERATIONAL MOVEMENT

You didn’t read or understand my arguments that the movement failed because they had only discovered falsification and failed to grasp the extent of it.

In other words “logics don’t ‘prove’ anything, except a negative. Their only positive use is to limit the range of falsification to marginal indifference”. A statement which is fairly easy to demonstrate in mathematics: general rules of arbitrary precision given scale independence. From the square root of two to infinitesimals the best we can do is approximate to the point of marginal indifference in application (action in reality).

You can try to falsify any of those statements.

REGARDING POSITIVISM

(1) People who have read work in the philosophy of science written after 1940 generally don’t adopt hard-line positivist positions; or, if they do, at least make some attempts to answer criticisms of that view made since 1940.

(2) You adopt a hard-line positivist view in philosophy of science and do not reckon with the relevant criticisms. (3) Therefore, you probably haven’t read the relevant work.

Please find where I have a?positive or view in the philosophy of science, when every single method I use is exclusively falsificationary.

NOW WHAT DEMARCATES SCIENCE (due diligence) FROM NON-SCIENCE (failure of due diligence)?

Testifiability.

Try to falsify that statement.

HISTORY? WHERE DID SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ORIGINATE?

In the application of practical court law of tort to practical testimony in the physical sciences. This is why the principle theorists from Aristotle to Bacon to Hayek have either begun or ended with the law.

AND WHY?

Of the domains of inquiry only the law tests every possible dimension of human cognition, action, and testimony, and unlike the other high degrees available (medicine, philosophy, theology) it was the only one with a feedback loop.

Try to falsify that statement.

AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER?

Law (natural law of reciprocity, and the common law of tort, not command, legislation or regulation) only DECIDES matters of conflict. It is falsificationary. You can prove nothing. Only falsify claims. Which is what the court consists of and which frustrates the average individual who is incognizant of the function of the law.

SO WHAT’S THE HIERARCHY OF SCIENCES

(however we define them), from least number of dimensions testable to most number of dimensions testable, which science has the greatest demand on those claims that are scientific? Law.

Try to falsify that statement.

(continued…)

REGARDING

it seems very difficult for you to grasp that the alternatives to empirical means of acquiring knowledge are not necessarily arbitrary, merely on account of their being distinct from empirical means. This is a false dichotomy. And more importantly, there isn’t always a clear dividing line between empirical and non-empirical knowledge.”â??

This is a positivist statement. Conversely, no means of identifying an opportunity (hypothesis, theory, law) has any bearing on its truthfulness (survivability from falsification). In the series “free association, hypothesis, theory, law, metaphysical presumption” all potential â??knowledge” which we must define before we say much about it, must survive the market tests of falsification by reasonableness(hypothesis), falsification by testing(theory), falsification by market application(strong theory or law), and falsification by persistent presumption(metaphysical value judgement).

So apparently you have failed to grasp that no means of acquiring STORIES ( categories, hypotheses/theories, paradigms(networks of theories), ontologies (networks of paradigms) of changes in state convey DECIDABILITY in matters of dispute.

And apparently you canâ??t tell the difference between Meaningful(communicable), Reciprocal(agreement), Truthful(warrantied against falsehood), and Decidable statements. And the identification of opportunity (meaningful) and the prohibition on the seizure of opportunity (Law), or the difference between the possible, the preferable, the good, the truthful, and the decidable.

Or the difference between the demand for decidability depending upon who is warrantying the display word or deed: you, you and dependents, you and associates, you and the public.

And you probably havenâ??t picked up yet (despite my demonstrations) on the technique of using series to prevent errors of induction by conflation.

If you need that explained to you I will point you to detail.

REGARDING

What this means is that it’s not possible to empirically verify any single statement in isolation,

We donâ??t verify anything. We falsify it. We falsify it by the full set of dimensions (coherence), and we falsify it most often by Means, Motive, and Opportunity. (Although, due to malincentives of police and prosecutors, motive may be extended to intent as a matter of reform.)

You donâ??t prove your innocence. The prosecutionâ??s function is to falsify your innocence. You are innocent until your innocence is falsified. Many cases are undecidable. Courts are, by their nature forced into decisions. This drives the market for false claims to the margins.

You can try to falsify that statement.

WHY DON’T I QUOTE CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS

As far as I know the postwar argument is reducible to:

Whether a method exists at all (via positiva, no).

Semantic problems given disciplinary paradigms. (Context)

The problem of limits of instrumentation (observation and measurement)

The problem of the limits of information from limits of instrumentation (underdetermination)

The limits of mathiness in the absence of frame (descriptive vs constructive)

The economics of testing. (Utility and efficiency)

The problem of declining returns and increasing costs.

Decidability in choice of avenue (almost always economic)

Role of scientists in society

Ethics

If there is something more meaningful (Say, Strawson, whose work I build upon) then please state what it is. But the point of demarcation is positive vs negative: what to do to obtain information vs what to do to perform due diligence and warranty your speech about that information.

As far as I know the scientific method consists of due diligence and a warranty of that due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading, framing, fictionalism and deceit in the speech claims that we write or utter.

In other words, the scientific method consists of whatever is necessary to perform that due diligence, in whatever field of inquiry, at current instrumental and logical scale, and have it survive tests of consistency in those categories of expression possible by man.

You can try to falsify that statement.

As we say, scientists pay no mind to philosophers of science, it is an art (craft) of measurement in an effort to remove our ignorance, error, bias, and wishful thinking (and sometimes deceit).

They have no choice but to pay mind to the law.

You can try to falsify that statement.

SUMMARY

It is extremely difficult for the vast majority of people to think in falsificationary terms, and to â??unlearnâ?? justificationism. It is a smaller set of people that can abandon continuous appeals to intuition and produce streams of calculation (grammars). You are no different. There is a reason software folk have an easier time: they are already working in operational language at all times, and database normalization forces disambiguation. But for literary folk in general who neither specialize in applied math, engineering, software, the hard sciences or law.

CLOSING

In my opinion, you are just another drive-by idiot. One more moron in the long line of people who reads a few bits of what its he most revolutionary thought in a century and you waste my time defending what exists in EXTREMIS thousands of pages of text, by using the (cheap) vehicle of the internet to shame me into educating you in defensive duress, rather than you educating yourself before you speak in ignorance.

You are not too stupid to understand. You may lack intellectual honesty, although I don’t detect it. You may like Orwoll lack Agency which is the most common weakness that cannot be over come. You may lack will or courage to discover the truth regardless of costs, and therefore simply seek to defend your investments (priors).

But if you have an argument against the rough outline I have written here let us hear it. Because I have spent a long time in every field, and with every logical, empirical, moral question trying to defeat it and I canâ??t.