[O]perationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity. As a general rule: *** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?
(from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So Popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt
-
Curt: Why Do You Keep Saying Truth Is Not Extant?
(from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So Popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt
-
OPERATIONALISM IS A TEST OF TRUTH TELLING, NOT OF THE TRUTH OF THE THEORY. 😉 (p
OPERATIONALISM IS A TEST OF TRUTH TELLING, NOT OF THE TRUTH OF THE THEORY. 😉
(possibly the latter bit is profound)
From my notes….
–“An operational definition is produced by defining a process of operationalization and recording the results of operating that process; in order to define a variable, term, or object in terms of a set of tests needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity or quality. Operational definitions define changes in state as those operations necessary to change state; define unobservable entities concretely in terms of the physical and mental operations used to measure them; and ensures that the definition of each observable and unobservable entity has been uniquely identified with the instrumentation used to define it. Just as the operational naming of numbers via positional numbering gives a unique name to every number, this process of operationalization gives a unique name to an extant entity consisting of the definition for that step, rather than consisting of an analogy that approximates it in some form or other. Operationalism is a process of granting unique names.”–
This ensures that we are discussing names of extant entities rather than allegories, functions, experiences, or imaginary projections.
Operationalism is not a truth test, it is a test of truth telling.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 08:35:00 UTC
-
Table Of Ethical Arguments
[F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.
-
Table Of Ethical Arguments
[F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.
-
OPERATIONALISM: A GENERAL RULE OF ETHICS Operationalism asks us to demonstrate t
OPERATIONALISM: A GENERAL RULE OF ETHICS
Operationalism asks us to demonstrate that we are conducting observations of extant entities not projecting imagination and subjectivity.
As a general rule:
*** We shall define all phenomenon which we choose to observe, in terms of the sequence of physical operations (actions) used, the instruments used, and the measurements taken with those instruments (whether cardinal or ordinal), rather than either the use of analogies of any form, interpretations of those observations, or subjective experiences of those observations, so that we guarantee to any audience that all entities that we refer to exist, and that no information is added to the observation but that which can be observed when reproduced by the repetition of those actions, instruments and measurements by others.***
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 06:58:00 UTC
-
DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO TRUTH TELLING? Empirical Science (aristotelianism) has
DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO TRUTH TELLING?
Empirical Science (aristotelianism) has evolved into a universal language.
The voluntary organization of production under property and rule of law have evolved into a universal language.
Scientific research and production take place within a society.
The society vastly impacts the quality of that research and production.
The people conducting research carry with them the assumptions of their societies.
Some societies excel at conducting scientific research.
Some societies are all but incapable of conducting scientific research.
Some societies excel at instituting property rights and rule of law.
Some societies are all but incapable of instituting property rights and rule of law.
Some societies excel at constructing trust
Some societies are all but incapable of constructing trust.
Some societies excel at institutionalizing telling the truth.
Some societies are all but incapable of institutionalizing telling the truth.
What makes a society tell the truth, construct trust, institute property rights, and conduct scientific research?
Telling the truth. Why tell the truth? For voluntary warriors it’s a matter of life and death. If nearly every man is a warrior, and only warriors possess wealth, and for warriors truth is a matter of life and death. From that position came the west’s rise.
—Small numbers + technology + truth + contract—
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 05:03:00 UTC
-
THE TABLE OF ETHICAL ARGUMENT ETHICAL 1) Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge
THE TABLE OF ETHICAL ARGUMENT
ETHICAL
1) Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence.
ETHICALLY POSSIBLE
2) Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated.
ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
3) Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction.
UNETHICAL
4) Dishonest speech.
🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 04:47:00 UTC
-
UNDER PROPERTARIANISM, OPERATIONALISM PREVENTS *HARM* —“All arguments put into
UNDER PROPERTARIANISM, OPERATIONALISM PREVENTS *HARM*
—“All arguments put into the marketplace of ideas function as conceptual goods – products for our use. Now since we are producing goods we do have the ability if not the necessity to provide consumer protection. This is all that operationalism does for us. It doesnt say you’re doing good (telling the truth) it tests whether or not you are doing HARM. It makes sure that you’re not using verbalisms. Under Propertarianism we require you warranty your goods and services. And those warranties are subject to legal enforcement by universal standing where the loser pays.”—-
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 02:47:00 UTC
