Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Once you have the knowledge of that which is strictly true, the question is one

    —Once you have the knowledge of that which is strictly true, the question is one of interest on the student’s part, and cost on the teacher’s part, not the impossibility of knowledge transfer.—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 12:37:00 UTC

  • albeit (conj.) late 14c., a contraction of al be it “al(though) it be (that);”

    albeit (conj.)

    late 14c., a contraction of al be it “al(though) it be (that);”


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 20:34:00 UTC

  • Nietzsche was a LITERARY philosopher, practicing literary philosophy in the germ

    Nietzsche was a LITERARY philosopher, practicing literary philosophy in the german (Ideal) tradition. Not lawyer, economist, scientist.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 17:07:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861991017121239040

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861985136014802945


    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/861985136014802945

  • (from elsewhere) (a) we can possess narratives (not recipes, or measurements) th

    … (from elsewhere)

    (a) we can possess narratives (not recipes, or measurements) that describe causal relations that manufacture ignorance

    .

    (b) AFAIK the meaning of this statement is that there is a difference between the unknown proper, the incorrect, and the correspondent and consistent.

    (c) Set operations are limited in utility. Empirical analysis allows us to search for possible operations (first causes). And so it is operations not set statements that provide information lacking in set statements. This is why the linguistic century has been a waste of time. A puzzle not a problem. We like set statements because they’re cheap. We like apriori arguments because they’re cheap. But both constitute special cases. The universe at all scales consists of a set of constant operations (transformations). And doubling-down, on sets, is no different from doubling down on religion, is no different from doubling down on empiricism: when instead we need additional information eliminating greater fields of error, by increasing the tool set we are using, rather than attempting to use a more primitive tool (analogy, reason, rationalism, set operations, empirical measurement, possible operations) to provide information unavailable to that tool set.

    (d) Ergo, I view each method from the the analogy, to syllogism all the way to the formula, then to the algorithm as methods of ignorance expansion when we attempt to apply them to questions requiring greater precision than the method permits.

    (e) instead, we can use each method as a means of assisting us in free association by which we generate hypotheses that can be tested by the next method of greater precision, and with each increase in information provided by each increase in precision we can form continuous new free associations until at some point we have found the first causes (operations) that are possible.

    (f) Ergo, I don’t think too much of philosophy or philosophers, when what they mean by that is ‘application of rational techniques’ rather than application of ALL techniques.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 10:40:00 UTC

  • meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of unde

    meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of understanding not false.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 20:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861679097373741057

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861622288940126208


    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/861622288940126208

  • These terms are meaningless without context. THREE POSSIBLE SYSTEMS 1) Axiomatic

    These terms are meaningless without context.

    THREE POSSIBLE SYSTEMS

    1) Axiomatic declarative statements. (mathematics) *proof* of possibility.

    Axiomatic systems consist of construction of proofs of internal consistency ONLY.

    Mathematical systems are axiomatic (declared), informationally complete, and causally trivial therefore deduction is possible.

    Deductivity requires informational completeness. Induction (guessing) requires only information sufficient to guess. Abduction requires nothing more than free association.

    2) Rational justificationary statements.(common law) *justification* of permissiveness.

    Similar to axiomatic systems, justificationary systems, allow us to state that a proposition is permitted or not, but not whether it is true or not.

    3) Theoretic descriptive statements.(science) *truth*. Survival from criticism.

    Theoretic systems: observation > free association > wayfinding > hypothesis > testing, instrumentation and measurement > theory > survival in application in reality > Law.

    Aside from reductio questions, theoretic (descriptive) systems do not allow for deduction. In those special cases we mistakenly call apriori, rather than just ‘trivial’.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 14:22:00 UTC

  • A HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH (repost) (very useful) (learning propertarian

    A HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENTATIVE TRUTH

    (repost) (very useful) (learning propertarianism)

    [S]o, just take the next ten arguments that you run into (not by me, I have enough work to do, demonstrate your cunning elsewhere) try to categorize which level of truth the individual is relying upon to make his or her arguments. Once you do this a few times it will become natural for you.

    1) MEANING (Awareness)

    ….True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    2) PREFERENCE

    ….True enough for me to feel good about.

    3) ACTIONABILITY

    ….True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    4) MORALITY

    ….True enough for me to act but not cause others to react negatively to me.

    5) RATIONALITY

    ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    6) DECIDEABILITY

    ….True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    7) TRUTH

    ….True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    8) TAUTOLOGY

    ….Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    Awareness, Preference, Actionability Morality, Rationality, Decidability, Truth(parsimony), Tautology.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 11:56:00 UTC

  • Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements,

    Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements, not just meanings. You can say something meaningful that is not truthful, but it is very hard to say something both meaningful and truthful that consists entirely of measurements that themselves are not false.

    All language can be restated as measurement.

    This is frightening for those who wish to lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 15:11:00 UTC

  • THREE SYSTEMS 1) Axiomatic declarative statements.(mathematics)*proof* 2) Ration

    THREE SYSTEMS

    1) Axiomatic declarative statements.(mathematics)*proof*

    2) Rational justificationary statements.(common law)*justification*

    3) Theoretic descriptive statements.(science)*truth*

    Testimonialism’s six dimensions of testing constitute a complete method of falsifying (trying to disprove) theoretic statements.

    Theoretic statements are descriptive.

    Axiomatic statements test ONLY internal consistency.

    Testimonial > empirical > rational > axiomatic > identity.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 14:02:00 UTC

  • Commensurability

    MEASUREMENTS RENDER COMMENSURABILITY 1) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 2) Measurements render relations commensurable 3) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 4) Money renders goods and services commensurable 5) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable 6) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.