Category: Epistemology and Method

  • @BIGSCHMOOL @Nationalist7346 That is an inarticulate means by which to say that

    @BIGSCHMOOL @Nationalist7346 That is an inarticulate means by which to say that the paradigm by which we construct the constant relations necessary for descriptions of necessity influences subsequent deductions. That says NOTHING about the fact that by continuous recursive competition we have produce continuous increases in precision toward a single universal paradigm, and that this paradigm consists of realism, naturalism, empiricism, and operationalism.

    This is not a subject you are equipped to discuss, and it is my principal area of research….

    I can tell you with certainty that you are simply trying to preserve confidence in a set of paradigms that you feel you have understanding of, and which are sufficient for you to grasp the world at your degree of agency and therefore given your limited agency, unable to falsify.

    The scientific position on your paradigmatic condition is that you fail to seek to falsify your paradigm because you lack the agency (intelligence, personality traits, time, or character) to obtain sufficient knowledge to do so.

    So please don’t waste my time while you try to expand your reality distortion field with comforting lies, for the purpose of falsely convincing yourself of agency in this world. You don’t have it. I know you don’t Because no one with agency believes such silly things, nor tries to evangelize them to those above their ranks.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 18:41:25 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102441267027690259

  • Boost of @Truthist7346 @BIGSCHMOOL @curtd It’s all in your grammar. He’s made a

    Boost of @Truthist7346@BIGSCHMOOL@curtd It’s all in your grammar. He’s made a science out of how to tell when someone isn’t telling the truth (notice that’s different than a science to tell if someone IS telling the truth). So far, the results have supported the theory. Do you have an argument? Then put it forth. Otherwise, you’re a waste of time.

    “The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false.”


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-14 15:24:46 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102440588937486090

  • @gaidhealtachd Sorry man. No way to tell. … Ok, so yes I agree we we predict,

    @gaidhealtachd Sorry man. No way to tell. … Ok, so yes I agree we we predict, report, and demonstrate preferences both positive and negative, and that predicted, reported, and demonstrated preferences sometimes match.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 22:42:42 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102430891152876263

  • @BIGSCHMOOL That’s empirically false right? I mean, Math, Science, Operational l

    @BIGSCHMOOL That’s empirically false right? I mean, Math, Science, Operational language, Engineering, Demonstrated Preference, Reciprocity, and Legal Testimony are antidotes for lies.

    Idealism, Analogy, and Supernaturalism are just a comforting means of obscuring and justifying lying with artful sophism (abrahamic lying).

    If you can’t say it in the grammar and vocabulary of testimony (science) they you either don’t know what you’re talking about, are a purveyor of lies, or a maker of lies.

    But it’s just LYING.

    Its all just lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 18:32:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102429905737879126

  • Jun 28, 2019, 4:11 PM Um. It’s not difficult. Search for any given topic. Find a

    Jun 28, 2019, 4:11 PM
    Um. It’s not difficult. Search for any given topic. Find an article in a journal or serious publication (serious). Follow the link to the article. Find the authors. Go to google scholar and find the citations of the paper or read the papers cited in the paper. Read them. Search for the authors and keywords from the abstract. Do that until all the papers make the same damned point. This doesn’t take long. Nearly all research of substance on a topic is marginally indifferent. Find a book that’s good. use the bibliography. Repeat the process. you will be current on any topic in a few hours.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:59:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426240089224846

  • (…) THE METHODOLOGY The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (lik

    (…)

    THE METHODOLOGY

    The methodology consists largely of using algorithmic (like programming) operational language, the vocabulary and concepts of economics and law, to produce operationally formal arguments, that satisfy all dimensions of human perception (consistency, correspondence, operational (existential) possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, full accounting, parsimony, coherence, and warrantied for due diligence against ignorance error bias and deceit for having done so. If you want to learn the methodology, it’s formal, and its relatively difficult, not because the principles are difficult, but because it exposes whether you know what you’re talking about or not, and forces you to speak and write in terms demonstrating that you have the knowledge to claim what you speak is true.

