. . .

by Bill Joslin

(Bill is there. 😉 )

only an operational epistemology can produce a testimonial ontology. And when it does all dimensions of truthful speach tie together coherently. This is why operational epistemology models or demonstrates what exists (existential consistency) because operational terms glue together the all the demensioms – correspond ence, internal consistency, existential consistency, falsifiability, parsimony.

Correspondence = identity. An object’s identity rests on stable constant relations within limits. The “presence” (constant relations) with in boundaries (limits)

Internal consistency- no contradictions in logic or evidence …. However operational terms for our identity now allows us to ensure there are no contradictions in the relation between evidence and logic (soundness and validity coupled via operations)

Existential consistency-are the constant relations and limits possible (spectra of what allows the relations to be constant and related to those boundaries-where the phenomena starts and ends)

Falsifiability – if identity exists we can falsify by exceeding it’s limits to know where the relation ends along with verifying if it exists within (are the limits real-no limits no identity)(efficient flexibility to explanation)

Parsimony – only what is related (operations with in its boundaries) and everything that occurs with in the boundary (necessary and sufficient) (no cherry picking, framing or overloading) (full accounting)

All of those dimensions revolve around relations and the conditions for those relations to work – ie. operations.