Category: Epistemology and Method
-
“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)
—“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”— 0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper] 1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic] 2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic] 3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic] 4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic] 5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical] 6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational] 7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual] Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative. Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm. All these methods are existentially possible. -
“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)
—“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”—
0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper]
1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic]
2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic]
3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic]
4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic]
5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical]
6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational]
7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual]
Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative.
Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm.
All these methods are existentially possible.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-31 11:51:00 UTC
-
“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3)
—“When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?”— 0 – Identity(Tautology) Description: True(correspondent, consistent, existential, coherent) vs False (non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-existential, or incoherent) [Truth proper] 1 – Calculation: True(without error) versus false(with error) [analytic truth] [axiomatic] 2 – Deduction(induction): True (without error) versus False (with error) [ logical truth] [axiomatic] 3 – Description( identity) : that description, definition, you would give if you possessed perfect knowledge, perfect vocabular, perfect grammar, and specified perfect limits and scope. [Ideal truth] [theoretic] 4 – Narration: True(correct) versus False(incorrect). [testimonial truth] [ theoretic] 5 – Legal Judgement: Right(non-imposition) versus Wrong(imposition) [legal right and wrong] [empirical] 6 – Judgement: Right(correct) versus Wrong(incorrect) [moral right and wrong] [rational] 7 – Normative Judgement: Right(obedient) vs Wrong(disobedient) [normative right and wrong] [habitual] Truth consists of speech that preserves constant relations in any grammar of decidability that we have produced, whether categorical, algorithmic, rational, narrative, legal, moral, or normative. Truth provides DECIDABILITY independent of preference or good, or norm. All these methods are existentially possible. -
When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) i
When you use the words 1) true, and 2) truth, what do you mean by them? And 3) is it possible for such a thing as you mean to exist?
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-30 22:38:00 UTC
-
My answer to Do you think we live in a post-truth world?
My answer to Do you think we live in a post-truth world? https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-we-live-in-a-post-truth-world/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=28107c63
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-30 19:16:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/947184636634988550
-
Great Question. Here Is An Uncomfortable Answer
—-”Q: Do you think we live in a post-truth world?”—- 1 – Yes. 2 – It’s by design (intent). 3. It’s a reformation of the first organized means of creating post truth. The purpose of the *Marxist, Freudian, Boazia, Cantorian, Misesian, Frankfurt, Rothbardian, Straussian* **counter-enlightenment** was to create a **pseudoscientific** alternative to the German’s second **scientific** revolution provided by* Maxwell, Darwin, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Romantic school*, which along with the German second technical revolution, and the Germanic rediscovery of pre-christian aesthetics, ethics and mythos – would restore **meritocracy** to its pre-christian origins, and pre christian **empirical truth**. With the combination of the industrial revolution freeing the underclasses from subsistence living and the Darwin’s ending of mysticism, and the opportunity for a new religion emerged, and the academy stepped in seize the opportunity with the Marxist pseudosciences – and took over the role of the church. When by the 1960’s no intellectually honest person could any longer support Marxism, the French invented ‘**Postmodernism**’ , which is not just pseudoscientific, but pseudo-rational, and constitutes **a complete denial of the existence of decidable truth** – only power to bring about one’s will mattered. Political Correctness roughly translates to ‘**lying**’ outright the same way that abrahamic religion translates roughly to lying by parable. Yet, especially beginning in about 2000 with The Blank Slate, largely due to the self interest of psychologist having been falsified by cognitive science, and therefore trying to save their careers and their profession psychology, cognitive science, genetic science, and economists, have falsified the remainder of the Marxist (economic and historical), Boazian (Anthropology and sociology), Freudian(psychology), pseudosciences. I work on reforming political speech, sociology, law and government, to prevent lying in the market for information the same way we have struggled to eliminate lying in the market for goods, and the market for services. So at the present we are in a narrow window and determining whether the truth prevails (a minority of us) or ‘lies of convenience’ prevail ( the majority) and whether we will enter another abrahamic dark age, of outright lying like we almost entered one from abrahamic pseudoscientific lying in the 1900’s, and did enter into the first abrahamic dark ages, with the sequential development of systemic lying in judaism > christianity > islam > and the rational justifications of them we call most ‘philosophy’. The universe is not kind. We are not the center of it. We are a glorious accident in an old and peaceful suburb of a minor galaxy. And we do not yet know if we are alone completely or alone by distance, or not alone at all. There is only one problem: excessive reproduction below the threshold of reason (about 106 iq) and below the threshold of neoteny (aggression) and below the threshold of agency (impulsivity). Why? Because the inferior need lies to compete. And those of us fully human are bounded by those that are not yet so. And that is an uncomfortable truth. -
QUESTION. HERE IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE ANSWER —-”Q: Do you think we live in a post-t
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-we-live-in-a-post-truth-world/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=28107c63&srid=u4QvGREAT QUESTION. HERE IS AN UNCOMFORTABLE ANSWER
—-”Q: Do you think we live in a post-truth world?”—-
1 – Yes.
2 – It’s by design (intent).
3. It’s a reformation of the first organized means of creating post truth.
The purpose of the *Marxist, Freudian, Boazia, Cantorian, Misesian, Frankfurt, Rothbardian, Straussian* **counter-enlightenment** was to create a **pseudoscientific** alternative to the German’s second **scientific** revolution provided by* Maxwell, Darwin, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Romantic school*, which along with the German second technical revolution, and the Germanic rediscovery of pre-christian aesthetics, ethics and mythos – would restore **meritocracy** to its pre-christian origins, and pre christian **empirical truth**.
