Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Well even that statement is literary(poetic, emotional) not scientific (incentiv

    Well even that statement is literary(poetic, emotional) not scientific (incentives, possible).

    It’s not complicated. The anglos put a bullet in religion, but it didn’t matter because anglos had been a contractual people since saxon times. The continent wasn’t.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 19:00:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232379815329660929

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232378919363448833

  • Depends on classification. If the Anglo Empirical Revolution is the enlightenmen

    Depends on classification. If the Anglo Empirical Revolution is the enlightenment, then postmodernism is one of the counter-enlightenments against science and reason. It’s the most successful because it’s pure sophistry: social construction by sophistry instead of theology.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:27:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920

    Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232370007184695297

  • More on Learning Operational Grammar

    More on Learning Operational Grammar https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/more-on-learning-operational-grammar/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:11:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232367603307491329

  • More on Learning Operational Grammar

    (core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!

  • More on Learning Operational Grammar

    (core) What is the difference between an actor and subject? My understanding of traditional grammar is that: “John threw the ball” Subject-verb-object Which you describe as Actor-operation-subject John is an actor in this case, and the “subject” (as I was taught in school, anyway). Another example: “The fruit fell from the tree” Subject-verb-object In this sentence, one might think the actor is gravity, or the wind. Since that is what caused the change in state. From a testimonial or vitruvian measurement, though, it would be more like: “I saw the fruit fall from the tree.” The actor is myself as an observer? And the subject is the fruit? Any clarification on terms “actor” and “subject”? by Adam Jacob Robert Walker: You could consider the tree as an actor as well. The tree produces fruit. But a tree isn’t necessarily following incentives. But rather it’s “act” is a result of nature adaptations or mechanisms of survival. I think you are correct that you’d have to switch it to the orientation of the observer. I saw the fruit fall from the tree (actor-action), after I went outside to get my mail (incentive to go outside and observe), and the fruit splattered on my driveway (state change on the ground). I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors. by Bill Joslin: In english grammar the subject is the agent subject-verb-object. the subject “acts upon” the object (side note: this distinction subject “that which acts upon”and object “that which is acted upon” lay the foundation for the initial use of the terms subjective, objective. prior to the 19th century of so, religion was considered the pursuit of “objective truth” in that one would he changed by the truth (truth acts upon the seeker) and subjective truth was what one did when they sought truth to a specific ends (such as science investigates a particular phenomenon to eventually be able to do something with it). the rise of science (seeking truth to a specific ends) “killed” objective truth – this was the assertion in Horkhiemer and Adorno’ Dialectic of enlightenment. by Adam Jacob Robert Walker Nice. That puts it in a philosophical context for me. I wasn’t aware of all that. by Curt Doolittle[I promise I saw] [gravity cause] the fruit [fall/fell] [from the tree] [to the ground.] Promise, Testimony, Actor, Subject of testimony, Transaction. Use subject or object if you want, but my point is that we need to use “actor, and in the OP that I started this discourse with, I was making the point that we habitually start sentences with the subject being acted upon to provide context, and the cost of ‘thinking’ in operational terms is the extra step required to start with actor instead – which eliminates the problem of the verb to be from the sentence structure. If you have a difficulty with eliminating the verb to be, start with the actor not the object( or as I prefer, subject). ADAM IS CORRECT: Actor, Subject. —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Well done!!!!!

  • Operationalism is Hard

    Operationalism is Hard. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/operationalism-is-hard/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:37:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232359002492801024

  • Operationalism is Hard.

    —“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam

    Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now. Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math. So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.

  • Operationalism is Hard.

    —“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam

    Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now. Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math. So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.

  • Operational logic is Demanding

    Operational logic is Demanding https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/operational-logic-is-demanding/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:36:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232358815296839681

  • Operational logic is Demanding

    —“Operational logic requires demonstrated knowledge and everyone relies on their own available vocabulary. Which reveals something about the speaker, but is why it’s so hard for people without a whole lot of REAL knowledge or the precise means measurements to use (their vocabulary). But once it clicks…you can do it. Just a matter of differing speeds of success. It’s really hard for me. Takes me a while to produce.”— Adam

      It’s hard for everyone. But that’s why it’s such a good test.