Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM
(people not grasping closure)
P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.
—“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan
How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic?
The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’.
You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail.
You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it.
The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference).
The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion).
Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions.
Sorry. Just is.