With the combination of the industrial revolution freeing the underclasses from subsistence living and the Darwin’s ending of mysticism, and the opportunity for a new religion emerged, and the academy stepped in seize the opportunity with the Marxist pseudosciences – and took over the role of the church.
When by the 1960’s no intellectually honest person could any longer support Marxism, the French invented ‘**Postmodernism**’ , which is not just pseudoscientific, but pseudo-rational, and constitutes **a complete denial of the existence of decidable truth** – only power to bring about one’s will mattered.
Political Correctness roughly translates to ‘**lying**’ outright the same way that abrahamic religion translates roughly to lying by parable.
Yet, especially beginning in about 2000 with The Blank Slate, largely due to the self interest of psychologist having been falsified by cognitive science, and therefore trying to save their careers and their profession psychology, cognitive science, genetic science, and economists, have falsified the remainder of the Marxist (economic and historical), Boazian (Anthropology and sociology), Freudian(psychology), pseudosciences. I work on reforming political speech, sociology, law and government, to prevent lying in the market for information the same way we have struggled to eliminate lying in the market for goods, and the market for services.
So at the present we are in a narrow window and determining whether the truth prevails (a minority of us) or ‘lies of convenience’ prevail ( the majority) and whether we will enter another abrahamic dark age, of outright lying like we almost entered one from abrahamic pseudoscientific lying in the 1900’s, and did enter into the first abrahamic dark ages, with the sequential development of systemic lying in judaism > christianity > islam > and the rational justifications of them we call most ‘philosophy’.
The universe is not kind. We are not the center of it. We are a glorious accident in an old and peaceful suburb of a minor galaxy. And we do not yet know if we are alone completely or alone by distance, or not alone at all.
There is only one problem: excessive reproduction below the threshold of reason (about 106 iq) and below the threshold of neoteny (aggression) and below the threshold of agency (impulsivity). Why? Because the inferior need lies to compete. And those of us fully human are bounded by those that are not yet so.
And that is an uncomfortable truth.Updated Dec 30, 2017, 2:16 PM
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-30 14:16:00 UTC
-
Great Question. Here Is An Uncomfortable Answer
—-”Q: Do you think we live in a post-truth world?”—- 1 – Yes. 2 – It’s by design (intent). 3. It’s a reformation of the first organized means of creating post truth. The purpose of the *Marxist, Freudian, Boazia, Cantorian, Misesian, Frankfurt, Rothbardian, Straussian* **counter-enlightenment** was to create a **pseudoscientific** alternative to the German’s second **scientific** revolution provided by* Maxwell, Darwin, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Romantic school*, which along with the German second technical revolution, and the Germanic rediscovery of pre-christian aesthetics, ethics and mythos – would restore **meritocracy** to its pre-christian origins, and pre christian **empirical truth**. With the combination of the industrial revolution freeing the underclasses from subsistence living and the Darwin’s ending of mysticism, and the opportunity for a new religion emerged, and the academy stepped in seize the opportunity with the Marxist pseudosciences – and took over the role of the church. When by the 1960’s no intellectually honest person could any longer support Marxism, the French invented ‘**Postmodernism**’ , which is not just pseudoscientific, but pseudo-rational, and constitutes **a complete denial of the existence of decidable truth** – only power to bring about one’s will mattered. Political Correctness roughly translates to ‘**lying**’ outright the same way that abrahamic religion translates roughly to lying by parable. Yet, especially beginning in about 2000 with The Blank Slate, largely due to the self interest of psychologist having been falsified by cognitive science, and therefore trying to save their careers and their profession psychology, cognitive science, genetic science, and economists, have falsified the remainder of the Marxist (economic and historical), Boazian (Anthropology and sociology), Freudian(psychology), pseudosciences. I work on reforming political speech, sociology, law and government, to prevent lying in the market for information the same way we have struggled to eliminate lying in the market for goods, and the market for services. So at the present we are in a narrow window and determining whether the truth prevails (a minority of us) or ‘lies of convenience’ prevail ( the majority) and whether we will enter another abrahamic dark age, of outright lying like we almost entered one from abrahamic pseudoscientific lying in the 1900’s, and did enter into the first abrahamic dark ages, with the sequential development of systemic lying in judaism > christianity > islam > and the rational justifications of them we call most ‘philosophy’. The universe is not kind. We are not the center of it. We are a glorious accident in an old and peaceful suburb of a minor galaxy. And we do not yet know if we are alone completely or alone by distance, or not alone at all. There is only one problem: excessive reproduction below the threshold of reason (about 106 iq) and below the threshold of neoteny (aggression) and below the threshold of agency (impulsivity). Why? Because the inferior need lies to compete. And those of us fully human are bounded by those that are not yet so. And that is an uncomfortable truth. -
My answer to If mathematics is an exact science, why are there assumptions?
My answer to If mathematics is an exact science, why are there assumptions? https://www.quora.com/If-mathematics-is-an-exact-science-why-are-there-assumptions/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=8eada093
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-30 01:20:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946913896065007617
-
My answer to If an advanced alien civilization uses an axiomatic system that all
My answer to If an advanced alien civilization uses an axiomatic system that allows them to solve many math problem… https://www.quora.com/If-an-advanced-alien-civilization-uses-an-axiomatic-system-that-allows-them-to-solve-many-math-problems-that-we-have-tried-for-centuries-to-solve-would-we-adapt-to-their-system-so-that-our-math-knowledge-can-catch-up-to-theirs/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=d2c23530
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-30 01:07:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/946910621961990144