Well, there are many things that we CAN say, that are not false, and provide us meaning. While there are other things that we must say and are truthful.
How do I do a better job of demarcating meaning and truth? Because that is what I am after.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:54:00 UTC
Popper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search for precision and parsimony, by making truthful statements along the way, rather than coopting the word ‘truth’ from his spiritual background. We are not investigating the mind of god. Nothing is obscured from us. Nature doesn’t try to lie to us, nor is nature mistaken.
The question is not ‘is that true’ but ‘can I testify to and warranty this?”
Linguistic blame avoidance caused a lot of ripple effects in philosophy.
But popper’s culture was not one of truth telling (as his own rhetorical attacks on competitors evidences.) Cosmopolitans are pragmatists not truth tellers. They do not warranty their speech as do westerners.
Meaning in cosmopolitanism is utilitarian and escapable, not truthful and warrantied.
Popper relies upon cosmopolitan truth (the unknowable mind of god), and cosmopolitan truthfulness (non-warrantied speech).
This is why he could advance science but that was the limit of his solution.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:46:00 UTC
Reading Skye Stewart’s entries in Critical Rationalism and thinking more about positioning popper and his philosophy in the context of truth-speaking (Given his cosmopolitanism). And I am getting closer to being able to articulate that he is telling us how we can investigate in order to overcome our biases in the process of investigation, and less how we can speak truthfully.
The reason I want to clarify this is to find some way of articulating that what he’s NOT articulating is that we are forever increasing our precision, not that we are increasing our truth content.
I have to work on this idea further. But I get the basic problem. It’s just ‘how do you talk about it?”
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:17:00 UTC
VERONIKA AND PARTNER RESURECTING CLUB PA-TI-PA
Veronika has been re-launching a nightclub in Kiev that was shuttered during the revolution because it was right in the middle of the dense fighting.
This photo shows what a little money and many sleepless nights can achieve.
Entrepreneurship has less to do with money than it does with pain tolerance, sleep deprivation, fear, ambition, and relentlessness. And Veronica and her Partner just work without rest, food, sleep, to bring their ambitions to fruition.
Congratulations on a full house!!!
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 18:12:00 UTC
Progress in 2014 (new video!)
Progress in 2014 (new video!)
—“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)
[I] can translate this into something scary:
“Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”
That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. 🙂
—“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)
[I] can translate this into something scary:
“Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”
That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. 🙂
Well, rothbard’s pretense of a solution is ridiculous really. Hoppe tells us that the bureaucracy can’t work but not that government of voluntary contract like homeowners associations can’t work. But I think I explained why MAJORITY RULE DEMOCRACY can’t work. And I am not sure anyone has made that argument before. It’s possible, but I don’t think so.
But I think I am the only person to both state why democracy can’t work (majority rule that is) and HOW TO FIX IT if we want governments of any scale over heterogeneous peoples.
I just don’t think anyone’s every made this argument before.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 11:58:00 UTC
[W]E JUSTIFY:
(a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
(b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
(c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)
AND CONVERSELY:
(d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
(e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.
AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?
(f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).
MATH CONFUSED US.
In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.
We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks. But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute