Category: Epistemology and Method

  • More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories

    Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.


    WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.  

  • More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories

    Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.


    WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.  

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND TH

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES

    Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe.

    An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction.

    So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency.

    Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality.

    As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites.

    And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description.

    I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth.

    So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 17:52:43 UTC

  • WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a conti

    WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 16:10:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1023601731081519106

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declarat

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 16:10:35 UTC

  • MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES Axioms can exist only in for

    MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES

    Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe.

    An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction.

    So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency.

    Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality.

    As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites.

    And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description.

    I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth.

    So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 13:52:00 UTC

  • THE RIGHT IS SIMPLE BECAUSE TRUTH IS SIMPLE It is not that the left is not learn

    THE RIGHT IS SIMPLE BECAUSE TRUTH IS SIMPLE

    It is not that the left is not learned, it’s that so much of what they learned is false. It’s not that the right is unlearned, it’s that what can be learned that is true is quite simple: rule of law – meaning truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets in everything produce meritocracy, eugenics, and prosperity – and every alternative does not.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 11:04:00 UTC

  • By discovering what is false

    By discovering what is false.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 19:22:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022200466384543744

    Reply addressees: @absolutelysubv

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022186928450494464


    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/1022186928450494464

  • Untitled

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 19:22:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022200369559101441

    Reply addressees: @absolutelysubv

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022186928450494464


    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/1022186928450494464

  • Free truthful speech is one thing, free speech – meaning speech that needn’t be

    Free truthful speech is one thing, free speech – meaning speech that needn’t be warrantied to be truthful – is just a license for propaganda, sophistry, and deceit.

    Which is precisely what we see.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-25 18:25:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1022185984975413248