Few people ever bring up say Dworkin, Hart, Rawls, and the Natural Law (Rule of Law) vs Positive Law (Rule by Man) debate, or even Hayek and Epstein, or Milsom (or Black) or how many know the constitution, the Magna Carta, germanic law, roman law, and instead, they all fuss with philosophers and essayists who are mostly the people too ridiculous and absent responsibility to practice law and government. And so, instead, all of this history was so obvious to me, because I’ve been so deep in programming, law, cognitive science, and economics, for so long, that it’s sort of unimaginable to me that no one goes anywhere near the law at all. But no one does. Instead we learn shallow moralizing, opinion, sophistry: philosophy. AND THAT’S THE PROBLEM. Why is that? Well, that’s because the Natural Law (bottom up) and Political Law (top down) are spoken in even WORSE sophistry than philosophy. Seriously. I mean, the law is argued as rules, general rules (principles) and sets of cases. And law is taught and practiced as an apprenticeship trade over generations, where procedure and these rules like social norms and traditions, don’t require a comprehension of the underlying logic of the law (jurisprudence, legal philosophy, juridical science), just imitation of those legal norms. If you study the great legal debates from our present position of knowledge, the great thinkers are worse excuse makers and fantasists than the philosophers and theologians. Why? They’re trying to make excuses for political law (rule by man) to circumvent the high cost of moral law (natural law, rule of law), and it’s gotten far, far worse in the democratic age, and even worse in the postmodern age. And that’s what P-Law solves. It produces the formal logic of natural law, and says ‘well, you can do whatever you want, but this is the law, and if you want to do something pragmatic or expedient, then you’re violating that law, regardless of your political or judicial function. The purpose of natural law is to force you (individuals, social groups, business, political groups, governments) to find solutions that aren’t irreciprocal regardless of how hard it may be to do that. And what’s the problem? There is only one problem. We’re all trying to circumvent selection pressure: evolutionary law. And the left is additionally trying to circumvent physical law (scarcity) as well as natural law (human incentives and resulting behavior). I am too stressed by the rate of acceleration of the revolution so hopefully I make it through it to reform our civilization so that the law is taught as just another tool next to reading, and math, and physics, and we restore our ‘european sense making’ by restoring our fairy tales, myths, legends, of aryan heroism and achievement, and teach Aurelius’ philosophy as our secular personal philosophy (religion), and teach Aristotle restated in p-prose as our method of reason.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Yes well, academic stuff vs colloquial stuff is just one example why communicati
Yes well, academic stuff vs colloquial stuff is just one example why communication is difficult across the spectrum.We can cooperate, we can cohabitate, we can trade loyalty, but we can rarely understand one another. π Or rather we can understand you, but you not us. Sigh… π
Reply addressees: @party_blanket -
Yes well, academic stuff vs colloquial stuff is just one example why communicati
Yes well, academic stuff vs colloquial stuff is just one example why communication is difficult across the spectrum.We can cooperate, we can cohabitate, we can trade loyalty, but we can rarely understand one another. π Or rather we can understand you, but you not us. Sigh… π
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-09 16:27:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270392164611219457
Reply addressees: @party_blanket
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270391579791052805
-
Truth. Parsimony
Truth. Parsimony. https://t.co/i0GIAgfp72
-
Truth. Parsimony
Truth. Parsimony. https://twitter.com/Outsideness/status/1270158956380540928
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-09 11:47:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270321696810110976
-
Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence
Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Morality additionally requires due diligence against irreciprocity. WE STOPPED.
Reply addressees: @d116a5 @HDickpunch @V8POW -
Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence
Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Morality additionally requires due diligence against irreciprocity. WE STOPPED.
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-09 11:38:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270319444909268992
Reply addressees: @d116a5 @HDickpunch @V8POW
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270318138505129984
-
I sign of intelligence is the reduction of all speech to measurement that we cal
I sign of intelligence is the reduction of all speech to measurement that we call testimony:
operational language, in promissory form, absent the verb to be, in complete sentences, from the observer’s point of view, consisting of a series of transactions of changes in state. π
Reply addressees: @patacar -
I sign of intelligence is the reduction of all speech to measurement that we cal
I sign of intelligence is the reduction of all speech to measurement that we call testimony:
operational language, in promissory form, absent the verb to be, in complete sentences, from the observer’s point of view, consisting of a series of transactions of changes in state. π
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 21:36:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270107405074956288
Reply addressees: @patacar
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270106643204800513
-
A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The s
A scientist testifies
A philosopher opines
A theologian recites
Testimony: The secret of western civilization.
===
Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony?
Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea)
Epistemic: Empirical (external verification)
Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational)
Grammatical: Etymologically consistent
Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence)
I think i’m getting closer.
===
Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task.
TRY THIS:
Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability)
… Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory β memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.
Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions)
… Meaning,
… Stories, Explanation, Justification,
… [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars]
Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions)
… Falsification, Due Dilligence
… Three phases,
… … 1 – discovery,
… … 2 – due diligence,
… … 3 – testimony:
… 1. Epistemology – Discovery process):
… Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail
… … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail
… … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail
… … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail
… … … … … Law > Fail
… 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process)
… Adversarial Survival by tests of
… … Complete Sentences
… … In promissory form
… … In operational vocabulary (as actions)
… … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, wereβ¦)
… … including all changes in state
… … including all consequences of change in state
… … from an observerβs point of view
… … producing a series of testable transactions.
… Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is:
… Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man,
… in The Series:
… … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)
… … Internally Consistent (Logical)
… … Externally Correspondent (Empirical)
… … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)
… … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)
… … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)
… With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)
… Warrantied
… β¦ (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;
… β¦ (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;
… β¦ (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.
As a Defense Against the Series:
… Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;
… Error and failure of Due Diligence;
… Bias and Wishful Thinking;
… And the many Deceits of:
β¦ … (a) Loading and Framing;
… β¦ (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;
… β¦ (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;
… β¦ (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).
… In Defense or Advocacy Of:
… Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of:
β¦ … (a) productive
… β¦ (b) fully informed, fully accounted
β¦ … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability
… β¦ (d) voluntary
… β¦ (e) free of externality of the same criteria
… Including but Not Limited To
… The Series of:
… β¦ (a) murder,
… β¦ (b) harm, damage, theft,
… β¦ (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard
… β¦ (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,
… β¦ (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,
… β¦ (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience),
… β¦ (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding),
… β¦ (h) conquest (war).
… 3. Epistemology – Testimony process.
… … Adversarial competition between Search and Test.
… … Search Criteria
… … … Narrative
… … Test Criteria
… … … Operationalism: Actions
… … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 15:19:00 UTC