I don’t do should. I do is, want, incentive, exchange and institution. Should and belief are quaint antique words left over from the mystical era, for use with the ignorant, unintelligent, and little children.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 12:58:00 UTC
[T]he Question:
How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?
We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:
And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.
All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.
Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.
The Warranty that we give is that:
We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.
The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.
Criticism of Intellectual History:
We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.
(Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
[T]he Question:
How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?
We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:
And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.
All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.
Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.
The Warranty that we give is that:
We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.
The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.
Criticism of Intellectual History:
We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.
(Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
TRUTH
The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality?
“Truthful” – Testimonial Truth – A Warranty, but of what?
1) meaningfully expressible ( hypothesis )
2) internally consistent (logically consistent)
3) externally correspondent ( physically testable )
4) existentially possible (operational construction)
5) voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange)
6) market-survivable (criticism – theory )
7) market irrefutable (law)
8) irrefutable under original experience (True)
The Warranty:
I. *TRUE*: Assuming elimination of the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, a promise that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.
II. *TRUTHFUL*: the criteria for such a warranty to be made.
Criticism of Intellectual History:
we have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.
(Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 03:17:00 UTC
THOUGHTS ON OPERATIONALISM AND FALSIFICATIONISM
Still thinking because I can’t quite grasp ..hmm.. and I think it’s like falsification – that if an argument (a theory) isn’t falsifiable then it isn’t scientific. And that …. well, that something isn’t ‘scientific’ is a non-operational statement – its like saying it’s good or heavenly, but that doesn’t tell us anything. Internal consistency, external correspondence and existential possibility do tell us something.
—“operationalise a concept likes suppression”–
Damn…. finally… I know how to talk about it…. YAY!
Thank you Ayelam Valentine Agaliba. For some reason you always give me the most helpful breadcrumbs…. the only people in this world worth anything in epistemology are CR’s.
I am too under the weather this morning to write something meaningful. But I can now show that the way I am using operationalism is as a further extension of falsificationism for those cases where our sense and perceptions are sufficient for decidability (social sciences). Or I would invert it: that falsification is a lower standard of operationalism for those cases when our sense and perception are insufficient for decidability (the physical universe).
Well that is a good way to start off a day even if it’s a day with a headache…
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 02:54:00 UTC
(worth repeating)
–“I would say, that I cannot force anyone to hear anything, or to listen, or even to pay attention. What I can do is to punish them for lie and error in words just as we punish them for lie and error in deeds, when those words, like those deeds cause loss of property-en-toto.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-14 03:28:00 UTC
http://takimag.com/article/jonathan_gruber_honest_liberal_patrick_buchanan#axzz3Li934qk7Why you need operational language in politics law and economics
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 13:51:00 UTC
THE TRANSFORMATION OF AUTISTIC INTUITION TO OPERATIONAL EXPOSITION.
Yes, my work is getting clearer. Yes it is getting easier for BOTH you and I to understand. Well, but what’s the reason why I had a lot of trouble articulating my ideas in the past? I could sense the pattern and talk about it with autistic forms of symbolic analogy, but I could not convert it into more accessible language because I hadn’t yet been able to identify and model all the axis I was working from. Today I can. And pretty soon I’ll be able to reduce it to a few simple rules. But going from autistic speech (pattern intuition without rational comprehension of those patterns) is just not a very suitable means of argument. And the art is in patiently and deliberately attempting to state the arguments operationally (using new existentially possible frameworks to build upon) rather than meaningfully (using extant imaginary frameworks to build upon).
I don’t really ‘think’ of things in any material sense as much as gather information and ‘catch’ intuitions that are usually too subtle and complex to ignore . The difference which has caused me some difficulty in life is that I intuit operationally correspondent (operational) patterns, but I have no intuition for experiential (meaningful) patterns what soever. My brain does not allow me to use empathy as a shortcut. This particular blindness means that I am somewhat limited to ascertainable facts instead of experiences – I just don’t HAVE those experiences to work from. Whereas ordinary people have a problem seeing beyond experiences because they’re so clear, influential and meaningful.
Autistic worlds are very different. There is a lot LESS in them. So we have less to calculate with. If you look at it that way it’s not so much that people like me are massively smarter than people with similar IQ’s. But it’s that we only see non-experiential signals, and as such are sort of specialized tools – conceptual warrior ants in the human tribal hive.
I think it’s wrong to express this as a disease or illness rather than a specialization. And I think it’s also wrong to to say autistic thought is ‘more internal’, rather than we are just working with the data we have to work with. In my case it has been emotionally painful but personally fruitful.
The whole anglo philosophical and political fantasy of equality has been a disaster for mankind. We must be equal in property rights and equal under the law, but that’s so that we may coordinate our actions as specialists, and succeed as specialists – not so that we can act as equals.
Source date (UTC): 2014-12-12 04:10:00 UTC
(Profound)
[I]f language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so unsuitable for use as an internal language to understand truth with – to think with.
Language wasn’t invented to lie with. But it was invented to negotiate with.
(Profound)
[I]f language evolved for us to negotiate with, then it’s no wonder that it is so unsuitable for use as an internal language to understand truth with – to think with.
Language wasn’t invented to lie with. But it was invented to negotiate with.