“Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.” “Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible. For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
I’LL BET (MONEY) I CAN ARTICULATE the falsehoods (errors in decidability) of alm
I’LL BET (MONEY) I CAN ARTICULATE the falsehoods (errors in decidability) of almost every philosopher practicing today. Without even expending much effort. The discipline has been merged with religion in both the university and library systems. And for good reason. It’s actually taught and practiced as fantasy literature of the mind rather than of the circumstance.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:43:00 UTC
-
(7) Unless we measure all capital changes we are cherry picking measurements to
(7) Unless we measure all capital changes we are cherry picking measurements to justify short term wants over long term needs.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:18:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781770162093559808
Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
IN REPLY TO:
@JoshZumbrun
This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPlOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
-
Literary Philosophy Is Just Speculative Fiction
Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:18pm [I]t’s probably about time to classify Continental Philosophy as little more than a bridge between historical and fictional literature. – operational documentation, – descriptive historical literature, – propositional philosophical literature, – authoritarian pseudoscientific literature – authoritarian supernatural mythical literature – escapist fanciful fictional literature, – a parable – poetry
-
Literary Philosophy Is Just Speculative Fiction
Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:18pm [I]t’s probably about time to classify Continental Philosophy as little more than a bridge between historical and fictional literature. – operational documentation, – descriptive historical literature, – propositional philosophical literature, – authoritarian pseudoscientific literature – authoritarian supernatural mythical literature – escapist fanciful fictional literature, – a parable – poetry
-
Operationalism lets us test existential possibility via others without requiring
Operationalism lets us test existential possibility via others without requiring their understanding or consent.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-29 10:16:00 UTC