Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM
Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony.
In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements:
“How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational.
And we answer that question.
ANDREW:
For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system.
For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy:
1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories)
2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification)
3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it.
Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity.
Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated.
P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech.
ERIC DANELAW
Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality).
Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic.
ANDREW M GILMOUR
One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method.
To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic)
What was the reasoning behind this?
ERIC DANELAW
Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem.
example
ANDREW M GILMOUR
Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate.
That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought?
ERIC DANELAW
Not sure which question your asking.
1-the order is in ascending information (complexity)
2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe
3-There are sets of related tests (see image above)
… not-illogical,
… not-impossible,
… not-immoral,
… not-incomplete,
… not-unwarrantied.
4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example)
5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three.
6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job.
I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer.
In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception.
I think that’s it.
One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit.
So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’.
I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’.
And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa)
So:
Presumption of lack of agency.
Presumption of deceit
Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence.
Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent.
Make sense?