(argh. still owe that one ‘unpleasant fellow’ a response to the positivist argument. forgot…)
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-21 01:25:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119774241505927168
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Not True. Truth is truth. And truth is enough. I quote you all the time, and I h
Not True. Truth is truth. And truth is enough. I quote you all the time, and I haven’t found anything to disagree with you on other than terminology (group selection). The problem isn’t race. It’s eradication of or displacement of the their race, and ending truth and rule of law. https://twitter.com/JayMan471/status/1119609082804088833
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-20 17:39:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1119656807574716428
-
If you write operationally and with minimum use of the verb to be, you will achi
If you write operationally and with minimum use of the verb to be, you will achieve what you are suggesting. The problem is people use those ‘cheats’ you suggest because they don’t know of what they speak, and want to intellectually or emotionally load it to compensate.
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-17 14:55:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118528326329671680
Reply addressees: @jayvanbavel @JonHaidt @sapinker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118228007204921344
IN REPLY TO:
@jayvanbavel
Clear #writing is one of the most useful skills you can develop
These 13 tips from @sapinker are a great start – he is a master of the psychology of writing.
https://t.co/MqVRIDvgdT https://t.co/nxoZcxbKfTOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118228007204921344
-
Um. let’s not descend into crazy territory. Faith is a grammar of faith and fait
Um. let’s not descend into crazy territory. Faith is a grammar of faith and faith alone, literature the grammar of literature and literature alone, and reason, law, science, history, and mathematics are the grammar of argument. One does not combine faith and reason honestly.
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-16 14:50:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118164807608426501
Reply addressees: @LibrarianVee @Ozpin_88
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118146836609544193
IN REPLY TO:
@LibrarianVee
@curtdoolittle @Ozpin_88 Interesting that you see so much as spin-offs of Christianity. I see why you do, but these spin-offs reject God who makes Himself clear.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1118146836609544193
-
index(name) > icon(representation) > symbol(abstraction)
index(name) > icon(representation) > symbol(abstraction)
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-14 13:00:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1117412373306933248
-
6) Operational = Real (measurement). Ideal = Fictionalism (story). Supernatural
6) Operational = Real (measurement). Ideal = Fictionalism (story). Supernatural = Supernatural Fictionalism (magic). 😉 We can communicate by many means of narration. Externalities from mathematical fictionalism are substantive. -Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-10 15:27:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115999632495194115
Reply addressees: @KelseyAHE
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
IN REPLY TO:
@kelseyahe
Do you think mathematicians disagree about what’s true?
When? Where? Why?Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
-
5) Mathematics is just the most parsimonious grammar of speech we have, because
5) Mathematics is just the most parsimonious grammar of speech we have, because it consists of only one dimension: position. And as a grammar like all other grammars we make use of. The question is whether one is engaging in description, fiction, or supernaturalism.
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-10 15:24:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115998916993007620
Reply addressees: @KelseyAHE
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
IN REPLY TO:
@kelseyahe
Do you think mathematicians disagree about what’s true?
When? Where? Why?Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
-
4) … or that Description < Storytelling/Narration < Fictionalism (pseudoscienc
4) … or that Description < Storytelling/Narration < Fictionalism (pseudoscience, sophism) < Supernaturalism, are in themselves dimensions of demand for testimony. We have corrected most of physics in the 20th. We have not corrected math, and because if it econ is a disaster. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-10 15:21:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115998264124375043
Reply addressees: @KelseyAHE
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
IN REPLY TO:
@kelseyahe
Do you think mathematicians disagree about what’s true?
When? Where? Why?Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
-
3) Or that such mathematicians tend claim that which is true (testifiable) refle
3) Or that such mathematicians tend claim that which is true (testifiable) reflects the number of those testable (knowable) dimensions that their work depends upon. Or that constructivist(measurements) < idealist[fiction](mathematical reality) < Supernaturalists (infinities) …
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-10 15:17:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115997286306320384
Reply addressees: @KelseyAHE
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
IN REPLY TO:
@kelseyahe
Do you think mathematicians disagree about what’s true?
When? Where? Why?Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
-
2) Mathematicians rarely know that categorical consistency (position), internal
2) Mathematicians rarely know that categorical consistency (position), internal consistency (logic), operational (existential) consistency (construction), external consistency (correspondence), and completeness (limits,full accounting), are the full set of dimensions we can test.
Source date (UTC): 2019-04-10 15:13:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115996130154819584
Reply addressees: @KelseyAHE
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057
IN REPLY TO:
@kelseyahe
Do you think mathematicians disagree about what’s true?
When? Where? Why?Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1115646922243629057