I see lot of confusion by not separating “P” (the method) from various applications of the P-method. P-Method isn’t like libertarianism, or socialism, or some other political model. By applying P-Method we are trying to reform and restore our civilization. Method vs Application. Science vs Technology, Baking vs Cookies. THE METHODOLOGY 1 – P-Metaphysics (realism, naturalism, operationalism, ….) 2 – P-Epistemology (brain, mind, consciousness, learning, epistemology, acquisition) 3 – P-Method (a method, the completion of the scientific method in a formal operational logic) of testing reciprocity in display word and deed. … a) Disambiguation, serialization, competition (supply demand equilibration, evolution) … b) The Grammars and Table of Grammars … c) The Operational Grammar and Universal Commensurability … … c’) The Specification for Man … d) Reciprocity in Display word and Deed … … d’) The set of definitions in series that result from disambiguating terms of reciprocity. … e) Compatibilism (division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor) … f) Ternaryism, Tri-Coeercion – Tri-Functionalism … g) Beckerian explanation of social phenomenon using economic analysis APPLIED GENERALLY 4 – P-Method applied to History and Group Strategies 5 – P-Method as an explanation for the strategy and success of western civilization. 6 – P-Law, and Government (applied P to creating governments) and APPLIED SPECIFICALLY 7 – P-New-Constitution for restoration of western civilization. 8 – P-Constitutions for various other civilizations. Which thing are you talking about? If it’s political it’s 7 or 8. Newbies talk about 7-8 all the time. That’s not P. That’s APPLIED-P. P method is the formal logic of psychological and social science, if not all science. P method combines all the philosophical and scientific categories. So when you confuse confuse P-method(explanation) with political preferences (application) it’s the same as confusing science(explanation) with technology(application)
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
The Method – Communication
(the communication process epistemology)
-
The Method – Communication
(the communication process epistemology)
-
So you’re confusing excuse making (justification) with ADVERSARIALISM (falsifica
So you’re confusing excuse making (justification) with ADVERSARIALISM (falsification). The least false wins judgement. Only children are fooled by justification: Infants=Religion, Teens =Philosophy, Adults=Science, The Wise = The Law (The History of Human Falsehoods).
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 18:07:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263169383460941824
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263142178337042435
-
You’re depending on the big lie: that anything is justifiable. It isn’t. Justifi
You’re depending on the big lie: that anything is justifiable. It isn’t. Justification is a fraud. Decidability is provided by testimony sufficient to meet the demand for infallibility. Science is purely falsificationary. That which is not untestifiable remains a truth candidate.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 18:02:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263168252810846209
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263142178337042435
-
Whether you can testify to an observation or not isn’t subject to error. This is
Whether you can testify to an observation or not isn’t subject to error. This is why you can only say ‘i have faith and so I choose to follow faith’. You may not claim a statement of faith is true (testifiable). And you may not lie in defense of your faith. One can’t argue faith.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 18:00:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263167679130734592
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263142178337042435
-
There is no subjectivity to realism, naturalism, operationalism, internal consis
There is no subjectivity to realism, naturalism, operationalism, internal consistency (logic), empiricism, rational choice, reciprocity, full accounting, and warrantability. There is only the question of error in interpreting the evidence.
Your faith fails every test.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 16:13:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263140739082526721
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263139739944849408
-
Only lies are complicated
Only lies are complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 16:02:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263138145748627456
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263133474417975299
-
Something is testifiable or it isn’t. And it’s untestifiable. You can’t claim a
Something is testifiable or it isn’t. And it’s untestifiable. You can’t claim a Truth (testifability) when you can’t testify to it. You can only choose to have faith in the untestifiable. Proofs are for mathematics (possibility). You can only remove all doubt. No more lies.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-20 15:33:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263130717824921600
Reply addressees: @DSchrooner
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1263130009167974400
-
This is one of those things. There is no point in argument. There is no point in
This is one of those things. There is no point in argument. There is no point in conversation. The data all but useless. The interpretation of data purely psychological.The motives purely political. The WHO owned by China. The CDC failed in mission. It’s time for action.
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-16 18:20:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261723116797136896
Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1261717513173454848