Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors https://t.co/WTiqzY2oMq
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors
Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/operationalizing-an-argument-for-the-preservation-of-malinvestment-in-priors/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 14:55:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267469840891117568
-
Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors
OPERATIONALIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MALINVESTMENT IN PRIORS (example of faith or other desirable false beliefs)
—“My solution is values testing. Which turns out to be epistemology testing. Meaning being downstream from epistemology, and values are downstream from meaning. The semiotic link between concept, word and thing cannot be broken in empiricism. Redefinition of terms that you see in certain critiques doesn’t negate the original concept; rather it creates a void to be filled by a new word, or rejection of the modified definition. Test for empiricism. “— Andrew M Gilmour
I am sure that makes some sort of sense to you but I can’t translate it into truthful speech. So lets operationalize it and see what happens: “My solution to (some problem or other) consists in testing (some kind of, category of, some individual or group’s) values. Truthful statements require knowledge individuals don’t possess, cannot obtain, cannot ford to obtain, or are unwilling to obtain, so they substitute (whatever set of constant relations between senses, associations with objects, contexts, locations, and valued returns) is within their memories (experience and therefore meaning). The individual’s association between the constant relations produced by some mark, display, word or action, and cumulative prior associations currently in memory (concept), are not falsified or replaced or informed by evidence (experience) accumulated using physical and logical instrumentation we use to test our sense perception, free association, and reason, and to falsify, confirm, or evolve those same associations (categories). The use of Operational Language, wherein each sequential action whether physical, rational, or logical, is subjectively testable, does nothing to reorganize collections of constant relations (concepts), and the paradigms upon which those prior and new associations depend by the same means of cumulative associations. Instead (some individual, some people, some group) will always attempt to defend the newly falsified, confirmed, revised topic so that it remains unchanged, and instead, (whomever) will seek to preserve (whomever’s) investment in existing paradigms (constant relations, theories, narratives), by finding and fitting a new set of constant relations, and name them, into his previous paradigms, rather than reform his paradigms. This is because (some reason or other) people do not want to learn but preserve their paradigms regardless of how completely they are falsified. The reason is that for some reason, some percentage of the population seeks the psychological comfort of some paradigm over the more parsimonious (truthful) paradigm.” Well, you just described the reason for choosing not to learn because of the addiction to faith, or not learning because of addiction to some other means of preserving psychological self image or social status or pretense of sexual, social, economic, political, military market value, that is counter to competitive reality. When under all but physically developmental illnesses, cognitive behavioral therapy under care can correct every known one of them. I also agree that this is the definition of mental illness. And I also agree this is the dominant position of the excessively empathic (feminine) mind when in a condition of vulnerability.)
-
Operationalizing an Argument for The Preservation of Malinvestment in Priors
OPERATIONALIZING AN ARGUMENT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF MALINVESTMENT IN PRIORS (example of faith or other desirable false beliefs)
—“My solution is values testing. Which turns out to be epistemology testing. Meaning being downstream from epistemology, and values are downstream from meaning. The semiotic link between concept, word and thing cannot be broken in empiricism. Redefinition of terms that you see in certain critiques doesn’t negate the original concept; rather it creates a void to be filled by a new word, or rejection of the modified definition. Test for empiricism. “— Andrew M Gilmour
I am sure that makes some sort of sense to you but I can’t translate it into truthful speech. So lets operationalize it and see what happens: “My solution to (some problem or other) consists in testing (some kind of, category of, some individual or group’s) values. Truthful statements require knowledge individuals don’t possess, cannot obtain, cannot ford to obtain, or are unwilling to obtain, so they substitute (whatever set of constant relations between senses, associations with objects, contexts, locations, and valued returns) is within their memories (experience and therefore meaning). The individual’s association between the constant relations produced by some mark, display, word or action, and cumulative prior associations currently in memory (concept), are not falsified or replaced or informed by evidence (experience) accumulated using physical and logical instrumentation we use to test our sense perception, free association, and reason, and to falsify, confirm, or evolve those same associations (categories). The use of Operational Language, wherein each sequential action whether physical, rational, or logical, is subjectively testable, does nothing to reorganize collections of constant relations (concepts), and the paradigms upon which those prior and new associations depend by the same means of cumulative associations. Instead (some individual, some people, some group) will always attempt to defend the newly falsified, confirmed, revised topic so that it remains unchanged, and instead, (whomever) will seek to preserve (whomever’s) investment in existing paradigms (constant relations, theories, narratives), by finding and fitting a new set of constant relations, and name them, into his previous paradigms, rather than reform his paradigms. This is because (some reason or other) people do not want to learn but preserve their paradigms regardless of how completely they are falsified. The reason is that for some reason, some percentage of the population seeks the psychological comfort of some paradigm over the more parsimonious (truthful) paradigm.” Well, you just described the reason for choosing not to learn because of the addiction to faith, or not learning because of addiction to some other means of preserving psychological self image or social status or pretense of sexual, social, economic, political, military market value, that is counter to competitive reality. When under all but physically developmental illnesses, cognitive behavioral therapy under care can correct every known one of them. I also agree that this is the definition of mental illness. And I also agree this is the dominant position of the excessively empathic (feminine) mind when in a condition of vulnerability.)
-
“Terminology comes after knowledge, not before; it’s the philosophical knowledge
—“Terminology comes after knowledge, not before; it’s the philosophical knowledge they lack, not terminology.”—Drew John
Possibly, although paradigms and terms form systems of comparison and measurement. And moreover, although sophism and idealism in philosophy are it’s curse, and I’ve tried I think successfully to solve that which is why I’m no longer sure of the demarcation between philosophy, science, testimony, and law. As far as I know the last stronghold of philosophy was truth, and it turns out it’s a scientific discipline, and as such philosophy is now a matter of preference, good, and choice, and math, operational logic, science, economics, and law have fully separated from philosophy. Hopefully relegating philosophy to choice preference and good, will end it’s use for sophism.
-
“Terminology comes after knowledge, not before; it’s the philosophical knowledge
—“Terminology comes after knowledge, not before; it’s the philosophical knowledge they lack, not terminology.”—Drew John
Possibly, although paradigms and terms form systems of comparison and measurement. And moreover, although sophism and idealism in philosophy are it’s curse, and I’ve tried I think successfully to solve that which is why I’m no longer sure of the demarcation between philosophy, science, testimony, and law. As far as I know the last stronghold of philosophy was truth, and it turns out it’s a scientific discipline, and as such philosophy is now a matter of preference, good, and choice, and math, operational logic, science, economics, and law have fully separated from philosophy. Hopefully relegating philosophy to choice preference and good, will end it’s use for sophism.
-
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’? https://t.co/ACyu92aW1A
-
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’? https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/q-what-do-you-mean-by-serialization/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 13:50:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267453515397545985
-
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?
Oct 25, 2019, 12:30 PM “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important)
—“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb
(From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) Before using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not. This is how we converted common language into a system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATION tautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATION incomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. The Grammars just provide a sort of equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, for language, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, I’m restoring language to geometry: real (aristotle), constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations, or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphycis,a nd habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt
-
Q: What Do You Mean by ‘Serialization’?
Oct 25, 2019, 12:30 PM “CURT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘SERIALIZATION’?” (important)
—“What is serialization?”—Duke Newcomb
(From the P-Method of “Disambiguation, Serialization, and Operationalization”) Before using a term, define the term, by researching the etymology of the term (history), then collecting all synonyms and antonyms (and etymology) and organizing them into one or more series by common properties. We use serialization to force disambiguation between terms that appear similar but are not. This is how we converted common language into a system of measurement, and expose our errors, and our ignorance, and most sophisms whether a deceit-fallacy, ideal-verbal, pseudoscientific-magical, or supernatural-occult Examples using ‘True’: DUE DILIGENCE AS CONSTANT RELATION tautologically true, idealistically true, testimonially(really) true, honestly true, impulsively true. and: DECIDABILITY AS CONSTANT RELATION incomprehensible, comprehensible(understandable), agreement(on understanding), preferential(for me), good(mutually preferential), testimonially true (decidable); ideally true(logically), or tautologically true(identical). Some Other Examples on our site, particularly after item seven: https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/the-cheat-sheet/ It’s sort of like (exactly like) creating a number line, or a series of points on a line. The number line creates a system of measurement by some underlying constant relation (in the case of numbers, position), and then points on a line which test conformity to the constant relation (constant positional relation between n-dimensional positions. Operationalism is a bit harder: writing complete sentences as transactions with a consistent point of view, in ePrime. Testimonial Operationalism is a bit harder: writing those same complete sentences as promissory observations, Operationalism into Acquisition, Property-in-toto, and Reciprocity is a bit harder. This requires you start using economics of human behavior. But once you get there by combining serialization, operationalism, and acquisitionism, you have the formal logic of all human language – a universal commensurable system of measurement for human speech. The Grammars just provide a sort of equivalent to the table of fundamental particles, the periodic table of the elements, the dimensions of geometry, for language, and with the Grammars you can learn rather easily This is why I usually refer to the P-Method as the ‘Geometry of Thought”. Because just as Descartes restored mathematics to geometry, I’m restoring language to geometry: real (aristotle), constant relations(engineering), instead of ideal (platonic) constant relations, or supernatural(semitic) constant relations (astrology). However this big picture of the differences caused by the civilizational origins of their thought and it’s incorporation into the their rationalizations and language, and metaphycis,a nd habits, is invisible to almost everyone. I just write it here so the few who might want to see that pattern can discover it. -Curt