    This method, produces the long sought after ‘strictly constructed law’ closed to interpretation, on one end and the ability to limit political speech to that which is not false parasitic, predatory.

    So that’s the evidence I can and have summarized the work. It’s not philosophy or ideology so it’s not something you intuit, it’s like the calculus, formal logic, programming, economics, and law, which is something you study and learn by repeated application until it’s a skill.

    This is the most important work being produced in the field at present. nothing else compares. I know. And I know why, and I explain why, and it’s not a good thing that the enemy has been so successful at sophism pseudoscience propaganda and denial.

    Now, if that’s too much for your big boy pants, I’m sorry for you. But learning this if you have studied literary philosophy instead of science, logic, algorithms, economics, and law can be burdensome because you are the equivalent of a theologian in the empirical enlightenment, given that this formal logic of the social sciences deprecates literary philosophy forever to the realm of pseudosciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:34 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426211274373936

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“ ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);” 4. A Body of Law: ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men” iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.” iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.” 5. A Reformation: i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields” – Language, Logic, and Mathematics – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics – Ethics, Law, and Politics – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule 6. A Solution i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.” ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.” THE LIST OF IDEAS Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category. From there you have to link to specific articles. ANd then there is the courseware. ANd finally I will ship the book when ready. (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

  • (…) 3. A Methodology: i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Metho

    (…)

    3. A Methodology:
    i) Epistemology: “The Completion of the Scientific Method and its application to the full scope of human knowledge, resulting in a universal, formal, epistemological method sufficient for adjudication of differences in court.“

    ii) Ethics, Law, Politics: “The strict, algorithmic, construction of the natural, common law, of reciprocity (tort);”

    4. A Body of Law:
    ii) Law: “A body of law answering the cannon of questions – providing a common law of equally sovereign men, alternative to Roman, Napoleonic, and Continental law of unequally sovereign men”

    iii) Constitution: A Constitution of that law, completing the Aristotelian, Roman, British, and American Constitutional Project.”

    iiii) Policies: “A set of policies under that constitution, solving the otherwise unsolvable problems of the current age.”

    5. A Reformation:
    i) Reformation: “A reformation and unification of all fields”

    – Language, Logic, and Mathematics
    – Psychology, Sociology, and Group Strategy
    – Money, Credit-Finance, and Economics
    – Ethics, Law, and Politics
    – Mindfulness-Religion, Education-Academy, and Government-Rule

    6. A Solution
    i) A Solution: “A solution to the political problem of our age.”

    ii) A Declaration: “A Declaration demanding the implementation of this constitution, as reformations of, by amendments to, the existing American constitution, restoring the historical European, Germanic, English, British, and American rights of equally sovereign men, and a means of successful insurrection to force its adoption if force is required – which it will be.”

    THE LIST OF IDEAS
    Too long to list here but the overview lists all of the major themes in order by aristotelian category.

    From there you have to link to specific articles.

    ANd then there is the courseware.

    ANd finally I will ship the book when ready.

    (…)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-12 02:52:05 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426209481700160

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“He needs to state it plainly and stop comparing himself to great philosophers. I’ve read Kant, Hegel, Locke, Darwin, and a lot more. They were far more eloquent and articulate with their ideas. Even Kant, who writes with even more arrogance than this guy, but at least deserved it.”— Frank Anthony Overton Jr. Frank, Summarize any three of aristotle, hume, kant, hegel, (locke and darwin are easy). They were creating paradigm shifts. Frank says (a) he doesn’t understand it, (b) by he can opine on it. If you read those people then read the Overview and comment. Otherwise you’re just jerking off in public. Criticism is a good thing – if it’s in fact criticism. THE VIDEO SUMMARIZES “Propertarianism consists of a collection of ideas. The core insight in that collection of ideas consists in the completion of the scientific method. The remaining body of work consists of the application of the scientific method to the full scope of human disciplines.” THE WEB SITE HOME PAGE, SUMMARIZES: “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; its embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” THE OVERVIEW SUMMARIZES An Explanation: i) The Uniqueness of Western Civilization: “The Group Strategy (Philosophy) of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms: Excellence and Heroism, Sovereignty and Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The Jury and Markets in Everything.” ii) The Failure of the Enlightenment: “The Crisis of the 20th and 21st Centuries as a failure to apply that strategy and adapt to counter the industrialization of pseudoscience, sophism, denial, and deceit; iii) The Second Conquest of the West: The Crisis of the 20th and 21st century as a repetition of the revolt against western civilization, truth, reason, and law, under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the dark ages of ignorance and destruction that resulted from them.” 2. A System of Measurement, Logic, Vocabulary, and Grammar: i) System Of Measurement: ( … ) “A system of measurement – Propertarian – that provides universal commensurability in thought, display, word, and deed. (Action, Acquisitionism, Propertarian.)” ii) Vocabulary: “A set of fully commensurable cross-disciplinary definitions in operational language. iii) Grammars: “A reduction of language to the equivalent of a periodic table of the elements, and the underlying geometry of thought.” iiii) Logic: “An Operational Logic using Operational Grammar for using these definitions.” v) Value Neutral Language: “A Value Neutral Language of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy, suitable for the construction of law, delivery of testimony, and adjudication of differences in court.” (…)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102426205598779546

  • ( …. continued:) So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and l

    ( …. continued:)

    So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and law dependent upon testimony, and that we are seeking to produce in the science that degree of testimony we would produce in court, then I see nothing terribly novel about continuing and completing that evolutionary process. In other words, science adopted operational prose as a means of suppressing the untestifiable. And I can see no reason why we would not extend this from the sciences to the pseudosciences – especially those which are used to construct and enforce law.

    —“The reason I care at all about this metaphysics issue is because I must partially disagree with the last line in the 18MAR2018 statement. While the list Curt provides is a good start, it is just a start, just a tip, and I suspect there is a whole lot more as yet unseen and undescribed to that iceberg. “—

    Despite trying, and the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers we cannot find a single case that is inexplicable by naturalistic means. In other words, I can’t find a reason to put money on (demonstrated belief in) other than common cognitive artifacts.

    —“That course was SOM 212: Myth & Spirit – The Life of Joseph Campbell”—

    My argument is that if metaphysics refers to what exists, then what do we name the study of the imaginary and fictional. In other words, how do we disambiguate between the operational, and the non? That does not mean that we do not find solace, escape, entertainment, ideation, or wisdom in fictional worlds. it does mean that we cannot testify to them or use them in argument (truth testing, evidence, persuasion, law).

    —“I have observed many, many, demonstrations of this effect which go far beyond pop psych positive thinking, social group effect, and anything else reasonably explicable by conventional Newtonian understanding of a mechanistic universe. “—

    As far as I know we have understood this phenomenon since the late seventies as nothing more than synchronicity when subject to the same information. We cannot find a single case otherwise.

    —“Rather, an example of this metaphysical (meaning, we just do not yet know how the black box of the universe does it) effect would be my thinking about a certain extremely unusual item, which I have not seen for many years, while in a fuge state washing dishes in the evening, then the next day driving down the road find that this exact item has literally fallen out of the sky and is laying there on the center line of a deserted stretch of road right in front of me (fell off a truck, presumably).”—

    (continued….)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:44:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424764699895143

    Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtd

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”— Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared. —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”— Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci. —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—- I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means. Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe. My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit. (continued….)

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • “We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fi

    —“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”—

    Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared.

    —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”—

    Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci.

    —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—-

    I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means.

    Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe.

    My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit.

    (continued….)


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:43:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899

  • ARCHAIC PROSE IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT GRASP ITS CONTENTS, ONLY MIMIC ITS INTUITI

    ARCHAIC PROSE IS FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT GRASP ITS CONTENTS, ONLY MIMIC ITS INTUITIONS.

    If you have to argue in literary analogy it’s because you can’t argue in math, science, operations, incentives, actions and economics.

    The past is only as useful as the science we derive from it.

    Archaic prose is for those who do not grasp its contents, only mimic its intuitions.

    If you can’t disambiguate it, you don’t undrestand it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-11 20:26:21 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424692763926613