Category: Epistemology and Method

  • P-Law for Dummies

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:53 AM

    1. Learn the dimensions of consistency necessary for claims one has performed the due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit that are necessary for claims of testimonial truth: categorical, logical, operational, empirical, rational, reciprocal consistency, limits, completeness, and coherence.
    2. Learn how to disambiguate by operationalization and serialization of terms into series (types) so that conflation and subsequent errors and deceits of conflation and inference are impossible. This will unite the different fields into a common vocabulary.

    3. Learn how to write in complete, promissory, operational vocabulary, free of the verb to be (eliminate pretense of knowledge) – this will unite the fields into a common grammar.

    4. Write definitions in that operational vocabulary and grammar that describe man and mankind from the individual to the species to prevent misrepresentation.

    5. Take the natural law of tort (demonstrated interest), the demand for reciprocity as a test of decidability in matters of conflict (productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality, warrantied, and within limits of restitution possible by the actors.)

    6. Write all constitution, legislation, regulation, and finding of the courts in this language, grammar, and programmatic structure

    7. Restate the constitution, and in particular the bill of rights in these strictly constructed terms, closed to arbitrary interpretation, to fully enumerate all rights, obligations, and inalienability of those rights and obligations.

    8. Expand the law of fraud from commercial speech to political (and academic) speech, in public, in matters public, to the public, and grant universal standing in matters of the commons. (Reduce the barrier to class actions against false, and irreciprocal speech

    9. Plug the primary hole in western law of tort that was exploited during the twentieth century: Criminalize baiting into hazard using false and unwarrantable promise. The effect of this will be to suppress lying by the state, the financial sector, the commercial sector, the media, the academy,

    10. Restore universal applicability so that those issuing legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, are liable for their actions, prohibiting violation of the constitution and strict construction.

    11. Require the court assent all legislation and regulation. Provide means by which the undecidable is returned to the legislature for settlement – rather than the court.

    This sequence will outlaw the entire postwar attempt to reverse the Darwinian revolution that explained, and justified western civilizations’ thousands of years of self domestication with criteria for reproduction, and aggressive hanging of criminals, dragging mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, and the vicissitudes of nature by the false promises of french socialism, german secular theology, jewish marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and human-biodiversity-denialism, that are positioned as a war against european supremacy – but is nothing more than the attempt to end the reason for the west (and east asia’s) success: Self domestication through negative eugenics (limiting underclass reproduction and survival) are more important than even education and literacy and the primary diver for raising mankind to its current condition. The anti-semitism in Propertarianism is not a genetic criticism, but anti-abrahamic: the use of the abrahamic method of deceit that institutionalized as a group strategy the female means of warfare by undermining from within by the fomentation of conflict between men. Judaism, christianity, and islam, in the old world, and marxism(class warfare to undermine formal institutions), postmodernism (social construction to undermine soft institutions), feminism (to undermine familial institutions), and human science denialism (to undermine the optimum group strategy of ethnocentrism for developing high trust, high investment commons, and high redistribution).

    —“I categorize P as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding, but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”—

    P-law completes the scientific method as one of due diligence; completes the darwinian revolution of decision by competition in evolution; and unites the physical, cognitive, psychological, social, political and economic sciences into one discipline: testimony by realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, within limits, completeness, and restitutability. This is why we think y’all (Critics) are rather dimwits. You latch onto what you grasp. You do not seek to understand. And in doing so maintain ignorance and immorality and the destruction of western civlization and its benefits to mankind, out of your own laziness and arrogance. P completes the Aristotelian project. Doolittle is not special. Like Aristotle, Smith, Hume, and Darwin, he is just living at a point in time where cognitive science, Turing’s revolution, economics, and evidence of the past century have combined with the internet’s discount on the acquisition and access to research publications, making possible the completion of the synthesis of disciplines to reform the laws we live under such that we prevent another semitic dark age brought about by the the most advanced system of deception invented by man: the weaponization and institutionalization of the female means of undermining by false promise (seduction) from within.

  • The Difficult Idea to Get Across

    Apr 1, 2020, 12:27 PM (important) When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity. This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry). If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons). I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could. Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.

  • In no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’, neutral

    In no case are ‘moral intuition’ or ‘value’, neutral. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/in-no-case-are-moral-intuition-or-value-neutral/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 12:40:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265986319060283393

  • Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process

    Learning “Curt Speak” (P-Logic) is a Process. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/learning-curt-speak-p-logic-is-a-process/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 12:33:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265984651451158528

  • Curt: The Use of Arrows?

    May 5, 2020, 11:08 AM

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol “>” in the lists you often use? So “Human logical facility > …Operations > … … Counting” etc Am I to read such lists with the words “is greater than” between them? Or does it have another meaning from computer code language or some other operational system that I’m unfamiliar with? Or am I attaching meaning where I shouldn’t?”— Stephen Wells

    HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE 1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision)

  • Curt: The Use of Arrows?

    May 5, 2020, 11:08 AM

    —“Can you clarify for me your use of the greater than symbol “>” in the lists you often use? So “Human logical facility > …Operations > … … Counting” etc Am I to read such lists with the words “is greater than” between them? Or does it have another meaning from computer code language or some other operational system that I’m unfamiliar with? Or am I attaching meaning where I shouldn’t?”— Stephen Wells

    HIERARCHY OF PURPOSE 1. Logical: The Direction of Serialization, 2. Dependency: Hierarchy of Dependency, 3. Evolution: Evolution of Development 4. Physical Causality: Sequence of Operations. EXAMPLES: Hierarchy less to more |FALSEHOOD|: Ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > obscurantism > fictionalism > deceit > denial. Direction Less to more in both directions |MORAL|: Evil < immoral < unethical < amoral > ethical > moral > Righteous. Process less to more |EPISTEMOLOGY| Observation > Auto-Association > Free Association > hypothesis > (mind-test) > theory > (action-test) > established theory or law (market-test) > limit discovery (falsification) > repeat (revision)

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization

    Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization, https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/disambiguation-operationalization-serialization/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 03:56:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265854454101954560

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,

    May 5, 2020, 9:23 PM “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,” What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.

    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”

    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)

    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…

    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidablity = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

  • Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,

    May 5, 2020, 9:23 PM “Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,” What the heck does that mean?

    1. serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
    2. series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.

    3. From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”

    4. The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)

    5. The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…

    6. Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.

    So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’. This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation. Why? All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action. In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc. In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria. If I go deeper it will get too complicated. So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior. For example, decidablity = demand for infallibility in the context in question.

  • Worth Repeating

    May 6, 2020, 11:02 AM So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement. By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce). By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior.