Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, t

    Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, to entire narratives dependent upon them, serve as a means of deception by suggestion. We use the term paradigm for networks of theories.We use the suite of scientific paradigms to provide commensurability between unscientific paradigms. For the simple reason that the scientific (deflationary) paradigms consist of constant relations independent of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. For the simple reason that the function of scientific investigation is the elimination of ignorance error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our speech by isolation and measurement of constant relations.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-02 09:46:00 UTC

  • Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, t

    Framing, from false dichotomies through the addition of subsequent dimensions, to entire narratives dependent upon them, serve as a means of deception by suggestion. We use the term paradigm for networks of theories.We use the suite of scientific paradigms to provide commensurability between unscientific paradigms. For the simple reason that the scientific (deflationary) paradigms consist of constant relations independent of ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. For the simple reason that the function of scientific investigation is the elimination of ignorance error bias wishful thinking and deceit from our speech by isolation and measurement of constant relations.

  • not in operational language it isnt

    not in operational language it isnt….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 02:49:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936426877065015297

    Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936419301057351680

    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/936419301057351680

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”, |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological. As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon

    It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,

    |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological.

    As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.

    I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.

    TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).

    DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.

    WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.

    And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.

    We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”

    The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 07:17:00 UTC

  • “Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We

    —“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”, |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological. As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

  • DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which res

    DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES

    by Bill Joslin

    The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes).

    Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments.

    We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments.

    The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument.

    By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 16:57:00 UTC

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

  • Identity By Constant Relations In Time. Time And Relations

    Without Time, we cannot speak of constant relations, because we cannot perceive either constant relations or changes in state that would falsify those freely associated relations. IDENTITY: Identity consists of some set of marginally indifferent constant relations that persists over some period of time. CATEGORIES Categories: Marginal differences in state of constant relations in Time. STATE State: constant relations in time when those relations might differ. SUBTRACTION OF THE TIME DIMENSION For example, numbers consist of names of positions, which by virtue or order maintain constant relations. We then manipulate accounts (balances, expressions, variables) by maintaining ratios (constant relations) and call that process ‘mathematics’. We generally perform this set of ratio-transformations in a particular sequence, always trying to simplify or rearrange. But what we rarely consider is that most mathematics ignores time – which is its chief benefit to us outside of commensurability. A UNIVERSE OF INFORMATION GIVEN NAMES OF SETS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS The universe as information consisting of a hierarchy of relations rather than objects.