Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Advanced P-Testimonialism

    Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and

    The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-need-for-three-grammars-empathic-rational-scientific-united-by-truth-and-reciprocity/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:00:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266172507717095424

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity

    Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity

    Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.

  • Dialogic Over Dialectic

    Mar 12, 2020, 6:28 PM

    —“Philosophically the successful paradigm was/is realism, naturalism, dualism, empiricism, virtue ethics. Truth being the thing IS itself and rejecting the thing IN itself. Dialogic over dialectic.”—Andrew M Gilmour

  • Dialogic Over Dialectic

    Mar 12, 2020, 6:28 PM

    —“Philosophically the successful paradigm was/is realism, naturalism, dualism, empiricism, virtue ethics. Truth being the thing IS itself and rejecting the thing IN itself. Dialogic over dialectic.”—Andrew M Gilmour

  • Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lie

    Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/philosophy-vs-law-vs-science-vs-p-law-end-the-century-of-pseudoscience-and-lies/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 22:53:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266140677253013504

  • Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies

    Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.


    NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.

  • Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies

    Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.


    NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.

  • Short Presentation on The Grammars

    Short Presentation on The Grammars https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/short-presentation-on-the-grammars/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 22:04:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266128148015562752