Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)

    PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT

    • Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
    • Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
    • Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
    • Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
    • Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
    • Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
    • Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.

  • Definitions: Philosophy, Truth, Methods of Argument (Worth Repeating)

    PHILOSOPHY The search for internally consistent means of decidability within a domain or context. TRUTH (PROPER) The most parsimonious most universal method of decidability regardless of context. SOME FORMS OF ARGUMENT

    • Analogy – a justification by shared constant relations.
    • Reason – a criticized and justified argument from experience.
    • Rational – an internally consistent, non contradictory argument from experience
    • Empirical – a correlative externally correspondent argument for the purpose of limiting human error bias and deceit.
    • Logical – an internally consistent, non contradictory, argument from set membership.
    • Analytic (Logical+Empirical) – an internally consistent, non contradictory, verbally parsimonious, argument from set membership incorporating the methods of the physical sciences.
    • Operational (Current Scientific) – an internally consistent, existentially possible, subjectively testable, causal, argument from possibility.

  • The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.

      Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.

  • The Operational Name of Infinity Is “Limit Supplied by Contextual Application” Because of Scale Independence.

      Defenders of infinity are simply saying that mathematical platonism is a useful mental shortcut to provide decidability for you in the absence of understanding, the way religion is a useful mental shortcut for decidability for others in the absence of understanding. Authority (decidability) in platonic mathematics and authority (decidability) in religion are provided by the same error: empty verbalisms. If mathematical decidability is constrained to correspondence with reality, we do not need the concept of limits because limits are determined by that which we measure. Yet as we use mathematics to create general theories of scale independence, we intentionally abandon scale dependence substituting arbitrarily definable *limits*. By applying mathematics of general rules under scale independence to some real world phenomenon, we merely substitute limit for precision necessary to achieve our ends (marginal indifference). As we add the dimension of movement to our measurements we add time to our general rules, which like distance we define as a constant. (though it is not, per relativity). As the universe consists entirely of curves, yet our deduction from measurements requires lines, and angles (geometry) with which we perform measurements of curves by the measurement of very small lines, we must define limits at which the marginal difference in the application of mathematics to a real world problem is below the margin of error in the prediction of any movement. (where we have reached the *limit* of the measurement necessary for correspondence. While measurement requires both time, and a sequence of operations, and while mathematical deduction requires time and a sequence of operations, cantor removed time and a sequence of operations. So instead of operationally creating *positional names* (numbers) at different RATES, as do gears, and therefore creating sets larger or smaller than one another at different rates, he said, platonically that they created different ‘infinities’. Despite the fact that no infinity is existentially possible, just that at scale independence we use infinity to mean *limited only by context of correspondence: quantity, operations, and time. This is just like using superman as an analogy for scale independence in the measurement of man. Literally, that’s all it is: supernaturalism. All mathematical statements must be constructable (operationally possible), just as all mathematical assertions must be logically deducible. (and you can see this in proof tools being developed in mathematics). Mathematics always was, and always will be, and only can be, the science of creating general rules of MEASUREMENT at scale independence. And the fact that math still, like logic was in the late 19th and all of the 20th century, lost in platonism is equivalent to government still being lost in religion. The only reason math is challenging is that it is not taught to people *truthfully*, but platonically. Otherwise the basis of math is very simple: this pebble corresponds to any constant category we can imagine, and each positional name we give to each additional pebble represents a ratio of the initial unit of measure: a pebble, and as such corresponds to reality. Hence why I consider mathematical platonism, philosophical platonism, and supernatural religion crimes against humanity: the manufacture of ignorance in the masses in order to create privileged priesthoods of the few through mere obscurantist language. Another authoritarian lie. Another priesthood. Yet I understand. I understand that heavy investment in comforting shortcuts is indeed an investment and that the cost of relearning to speak truthfully is just as painful for mathematicians, as it is for philosophers, and theologists. Curt Doolittle (Ps: oddly, my sister is sitting next to me working on common core standards designed to improve math skills) === Addendum by Frank === by Propertarian Frank The exact same argument we use to stop believing in ghosts should have prevented Cantor’s infinities. But it didn’t. (1) People familiar with Diagonal Argument and understand it is epistemic cancer. (2) People familiar with advanced Platonist trickery like the Diagonal Argument and buy it even though they avoid falling for Platonism in other domains. (3) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, but intuitively understand truth is ultimately about actionable reality. (4) People that are unfamiliar with advanced Platonist trickery, and believe in primitive forms of Platonism (theism, dualism). Type (1) people will get testimonialism immediately. Type (2) people could be persuaded. Trick is to prompt them to explain what differentiates the type of reasoning Cantor uses from the type of reasoning that tries to determine how many angels can dance simultaneously on the head of a pin. Induce cognitive dissonance by making explicit that wishful thinking is only possible when you use non-constructed names. Type (3) people lack the information necessary to judge constructionism in philosophy of mathematics. Understanding Testimonialism requires a bare minimum of familiarity with philosophy of science. Absolute key concept is ‘decidability’. How does a type (3) person ascertain that he ‘gets’ operationalism? Through demonstration in something like the ‘line exercise’ from the other day. So, unfortunately, this type of person will miss the profundity and importance of operationalism. (Seeing the importance of operationalism was the reason I kept reading your corpus). We need to see concrete instances of a method failing so that we can eventually incorporate the solution to that failure into our epistemological method. Without the concretes, it’s impossible. Unfortunately, adding lessons on the Diagonal Argument, operationalism in psychology, instrumentalism and measurement in physics etc, would not be feasible methods for familiarizing the uninitiated. In other words, if you haven’t spent considerable time thinking about philosophy of science already, courses in Propertarianism will not convince you, because you lack the means of judging them. Type (4) people are the hardest to persuade. You have to show them a domain in which Idealism fails, and prompt them to think about why they think it doesn’t fail in this other domain. If you can’t crush their Platonist belief in a certain domain (due to emotional blocks for instance), they can’t consistently apply operationalism. The fact that they haven’t already given up on simpler forms of Platonism indicates that they may have psychological blocks. Ergo, I think this type of person is the least amenable to learn Testimonialism through video lectures.

