[M]AN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE IS JUST EXISTENCE. You see, the statement ‘full of truth’ is an existentially impossible statement. The universe exists. Truth must be stated. Error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deception can be removed from our utterances. I use the term “Truthful” for warrantied speech. It is not so much that ‘Truthful’ speech is full of truth, but that it is laundered of error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, and deception. So our utterances can never ‘be full of truth’. Truth is constructed. It does not exist prior to its construction. Truth is a product of man’s action. Everything else is just existence. Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – MAN CREATES TRUTH. TRUTH MUST BE SPOKEN. ALL ELSE…
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Can The Truth Be A Commons?
(Interesting)
—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—
[L]et me state this clearly:
“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Can The Truth Be A Commons?
(Interesting)
—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—
[L]et me state this clearly:
“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.” 1) How does truth telling exist? The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law. 2) How does truth exist? I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative. So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons. That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed. 3) So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall. There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons. Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Language, Like Genes and Traditions….
[T]he Good, the useless and the bad.
—“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contain useful, useless, and damaging content.”— Curt
Source: Curt Doolittle
-
Language, Like Genes and Traditions….
[T]he Good, the useless and the bad.
—“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contain useful, useless, and damaging content.”— Curt
Source: Curt Doolittle
-
“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contai
—“But my experience is that language, like traditions, and genes, grows to contain useful, useless, and damaging content.”—
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 15:03:00 UTC
-
CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting) —“Truth telling is commons, but trut
CAN THE TRUTH BE A COMMONS? (Interesting)
—“Truth telling is commons, but truth is not commons?”—
Let me state this clearly:
“The act of habituating truth-telling as both a normative behavior and skill is an expensive normative commons (asset) for a population to construct.”
How does truth telling exist?
The commons of truth telling exists as both demonstrated habit, and in the institutional means for its inter-temporal and intergenerational persistence: testimony, jury and law.
How does truth exist?
I put it this way: that information can be treated as a commons, and we can protect the informational commons just as we do every other commons both physical and normative.
So when we propose the statement ‘is the truth a commons?’ we are stuck with whether can we treat the truth as a commons.
That requires we define truth, which as far as I know, can consist only of the extant history of truthfully constructed statements. If we protected those statements, then that’s not logical. Because we do not in fact know whether they are true, only that they are truthfully constructed.
So our only choice then is to require that only truthful statements enter into the commons, and then let the best surviving statements rise and the lesser fall. Just as we require only non-harmful products enter into the market for goods and services and allow them to rise and fall.
There is no truth that can exist as a commons. There can exist only truthfully constructed statements. And we cannot protect those statements since it’s counter-productive. We can only prohibit ‘polluting’ them like all other commons.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 14:58:00 UTC
-
Operationalism is a Means of Falsification
[A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.
–“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness
Bruce,
1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).
If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.
If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.
I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.
2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.
3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.
Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine -
Operationalism is a Means of Falsification
[A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.
–“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness
Bruce,
1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).
If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.
If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.
I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.
2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.
3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.
Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine -
CRITICISM IS GOOD (Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t l
CRITICISM IS GOOD
(Please don’t be afraid to criticize my work. I really don’t like ad hominems and ridicule and I see it as my moral duty to maintain the informational commons by defeating ridicule – it’s gossip after all. It’s feminine deceit. It’s ‘Critique’ (CoC). It’s the favorite tool of the Marxist after obscurantism and justificationism. It’s cosmopolitan Libertarian. It’s not aristocratic. So when you criticize me I owe you a favor for your care, and I must protect your contribution to the commons. But when you attack me or engage in ridicule you have broken the agreement of parley in which I agree to abandon violence and deceit in order to construct a mutually beneficial statement of truth. And I am therefore no longer engaging in cooperation with you. In fact, I have the moral obligation to defeat and punish you for your immorality. )
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 05:36:00 UTC