On external correspondence.
You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism.
All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments.
The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions.
We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know).
When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it.
However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.
This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal)
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerol
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism. All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments. The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions. We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know). When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it. However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal) -
On external correspondence. You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerol
On external correspondence.
You can justify anything. that’s why we have numerology, astrology, monotheistic religions, marxism, keynesian ‘cherry picking’ economics, libertarian ethics, and the whole corpus of postmodernism.
All the logics do not allow you to prove anything. But they do allow you to use strict grammars to FALSIFY arguments. And praxeology does not allow you to prove anything, but it does allow you to falsify arguments.
The reason we use empiricism (observation) is to falsify our reasoning and force us to find alternative solutions.
We tend to say an argument is true because we have falsified it and some particular variation of that argument survives. So we use that argument and claim it’s true (as far as we know).
When we give others that justification we cannot claim it is true, only that we cannot falsify it and that they are welcome to try. If enough people try and cannot, the it is very hard to argue with it.
However, for that to be true, we must state it inoperational language, which is also a strictly empirical grammar(and semantics) – and empirical for the same reason: to defeat the tendency of the human mind to engage in willful ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit.
This is a very hard thing to understand for some reason, most likely because we think and act in moral language and moral langauge tends to be justificationary. (Unscientific) because moral codes tend to vary from very reciprocal to very NOT reciprocal)
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 21:21:00 UTC
-
The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.
Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers -
THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO
THE FIFTH SECRET OF PROPERTARIANISM: WORDS THAT I USE MEAN WHAT I INTEND THEM TO MEAN.
Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary).
Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions.
So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.)
Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism.
TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING.
And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them.
Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 11:36:00 UTC
-
The Fifth Secret Of Propertarianism: Words That I Use Mean What I Intend Them To Mean.
Yes I must create new terms, redefine existing terms, or clarify existing terms, or use different phrasing to prevent the falsehoods in accumulated semantics, whether fictional(fictionalisms), common(ordinary), professional (disciplinary). Moreover, in order to unite Religion, Philosophy (what remains of it), Ethics and Morality, Law, Economics, Science, and Logic, into a single commensurable language that gives no discipline room for deception, I must correct the many ‘fictionalisms’ that plague each of the disciplines no matter how long their traditions. So I choose terms from each that are the most common, and you will find that I choose economics, cognitive science, and physics wherever possible, because they are the youngest languages with the least …. traditional falsehoods. I use mathematics but I use it in operational language. Most of our intellectual history is heavily biased by fictionalisms (storytelling analogies with pretense of science, logic, or reason.) Words mean what I choose them to mean, and my meanings are less subject to falsehood, since that is the purpose of the deflationary grammar (and semantics) of operationism, acquisitionism, propertarianism. TO DEFEAT ABRAHAMISM: THE INVENTION OF LYING. And I have an 80K word glossary to explain them. Cheers -
The First Secret Of Learning Propertarianism
Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable). First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not. Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form: —Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.— This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences. Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language. (start with reading about e-prime) -
THE FIRST SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM Operational language in full senten
THE FIRST SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM
Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable).
First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not.
Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form:
—Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.—
This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences.
Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language.
(start with reading about e-prime)
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 11:05:00 UTC
-
The First Secret Of Learning Propertarianism
Operational language in full sentences. All logics consists of some deflationary grammar that limits the structure of phrases, sentences, descriptions, and arguments, as well as the semantics (range of references you can use) to that which is empirical (observable). First, prohibit the use of the verb to-be in all forms. The verb to-be allows you to pretend you understand what you do not. Compose complete, fully-transactional sentences, in the form: —Actor, acts upon X{}, causing changes in states Y{}, and therefore causing these externalities Z{}.— This grammar reinforces the grammar of both economics and ethics: accounting for both the seen and unseen from the action to the totality of the consequences. Operational language prevents loading, framing, and suggestion – and largely deceit by the use of language. (start with reading about e-prime) -
The Second Secret Of Learning Propertarianism.
For every reference you use, express it as a position in a spectrum of at least three different states all of which share the same measurement (constant relation). The reason most things seem clearer or more insightful is that I use series’ of operational definitions to limit (as do all grammars) and emphasize, the constant relation I wish to illustrate. By describing a spectrum from coming into existence, to dropping from existence (failure) you create a definition wherein the priority of the properties of the category (causality) is not open to conflation or misinterpretation. And that is how Abrahamism causes deception: conflation and redirection (suggestion).