  • Philosophy: Decision Within Context, vs Truth: Decision Across Contexts

    Chris, Well, I can understand, but when we make aggregate expressions of any group, say men, women, class, civilization, we are by definition speaking of distributions, right? (And did you know we can tell a great deal about a person if he or she assumes that or jumps to NAXALT?) And when you work at the level of aggregation that we call the the cultural enlightenments, we can in fact, make truthful statements about aggregates. We can do that by analyzing the method of argument, and costs demanded by that argument, and the transfer of capital (in its broadest) sense, and from that state the group evolutionary strategy. (it may not seem so but under analysis that is what we can easily discover). Now, if you work in those topics you work on moral literature, right? what is the purpose of moral literature? To provide intuitionistic general rules of decidability within a given context for one to a portfolio of objectives -stated or otherwise. You can, within the study of those moral literatures make your own assumption of what costs and returns are moral or immoral. I would have to ask you a series of questions about a subject you understood well in order to ascertain your moral accounting so to speak. But we can assess this of everyone this way. Or we can assess it by current political inclination as does say, Haidt. Now, I do not work in literature, but in measurement. In mathematics we measure constant relations of constant categories. In economics we can measure changes in capital. In law we can measure conflict over property. In war we can measure conflict over interests. In group evolutionary strategies we can measure conflict by all of the above. Now, this is somewhat problematic because while in math we hold constant categories. in physics we hold constant intermediary categories (patterns, or as mathematicians say, symmetries or geometries). In economics we hold constant categories only in capital changes (of all kinds), and in some very tenuous intermediary categories (commodities for example) thanks to the commensurability of prices. In matters of conflict we can measure constant categories of torts using property of various allocations. And we can then tie the degree of precision in legal disputes to the costs and velocity of capital and study changes in capital as a consequence. In other words it is quite possible to make aggregated statements of group evolutionary strategies just as we do nations and states. Now if we work in moral literature, we can, as I stated above, assume our own experiential measure, our own intermediary measure, our own capital measure, or our own long term capital measure (evolution competition). And we produce our own decidability at some degree along that spectrum. Where do you do so? What is your method of measurement, and what reproductive or group evolutionary strategy do you employ in that means of decidability? I can’t guess yours but we know that people in academia self-select subject matter by intuitionistic agreement. Just as I would select something measurable rather than experiential. Well, I do it at each point, and then compare. There exist three methods of coercion (means of influence). Gossip/ostracization/inclusion, remuneration/bribery/exchange, violence/threat/punishment. There exist corresponding methods of rule by those methods of coercion: religion and narrative, law and punishment, exchange and credit. And they evolve in that order due to the increasing demand for precision means of influence as the division of perception, knowledge, labor,and advocacy increases. We need more precise organizational tools just as we need more precise tools at below and beyond human scale. We need different precisions of decidability. So it is possible to write in occult, religious, mythic, literary, historical, legal, ‘scientific’, and ‘testimonial’ terms. Just as it is possible to measure in increasing levels of precision. And meanwhile, although most prophets theologians, philosophers, public intellectuals, and politicians (and marketers), want to distribute means of obtaining discounts or premiums in exchange for cooperation: providing means of decidability in various contexts – some of us have a very different job: providing means of decidability across contexts. That is the difference between philosophy and truth. Philosophy within a context to rally cooperation, and truth across contexts to (a) preserve cooperation in matters of failure through restitution (b) preserve cooperation because the most useful means of predation is *words*: Ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism ( Theology, Pseudo-rationalism, Pseudoscience), and outright deceit. And we can distribute those falsehoods interpersonaly, to groups, by simple media, or by mass media. So my job is natural law: decidability in matters of conflict within context, and truth, the means of decidability regardless of context. The word requires janitors and grave diggers, and the world requires those who create tests of truth. Of violence, remuneration, and words, which is the most visible? which is the most prevalent? And by what methods did those in the enlightenment attempt to obtain their ends – continuation of their group evolutionary strategy, using the means of coercion and rule at their habituated disposal? Next, how do we test truthful speech? Well, there are only so many dimensions to reality that humans can act within: identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, reciprocity (morality), full accounting (limits, parsimony, and scope). So just as we can create mathematical expressions, logical expressions, we can create what I might call legal expressions, in a certain grammar that prohibit our ability to engage in conflation. This method of truth is often referred to as deflationary, promissory, or ‘scientific’. So then what is that discipline we call science? The creation of instruments of measurement by which we reduce to analogy to perception, that which we cannot perceive, or that which we perceive with bias, error, and wishful thinking. And then we must launder that measurement by warranties of due diligence in all six dimensions of reality that humans can speak of. Have we done so we do not necessarily speak the truth – the most parsimonious description humanly possible – but we speak as truthfully as is humanly possible with the language at our disposal. But in the end, we can always measure if not quantitatively but qualitatively, the changes in capital produced by our actions, norms, traditions, religions, laws, institutions, and wars. And violence is only the most visible means of preying upon one another. It is the verbal justification various pseudosciences under rule of credit that have taken the place of physical theft and harm. Now, back to your original reaction: for various reasons the second scientific revolution taking place largely in Germany failed because of the war. But the combination of the industrial revolution, the great depression, over immigration, fiat money, speculative credit, and expanded political enfranchisement, plus the advent of mass media, made it easier to distribute the pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the Frankfurt school, to a new consumer class under the unchecked assumption of constant economic growth, and readily taken up by political parties, the academy, financial institutions, and business and industry. The great question of this experiment (which took place int eh 20’s) was whether we were accumulating risks for short term gains, or whether we would spend down accumulated western capital in all its forms by doing so. And as of 2008 we know the answer. And as every economist and central bank in the world knows – we are out of the ability to survive the next shock. So if, in my work, I must render a judgement I can offer a great deal of criticism of the anglos (I do daily), a little of the germans – although for relying on poetry and moral literature they seem to have done just fine; or the french, who are currently experiencing the consequences of their folly. The Russians who understand theirs – painfully. Or should I spend most of my time criticizing the victors whose thinkers brought about the current state of affairs? I criticize everyone. The great war was equivalent to the bronze age collapse, and the Justinian plague. It’s just that the benefits of the incomplete german second enlightenment fell in our laps when Truth is enough. It is just, like law, via negativa – uncomfortable. The question is, what do we do about it? And that is what I work on. I know one thing though. That it is possible to complete the scientific revolution, and the consequences of truth in social science will be even greater than the consequences in physical science. And hopefully that is enough. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Philosophy: Decision Within Context, vs Truth: Decision Across Contexts

