Category: Epistemology and Method

  • question. we have been referring to eprime (eliminating the copula: the verb to

    question. we have been referring to eprime (eliminating the copula: the verb to be), so that people could use the literature on eprime to understand how to do it. But the problem is, referencing that literature produces strange externalities because of the sequence of thinkers that went into defining it. All of whom amounted to nothing, and eprime was the only meaningful result of their works.

    should we just drop eprime reference and instead refer to ‘dropping the copula’ or ‘eliminating the verb to be’ and explaining it?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-10 12:32:00 UTC

  • it will never be possible. if it was possible the literature would be full of ac

    it will never be possible. if it was possible the literature would be full of actionable how-to rather than inactionable should.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-09 15:41:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226531655613124609

    Reply addressees: @JohnNune1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226528130103300101


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1226528130103300101

  • ELIMINATING THE VERB TO BE (COPULA). IS IT REQUIRED? —“Is failure to use ePrim

    ELIMINATING THE VERB TO BE (COPULA). IS IT REQUIRED?

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally.

    Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-08 18:54:00 UTC

  • Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the

    Given the Human logical facility

    Given the Human grammatical facility

    Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated);

    Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood.

    Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-08 13:18:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84683464_201607751237386_70025860617

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/84683464_201607751237386_7002586061754859520_o_201607744570720.jpg —“What is KOTH?”—

    How I teach. King Of The Hill Game. It’s debate where I state something by taking some position or other that will illustrate a principle or investigate some angle on it.

    See:

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/10/21/answering-criticisms/—“What is KOTH?”—

    How I teach. King Of The Hill Game. It’s debate where I state something by taking some position or other that will illustrate a principle or investigate some angle on it.

    See:

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/10/21/answering-criticisms/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 12:21:00 UTC

  • Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary met

    Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth.

    Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve.

    So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration.

    In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality.

    As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u

    How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified.

    So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline.

    The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’.

    And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

    The explanatory power is there.

    On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-07 11:28:00 UTC

  • IDEAL,Unaccountable: True/Is true …or… Is true? –vs– REAL. Accountable: I

    IDEAL,Unaccountable: True/Is true …or… Is true?

    –vs–

    REAL. Accountable: I promise I can say …or… Can I say?

    3 = 9/3 is true ……. Unaccountable

    I Promise 3 = 9/3 …. Accountable


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-06 12:56:00 UTC

  • Learning P will give you agency, but that’s another way of saying it will give y

    Learning P will give you agency, but that’s another way of saying it will give you deep understanding of the world, and see opportunities to change it..


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 20:00:00 UTC

  • Learning P will give you agency, but that’s another way of saying it will give y

    Learning P will give you agency, but that’s another way of saying it will give you power.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-05 20:00:00 UTC

  • Notice how you keep throwing out belief and want but not explaining how to opera

    Notice how you keep throwing out belief and want but not explaining how to operational bring about what you’re talking about, Yet I have a hundred thousand words on it.

    (And you apparently don’t know my background either)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-03 20:42:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224432885211418627

    Reply addressees: @HeadProph @Ozpin_88 @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1224432633397960705


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @HeadProph @Ozpin_88 @realDonaldTrump Is this an intellectually honest defense? When did you bring up the quebec analogy? Why do you think without uprising that the opposition will come to the table and settle? Why do you think Quebec wouldn’t have settled without it? Why did the US gov’t cave after 3 wks in 67?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224432633397960705


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @HeadProph @Ozpin_88 @realDonaldTrump Is this an intellectually honest defense? When did you bring up the quebec analogy? Why do you think without uprising that the opposition will come to the table and settle? Why do you think Quebec wouldn’t have settled without it? Why did the US gov’t cave after 3 wks in 67?

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1224432633397960705