Category: Epistemology and Method

  • If you fail to possess truthful knowledge then how can you claim either free wil

    If you fail to possess truthful knowledge then how can you claim either free will or agency?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:32:00 UTC

  • THE HIERARCHY OF COMMUNICATION METHODS Testimonial (causal) …. Scientific (cor

    THE HIERARCHY OF COMMUNICATION METHODS

    Testimonial (causal)

    …. Scientific (correlative)

    …. …. Historical (analogistic)

    …. …. …. Literary (allegorical)

    …. …. …. …. Mythical (super human)

    …. …. …. …. …. Platonist (super normal)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. Theological (super natural)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Occult ( super-rational / dream state)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:15:00 UTC

  • I START WITH TIME. Time is the only existential commodity available to man, and

    I START WITH TIME.

    Time is the only existential commodity available to man, and all our divisions of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, negotiation, and advocacy serve to produce and distribute calories in various states in ever shorter time. I try to teach people to think in terms of time, where money serves as a store of accumulated time, and debt, promised time. Ergo, we are not wealthier than cave men, we have just made everything infinitely cheaper to acquire with our time. So I start from the basics of time, acquisitionism, cooperation, and competition, and build up from the problem of using memory and reason to defeat the dark forces of time and ignorance.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:38:00 UTC

  • JOSLIN ON OBJECTIVISM Objectivism, by not acknowledging deflated truth, uses Ari

    JOSLIN ON OBJECTIVISM

    Objectivism, by not acknowledging deflated truth, uses Aristotelian argumentation as justification for certainty by a “platonic elevation” of reason as a “perfect form”.

    This leads to:

    1) unwarranted certainty in truth claims (a justification for god-speak)

    2) dismissiveness regarding detractors without bearing the burden of proper criticism.

    3) The above two points isolate thinking to criteria defined by a platonic ideal. The result has proven to be a cult-like mentality


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 13:30:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM” What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”? is

    IMPORTANT OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: “ISM”

    What do we mean when we use “-ism’s”?

    ism

    ˈizəm/

    noun informal

    “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain of preferences: typically a political ideology, philosophy, institutional framework, economic model, or an artistic movement. isms separate the categories that are defined by the constant relations of the physical world from the inconstant categories of the preferential world that we call the sciences. A science does not account for preferences in inputs or outputs, but an ‘ism, as a means of decidability between preferences must.”

    So one must know the ism’s to debate them. To know the isms requires one know the categories, values, methods of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. So in systems of preferences, ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species.

    When referring to ‘isms’ we can use other ‘isms’ to reinterpret them – using a different set of categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    if we are confused by one another’s arguments we can clarify our arguments by increasing the precision of our arguments, by referring directly to categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability.

    When one criticizes the use of ism’s one is criticizing a taxonomic reference to a set of particulars: categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability, one does little more than (a) demonstrate one’s ignorance of the topic, (b) demonstrate one’s arrogance from a position of ignorance, (c) attempt to steal from others by demanding that they pay the cost of educating you, or tolerate the existence of your theft, and the consequences it might have if your attempted theft is interpreted by others as an inability to construct a counter argument. In other words, arguments from ignorance are a form of blackmail. And those who conduct blackmail are those we wish to punish for their crimes.

    The ethical, moral, and non-criminal means of requesting information is this: “I don’t understand, would you mind answering this question: what do you mean when you say….”

    To which the other will respond either with reciprocal ethical and moral and non-criminal means, by saying “Ok.(attempted clarification)”, or some variation on “I can’t afford to make that investment now, but here is where you may look do it yourself”, or “I just don’t have the time or inclination to invest in that question at the moment”.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Non Submission

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of Sovereign Men

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:53:00 UTC

  • DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD: Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three st

    DEAR MISEDUCATED WORLD:

    Logic is at least ternary, not binary. (Meaning three states, not two)

    …………… FALSE…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE

    FALSE…..FALSE…….FALSE……UNDECIDABLE

    TRUE……FALES…….TRUE……..UNDECIDABLE

    UNDEC…FALSE…….UNDEC…..UNDECIDABLE

    MATHEMATICS

    In mathematics, which for millennia was unfortunately the gold standard of logic, we use the word true when we mean either “balanced” (retaining constant relations), or we mean “proven” (possible to demonstrate), because in mathematics we create proofs of possibility rather than statements of truth. We may claim that we speak truthfully that we have constructed a proof. But mathematics consists of operations, deductions, inferences and guesswork, by which we identify means of demonstrating the possibility and necessity of a series of constant relations (ratios).

