UNDERSTANDING P-LAW EPISTEMOLOGY
(excerpt from elsewhere)

You should not expect to understand P-Epistemology without work. If you could, then the many great minds before us would have figured out epistemology. I’m simply amazed that out of the new LLMs have proven it. And by the same means. 😉

So as I said you need the whole package of:
1) ternary logic,
2) evolutionary computation
3) by continuous recursive disambiguation,
4) irreducible first principles that result from that disambiguation,
5) the demonstrated interests that result from those first principles,
6) reciprocity that results from those first principles and those demonstrated interests,
7) the criteria for decidability in satisfying the demand for infallibility,
8) and the criteria for testimony that results,
9) and the grammars and the method to produce languages as measurement to achieve with the language in which testimony is expressed,
10) and the means (Logic) of error bias and deceit,
11) producing the capacity to identify what is ignorance, error, bias, deceit, denial, projection, undermining, sedition or treason,
12) thus identifying whether the individual’s truth claim (or false claim), is the product of the failure of due diligence due to ignorance or error, or conversely an incentive to deceive by bias, and deceit.

The relatively common inability to know this criteria, and work through this criteria, is understandable, given the rather shallowness of human cognition. But this is not a matter of cognition but one of calculation. Or rather algorithmic testing.

So while it takes only a few hundred pages to describe all of the above, the capacity to master it is no less difficult than the master of economics and law together.

And, THERE IS NO SHORTCUT. You have to think of it all in order to think of any of it.

A SUBSET: THE CONCEPT OF TRUTH (PERFORMATIVE, TESTIFIABLE)
We aren’t trying to determine if something is ideally or analytically, true, but whether it is testifiable (possible to claim as true).

So if one of the criteria isn’t satisfied, then you drill down on it, until you determine it’s constructed from first principles.

In the context of testifiable truth, those criteria are:
Realism,
Naturalism
Identity (unambiguity)
Internally consistent (logical)
Externally Correspondent (empirical)
Operationally Possible (demonstrable)
Rational Choice (rational)
Reciprocal (moral (reciprocally rational))
AND
Fully accounting, within stated limits,
Warrantable,
And within the limits of restitutability.

Most people skip over realism, naturalism.

For example, [“Everything between these brackets is a lie”] is ambiguous and intentionally so, by not satisfying the first rule of grammar, which is “continuous recursive disambiguation”, and instead, is doing the opposite, by intentionally using recursion without disambiguation – and as such it’s a lie of intention.

And I know this is difficult, because thinking in the via negativa (darwinian survival) not justificationary truth is a very difficult habit to overcome.

It’s because you’re using justification not falsification. Does an amoral question absent rationality and reciprocity survive falsification – yes it does. Because there is nothing there to falsify.

And I know this is difficult, because thinking in the via negativa (darwinian survival) not justifictionary truth is a very difficult habit to overcome.

We never know anything is true. We only know:
1) This is testifiable by the criteria of testifiability.
2) Whether the demand for infallibility in the context in question is met by the remaining testifiable testimony.
3) In some case it may be sufficiently decidable for you in your mind, sufficiently for you to act, sufficient for you to act given it’s impact on others and sufficient for you to act given it’s impact on others, their retaliation if you err, and your ability to provide restitution if you do err regardless of how correct you thought you were.

It’s promising that what you said is true and that you can morally claim it is true, because you have done due diligence (checks), and given those checks, if. you test those checks, and you find I err, it is only because I err, not because I deceive.

Because when we are discussing something such as not only whether a thing is testifiable or not, true or false, but whether it is immoral or not, AND because if it’s either false or immoral, or perhaps more importantly, when it’s both false and immoral, we want to punish them for it by both restitution and punishment. So one of the concepts I’m trying to teach y’all is not to fall into the sophistry of philosophy, and instead take it through science and into law. We want to know if it’s testifiable, true, rational, moral, and … so we can punish you for claiming otherwise.

The result we’re seeking to produce is both law, and the alteration of human behavior so that thtey are more conscious of the means by which we must perform due diligence against our tendency to lie, or worse, distribute the lies of others because we don’t really understand them – they just feel good.

So while I can repeat until I’m blue in the face that you’re still trying to justify rather than falsify (survival) almost all of you will keep doing it, because until you’ve answered hundreds of questions using falsification by these criteria you aren’t even aware that you’re using justification because everything in your life in ever walk of life, has taught you justificationism.

Which is exactly the problem we’re trying to overcome.

Why? Because way-finding through a maze by following instructions is cheap, vs verifying the entirety of the maze is block other than the one way that survives is not.

The point is to teach the method so that we understand the relationship between operational testifiability, not being a pragmatism, but requiring the precision necessary to satisfy the demand for unambiguity and as a consequence satisfying decidability sufficiently to satisfy the demand for infallibility.

So when i tell you start with decidability as the demand for infallibility, then with the spectrum of truth, then testimony, and then reciprocity, and then demonstrated interests, and then the capital witin the group evolutionary strategy.

I”m not kidding that THERE IS NO SHORTCUT. You have to think of it all in order to think of any of it.

Theers
CD