[W]e can fail to agree, and conflict with one another. We can agree to boycott (avoid) one another. Or we can agree to cooperate with one another. In any rational exchange for cooperation and trust, we require the positive assertion of the requirement of production, and the negative assertion of the prohibition on free riding. Cooperation is not rational without this requirement, in both positive and negative forms. In some cases we tolerate intertemporal gains and losses in the expectation that the net outcome will be to our favor. For the weak, cooperation or boycott, are to be agreed upon at all costs, even if parasitic, since the weak are unable to fight. For the strong, conquest, cooperation and boycott are merely a choice between preferences, where cooperation can often provide the greatest return. Power and weakness produce different metaphysical assumptions and logical biases. See Power and Weakness by Robert Kagan http://files.janjires.webnode.cz/200000472-2879a29738/Robert%20Kagan%20-%20Power%20and%20Weakness.pdf
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
THE PROBLEM OF INCOMPLETE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS Operationally, I cann
THE PROBLEM OF INCOMPLETE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS
Operationally, I cannot rely upon the verb to be, particularly in the case ‘…is X true?’, which is platonic and obscurant, and must say instead “am I willing to…?” or “…can I…?” Carrying it further, I am not sure of the value of the statement ‘is X true’, because, outside of an analogy for proofs of consistency within a tautological system, I think as an incomplete statement, it is an empty statement. Instead, I would ask a complete question: ‘Is X sufficient for me to act at cost Y?’ which requires only knowledge of use, or ‘Is it ethical for me to claim that X is true, or is it merely an hypothesis?’ which requires knowledge of construction. We know it is never possible to say ‘X is ultimately true’, because, outside of reductio examples, we lack the ability to ever know if it is the most parsimonious set of statements (constructions) with the greatest explanatory power (empirical content).
(Note: I’m getting closer. Not quite there yet. But very close.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 00:10:00 UTC
-
CONTRA JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF Justified true belief is not an important question
CONTRA JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF
Justified true belief is not an important question – it is purely utilitarian. Your belief is not an ethical question. Your testimony is however, an ethical question. . You may believe whatever you have knowledge of use of. But you may not testify that you know that which you cannot construct in operational language.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-18 13:21:00 UTC
-
Ack. Nothin’ but research all day today. Can’t seem to write a useful thing. But
Ack. Nothin’ but research all day today. Can’t seem to write a useful thing. But it is interesting, from my drafts, that if you start writing a prioristic arguments in operational language it becomes very clear what they really mean. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-18 12:36:00 UTC
-
If you can construct a general theory from a set of particulars, and test that t
–If you can construct a general theory from a set of particulars, and test that theory for correspondence you still must demonstrate construction to testify that it us true.–
I think that’s about right.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-18 10:04:00 UTC
-
MOMS: The problem with this metric is that it doest differentiate by race and in
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/there-are-single-moms-and-then-theres-everyone-else/SINGLE MOMS:
The problem with this metric is that it doest differentiate by race and income.
Whore that I am, scoundrel that I am, I have to support monogamy. Even if it means the mediterranean model. The family is so important that even state redistribution cannot compensate for its absence. There is a difference between insuring tragedy (accident), and funding social disintegration (redistribution). My empathy is one thing. But the evidence is something else. Families are just better. So the only way to fix this is to remove insurance, and increase the moral hazard. That won’t affect teh middle class, but it will affect the underclasses. And that’s who is creating all the problem.
Source date (UTC): 2014-06-18 06:13:00 UTC
-
Worth Repeating
**If you can’t state it operationally, then it’s merely an analogy. Analogies are informative, but they are not truth propositions.**
-
Worth Repeating
**If you can’t state it operationally, then it’s merely an analogy. Analogies are informative, but they are not truth propositions.**
-
Against Justified True Belief – Toward Ethical Speech Instead
[J]ustified true belief is not an important question – it is purely utilitarian. Your belief is not an ethical question. Your testimony is however, an ethical question. . You may believe whatever you have knowledge of use of. But you may not testify that you know that which you cannot construct in operational language.
-
Against Justified True Belief – Toward Ethical Speech Instead
[J]ustified true belief is not an important question – it is purely utilitarian. Your belief is not an ethical question. Your testimony is however, an ethical question. . You may believe whatever you have knowledge of use of. But you may not testify that you know that which you cannot construct in operational language.