    Chris, Well, I can understand, but when we make aggregate expressions of any group, say men, women, class, civilization, we are by definition speaking of distributions, right? (And did you know we can tell a great deal about a person if he or she assumes that or jumps to NAXALT?) And when you work at the level of aggregation that we call the the cultural enlightenments, we can in fact, make truthful statements about aggregates. We can do that by analyzing the method of argument, and costs demanded by that argument, and the transfer of capital (in its broadest) sense, and from that state the group evolutionary strategy. (it may not seem so but under analysis that is what we can easily discover). Now, if you work in those topics you work on moral literature, right? what is the purpose of moral literature? To provide intuitionistic general rules of decidability within a given context for one to a portfolio of objectives -stated or otherwise. You can, within the study of those moral literatures make your own assumption of what costs and returns are moral or immoral. I would have to ask you a series of questions about a subject you understood well in order to ascertain your moral accounting so to speak. But we can assess this of everyone this way. Or we can assess it by current political inclination as does say, Haidt. Now, I do not work in literature, but in measurement. In mathematics we measure constant relations of constant categories. In economics we can measure changes in capital. In law we can measure conflict over property. In war we can measure conflict over interests. In group evolutionary strategies we can measure conflict by all of the above. Now, this is somewhat problematic because while in math we hold constant categories. in physics we hold constant intermediary categories (patterns, or as mathematicians say, symmetries or geometries). In economics we hold constant categories only in capital changes (of all kinds), and in some very tenuous intermediary categories (commodities for example) thanks to the commensurability of prices. In matters of conflict we can measure constant categories of torts using property of various allocations. And we can then tie the degree of precision in legal disputes to the costs and velocity of capital and study changes in capital as a consequence. In other words it is quite possible to make aggregated statements of group evolutionary strategies just as we do nations and states. Now if we work in moral literature, we can, as I stated above, assume our own experiential measure, our own intermediary measure, our own capital measure, or our own long term capital measure (evolution competition). And we produce our own decidability at some degree along that spectrum. Where do you do so? What is your method of measurement, and what reproductive or group evolutionary strategy do you employ in that means of decidability? I can’t guess yours but we know that people in academia self-select subject matter by intuitionistic agreement. Just as I would select something measurable rather than experiential. Well, I do it at each point, and then compare. There exist three methods of coercion (means of influence). Gossip/ostracization/inclusion, remuneration/bribery/exchange, violence/threat/punishment. There exist corresponding methods of rule by those methods of coercion: religion and narrative, law and punishment, exchange and credit. And they evolve in that order due to the increasing demand for precision means of influence as the division of perception, knowledge, labor,and advocacy increases. We need more precise organizational tools just as we need more precise tools at below and beyond human scale. We need different precisions of decidability. So it is possible to write in occult, religious, mythic, literary, historical, legal, ‘scientific’, and ‘testimonial’ terms. Just as it is possible to measure in increasing levels of precision. And meanwhile, although most prophets theologians, philosophers, public intellectuals, and politicians (and marketers), want to distribute means of obtaining discounts or premiums in exchange for cooperation: providing means of decidability in various contexts – some of us have a very different job: providing means of decidability across contexts. That is the difference between philosophy and truth. Philosophy within a context to rally cooperation, and truth across contexts to (a) preserve cooperation in matters of failure through restitution (b) preserve cooperation because the most useful means of predation is *words*: Ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism ( Theology, Pseudo-rationalism, Pseudoscience), and outright deceit. And we can distribute those falsehoods interpersonaly, to groups, by simple media, or by mass media. So my job is natural law: decidability in matters of conflict within context, and truth, the means of decidability regardless of context. The word requires janitors and grave diggers, and the world requires those who create tests of truth. Of violence, remuneration, and words, which is the most visible? which is the most prevalent? And by what methods did those in the enlightenment attempt to obtain their ends – continuation of their group evolutionary strategy, using the means of coercion and rule at their habituated disposal? Next, how do we test truthful speech? Well, there are only so many dimensions to reality that humans can act within: identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, reciprocity (morality), full accounting (limits, parsimony, and scope). So just as we can create mathematical expressions, logical expressions, we can create what I might call legal expressions, in a certain grammar that prohibit our ability to engage in conflation. This method of truth is often referred to as deflationary, promissory, or ‘scientific’. So then what is that discipline we call science? The creation of instruments of measurement by which we reduce to analogy to perception, that which we cannot perceive, or that which we perceive with bias, error, and wishful thinking. And then we must launder that measurement by warranties of due diligence in all six dimensions of reality that humans can speak of. Have we done so we do not necessarily speak the truth – the most parsimonious description humanly possible – but we speak as truthfully as is humanly possible with the language at our disposal. But in the end, we can always measure if not quantitatively but qualitatively, the changes in capital produced by our actions, norms, traditions, religions, laws, institutions, and wars. And violence is only the most visible means of preying upon one another. It is the verbal justification various pseudosciences under rule of credit that have taken the place of physical theft and harm. Now, back to your original reaction: for various reasons the second scientific revolution taking place largely in Germany failed because of the war. But the combination of the industrial revolution, the great depression, over immigration, fiat money, speculative credit, and expanded political enfranchisement, plus the advent of mass media, made it easier to distribute the pseudoscience of Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, and the Frankfurt school, to a new consumer class under the unchecked assumption of constant economic growth, and readily taken up by political parties, the academy, financial institutions, and business and industry. The great question of this experiment (which took place int eh 20’s) was whether we were accumulating risks for short term gains, or whether we would spend down accumulated western capital in all its forms by doing so. And as of 2008 we know the answer. And as every economist and central bank in the world knows – we are out of the ability to survive the next shock. So if, in my work, I must render a judgement I can offer a great deal of criticism of the anglos (I do daily), a little of the germans – although for relying on poetry and moral literature they seem to have done just fine; or the french, who are currently experiencing the consequences of their folly. The Russians who understand theirs – painfully. Or should I spend most of my time criticizing the victors whose thinkers brought about the current state of affairs? I criticize everyone. The great war was equivalent to the bronze age collapse, and the Justinian plague. It’s just that the benefits of the incomplete german second enlightenment fell in our laps when Truth is enough. It is just, like law, via negativa – uncomfortable. The question is, what do we do about it? And that is what I work on. I know one thing though. That it is possible to complete the scientific revolution, and the consequences of truth in social science will be even greater than the consequences in physical science. And hopefully that is enough. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • On Requiring Truth in All Publication