    COMPUTER SCIENCE

    In the gold standard of reasoning: computer science – when we refer to values, we call this same sequence true, false, and null (unknown). So in computer science, we either possess sufficient information to state something is provable (true or false), or unprovable (false), or undecidable (lacking the information).

    FORMAL LOGIC

    ( I’ll avoid formal logic because in my view, like all game theory, beyond use in very simple human perceivable scales, it’s been a waste of a century. I mean. I can dismantle the liars paradox in five minutes or less. it was a wasted century.

    PHYSICAL SCIENCE

    In sciences we use the terms False, Possibly True (an hypothesis, theory, or law), and Undecidable. Between the choice of true and false, it is false that we know with certainty. Truth always remains uncertain in all but the most simple of questions.

    EPISTEMOLOGY

    In epistemology we say something is knowingly false, possibly true, and undecidable, or unknown. In epistemology, just as in science, we must determine if an argument survives attempts to falsify it. If it is true, then we can decide if it is possible. I it is possible then we can decide if it is preferable. If it is preferable without causing harm to others, then we have determined that it is good.

    MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THEOLOGY

    In morality, philosophy, theology, we say (lie) that if we can find an excuse for something (a justification) it is true, or moral, or good. When that only means that according to the established norms, scriptures, and laws. in other words, one is free of blame if he can justify his actions as permissible, moral or good. In morality philosophy and theology, we attempt to survive justification.

    LAW

    When we encounter LAW we use the jury, and debate between two parties, and moderated by a judge, to test both whether we are justified under law, and whether our testimony and our arguments are believable. In law we attempt to survive the battle between three forces: the law as written, the standards of rational behavior of the jury, the logical testing of your statements by the judge, and the subjective testing of your truthfulness by the jury. And in case you don’t know this, most cases are decided by the test of truthfulness, which is why american courts are so useful for commerce. The first sin of american law is failure of informational reciprocity. Failure and error are forgivable. Violation of reciprocity is not.

    HIERARCHY OF CERTAINTY

    … FALSE, that which does not survive tests of falsification.

    … … TRUE, that which survives all tests of falsification

    … … … PROVEN, that which survives tests of possibility.

    … … … … UNDECIDABLE that which cannot be decided.

    THE TRUTH TABLE OF CERTAINTY

    F:False, T:True, P:Provable, U:Undecidable

    …..F…..T…..P…..U

    F…F…..F…..F…..U

    T…F….*T*…P…..U

    P…F…..P…..P…..U

    U..F…..U….U…..U


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 12:13:00 UTC

  • Conflation allows justificationary argument supported by multiple lines of intui

    Conflation allows justificationary argument supported by multiple lines of intuition( meaning). Deflation allows survival (precision) of only that which is not false.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:18:00 UTC

  • Literary Programming: Children. Rule Advice: Adult. Rational Decidability: Matur

    Literary Programming: Children.

    Rule Advice: Adult.

    Rational Decidability: Maturity


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:16:00 UTC

  • If you require programming rather than choice then you cannot make choice and ar

    If you require programming rather than choice then you cannot make choice and are unfit to choose. This is why decidability provided by deflationary truth is not only a test of arguments, but of individuals.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 10:14:00 UTC

  • Support is wanted, compliment is wanted, advocacy is wanted, but agreement isn’t

    Support is wanted, compliment is wanted, advocacy is wanted, but agreement isn’t really helpful, and good criticism is priceless. The goal of any scientist is to find good criticism. And unfortunately, in social science that’s almost impossible.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 09:41:00 UTC