(continuing with testimonialism’s synthesis of science, philosophy, morality and law)
—“Denying apriorism whilst simultaneously making a priori truth claims = hopelessly confused.”—
Actually, ah, but that’s not what I did, right? I deflated Kant to unite science, philosophy, morality and law and the techniques of deceptive argument by claims of distinctions without a difference that were used by the marxists-postmodernists, rothbardians and straussian neocons. (Which is what others will tell you.)
(In other words, I ‘hardened’ philosophy by uniting it with science and law.)
I said:
– That analytic truth(thought), ideal truth(words), “testimonial truth”or existentially possible truth(actions) describe a spectrum of increasing differences in information between the statement and reality.
– That all a priori statements are special cases of the single theoretical method that encompasses all of conceivable and actionable reality.
– That Reality consists of a number of actionable dimensions, and that the various statements of a priori reasoning reflected the most simple of those dimensions.
– That we can test each dimension of reality for consistency.
– That any test of any dimension consistency requires appealing to the test of at least the next dimension, and that any test of reality requires appealing to the full set of dimensions of reality.
– That survival of each dimensional test does not determine that the statement is true, but that it is non false within the scope of the limits defined.
– That because of causal density, the application of economic theories can describe trends but not cases.
– That we cannot know a subset of cases will follow the general rule without investigation.
– That all not only can all cases not be determined, or not all trends be observable, but that all economic phenomenon cannot be and have not been discovered by deduction but by empirical observation (ie: sticky prices), because much economic phenomenon is beyond our perceptions without measurements.
– That the predictability of economic phenomenon is (likely) determined by symmetries within intermediary states (in math “lie groups”) and that these are not deducible without empirical observation due to the limits of the human mind to model. But that once modeled will be understandable by the human mind.
– That this epistemological method will apply even with the addition of new dimensions (which is the likely consequence of the current mathematical and physical investigation into symmetries. Symmetries we cannot conceive of. But once observed we can operationally explain.
OR AS POPPER TOLD US:
All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent. All scientific investigation is social and moral.
OR AS I’M STATING MORE COMPLETELY
All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent, and demand for completeness of truth claims is in fact nothing but demand for warranty of due diligence given the the externalities of the display, speech or action.
THE LAW
The ‘Law’ of the Analytic(thought), Ideal(word), Real(action), Reasonable(choice), Moral(reciprocal):
– Analytic: i can or cannot think that.
– Ideal:I think I can or cannot say that.
– Real:I claim I can or cannot do that.
– Reasonable: I can or cannot but would or would not do that.
– Moral: I would or would not do that, but I should or should not do that.
HOW CAN WE REDUCE THIS TO GENERAL RULES?
(a) All non trivial statements about the reality require prior experience.
(b) All non trivial propositions are contingent.
(c) All non trivial tests of dimensional consistency are incomplete
(d) These statements are all contingent.
(e) All statements we know how to make are contingent, because all knowledge is contingent.
(f) All display, speech, action, and externality
CLOSING
In other words, I eliminated the special pleading intended by, and made possible by kant by the mandation of ignorance, as a resistance against the tide of science. Which is why Rothbard used rationalism, just as abrahamic religious dogma was used: to place artificial constraints on our actions by placing artificial constraints on our reason.
FWIW
I use people like you as educational foils. Because while I understand that these advances are probably too difficult for you, they are not too difficult for everyone, and these conversations function as advertising and marketing by which I can locate those who CAN understand such things (likely because of a combination of education and intelligence). And what we have come to understand over the past few years, is that one generally must have an understanding of the methods of the sciences as well as economics, if not learned from computer science the difference between mathematics (arithmetic operations), logic (set operations), programming (algorithmic operations). The reason being, that algorithmic operations must be informationally complete, and training the human mind to think by decidability (informational sufficiency) rather than choice (informational possibility) is rather challenging.
THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine