THE LIMITS OF INTELLIGENCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF ERROR
(life’s wisdom)
At some point, it seems that greater intelligence is less influential than lack of wishful thinking, lack of accumulated error, accumulating knowledge, the time you invest in problem solving, and choosing a narrow field of inquiry.
Most smart people I meet suffer from wishful thinking and accumulated error.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 17:46:00 UTC
HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
(useful) (learning propertarianism)
The next ten arguments you make, try to determine which form of argument the person is relying upon. (Not with me. I have enough to do. Test your cunning elsewhere.) If you do this a few times you will begin to intuit it in every argument.
1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.
2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.
3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)
4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.
5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.
6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”
7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.
8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.
9) TRUTHFUL: categorically consistent, Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumentally observable), Operationally articulated (Possible), Fully Accounted, Moral (free of imposed costs).
10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.
Curt Doolittle’s “Degrees Of Political Argument”*1, from least to most substantive: *1[capitalismv3.com 2011]
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:32:00 UTC
A HIERARCHY of ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH:
(very useful) (learning propertarianism)
So, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.
1) MEANING (Awareness)
….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2) PREFERENCE
….True enough for me to feel good about.
3) ACTIONABILITY
….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
4) MORALITY
….True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
5) RATIONALITY
….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6) DECIDEABILITY
….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
7) TRUTH
….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
8) TAUTOLOGY
….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-24 05:25:00 UTC
#tcot #tlot #NRx Philosophy, to be true, must be critical. There are no answers in philosophy itself. It’s conceptual laundry detergent.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:21:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623815073711132672
#tcot #tlot #NRx Philosophy consists either of telling us how to speak truthfully, or it is just a means of loading, framing and overloading
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:19:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623814713105862656
#tcot #tlot #NRx The greatest lies in history have been produced philosophically: monotheism, marxism, freudianism, postmodernism.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:18:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623814386826788864
#tcot #tlot #NRx Philosophy has done more harm that good. That’s because it’s an exceptional vehicle for deception by suggestion.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:16:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623813929114947584
#tcot #tlot #NRx Philosophy can be performed wishfully, morally, rationally, historically, and scientifically. Only the last has any value.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:15:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623813677716754432
TRUTH, HONESTY, COSTS, JUSTIFICATION, CRITICISM
COSTS OF TRUTH
Hierarchy of Truths by internality to externality of costs.:
1) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2) True enough for me to feel good about myself.
3) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
4) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
5) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
7) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
8) Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
CATEGORIES OF TRUTH
1) TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
2) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
3) HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.
….CATEGORIES OF HONESTY
….3.1 Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
….3.2 Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
….3.3 Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
….3.4 Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
….3.5 Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
JUSTIFICATION (SUPPORT) VS CRITICISM (SURVIVAL)
1) OBVERSE: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation.
2) REVERSE: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe.
The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral and cooperative and therefore justificationary reasoning. However, now that we know the first principles of cooperation we can complete the evolution of physical science by adding to it the criticisms necessary for cooperative science:
Physical Science Criticisms
i. identity (category)
ii. internal consistency (logic)
iii. external correspondence (often called empirical testing)
iv. existential possibility (existence proof)
v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony)
Additional Cooperative Science Criticisms:
vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias)
vii. morality (consisting of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers of property en toto)
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-21 11:38:00 UTC
I tend to require correspondence in my work, and I try to leave the non-correspondent era behind. I think it was a failure.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 17:17:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623179977924739072
Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622873407693189121
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/622873407693189121