    by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.

  • On Requiring Truth in All Publication

    by Alex Sea We require truth from all things claiming to present it. If a fictional novel must include the stipulation that “all persons, places, and events herein are fictional and any likeness to real people, places, and events are coincidental or accidental” why can this not be expounded to political, academic, or media endeavors? Imagine CNN running a notice along the scrolling marque stating “all commentary contained in this program is the opinion of newscasters and is not intended to be a concrete representation of factual information, unless otherwise stated”. Imagine the current versions of “social science” course materials being marked as “social commentary”. Imagine current “history” textbooks being instead sold as what they really are – propaganda tools. In this way, truth would be required of ALL – either you only present truthful statements, or you must clearly declare that you are not. Fiction is fine so long as it as known to BE fiction.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.

  • Against Platonic Forms

    by John Dow and Curt Doolittle As I understand it, adherents to belief in Platonic Forms believe they literally exist, in some form or another, as if there’s some extra portion of reality beyond verifiable observation in which they exist. [ Moreover they are unable to articulate their ideas by reference to existential reality, such as when we refer to the invisible forces of the universe, then to the constant relations between them; or when we refer to a unicorn as a mythical character consisting of a conflation of horse, eagle, and antlers; or when we say that the numbers refer to positional names. ] I see Empiricism as a practical method – it gives us a process of verification and testing to follow which we can demonstrate via its’ success at informing successfully predictive conceptions of the operation of the reality which we mutually observe. I don’t believe empiricism describes some truth about the universe, I don’t claim our mutually verifiable observations are necessarily objective truth, I merely claim that we seem to have psychological motivations to pursue/avoid specific consequences from our interaction with the sensation of our mutually verifiable observations, and that methods which enable us to conceptualize it with less ignorance, error, and bias improve our capacity for developing successful strategies in pursuing consequences we desire. So in this sense, when discussing the “reality” of our mutually verifiable observations, empiricism has demonstrated it’s superior capacity to extract useful “truth” from our perception, whereas platonic forms have no verifiable basis in observations, they can have no observable source but imagination, so essentially they’re just people guessing, and even if they are correct, they would be correct by accident. I don’t find it ridiculous for someone to make a conceptual claim about my experience, then demonstrate the success of the concept in predicting my observations of transformations of states. But, I do find it ridiculous when people attempt to pass off our imaginary constructs as “truth” without demonstrated evidence. Why? Because… 0) imaginary constructs may in some senses be testable for internal consistency. 1) And in some cases, one might demonstrate external correspondence. But… 2) One simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of CAUSALITY. 3) And lacking observability, one cannot testify to CAUSALITY. 4) Ergo we can convey MEANING between constant relations by speaking platonically, just as we convey MEANING between inconstant relations by literature. But we cannot convey causality, and therefore cannot warranty causality, and as we are unable to warranty causality, we are unable to warranty to the truthfulness of our statements. This is why mathematicians can ‘get away with’ speaking platonically: they test only for internal consistency, not causality. And that lack of understanding of causality – is why there is such confusion and ignorance over the foundations of mathematics. When one talks about math in platonic terms he demonstrates he does not understand its construction, and cannot testify to it. Therefore he never claims truth full correspondence but proof – mere internal consistency. Why is this important? Not because mathematicians do not understand the very simple technique that they employ by specializing in tests of internal consistency of constant relations. They don’t. They understand its success in describing the physical world. The success of mathematics in the physical sciences (and failure in social sciences) is caused by the fact that the universe consists of constant relations, and we do not know yet their first causes. So internal consistency and external correspondence assist us in describing with increasing precision those constant relations until such point as we can guess those first causes. However in human actions, we do not possess constant relations, only constant patterns (symmetries) of relations. And In human thought, we do not possess many boundaries at all – or rather, we lack the means of testing those boundaries of imagination. So the problem is much harder than mathematics is able to solve by tests of constant relations – math can only assist us in taking measurements whereby we attempt to identify constant intermediary patterns, despite the kaleidic distributions of our outcomes. What we seek is causality. Because we seek to permit man to act to take advantage of the current state of the universe, and acting such that we outwit the current deterministic path of some part of it and capture the energy for our use. Moreover, since actions are expensive, and humans engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we must conserve our energy as well as evade parasitism by others, and to do so requires we test enough dimensions of reality against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit, to preserve our accumulated interceptions of changes in state of reality.