Yes. We teach this ordinal math (The Method) but we havent found a process for doing so that doesnt take years and require a certain personality type.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-28 06:53:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684819238861623296
Reply addressees: @VelenskiMeir
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684817084872540160
(interesting)
Simple solution to the peoblem of the copula?
–“We can clarify a lot of this confusion by simply referring to “=“ as “gets”, i.e. an assignment operation. As such, this operation can only succeed if the left and right side operant belongs to the same class, i.e. type. Otherwise for a computer system incapable of operating under ambiguous conditions, the statement will fail to compile let alone execute.
If instead of “gets”, we choose to use the word “is”, it create a loop hole for false equivalency. “x = int(1)” then translates to “x is the integer 1”, which does not always evaluate to true, since you falsify the statement as soon as you execute “x=int(2)”.
Further more, if the operands belong to two distinct classes, especially ones that do not share enough in common such that you can type cast one into the other, using the copula “is” can create ambiguities. The statement “She is a man” constitutes such an ambiguity. Grammatically correct (the sentence parses), yet semantically false, and certainly fails the truth test. To use the programming analogy: one can not assign an instance of a type human male to a variable of type human female.
In summary, I think that not all use of “to be” leads to ambiguity and lies, but because a substantial subset of its usage does causes ambiguity through false equivalence, those of us striving to operate in truthful ways stand a better chance of success by avoiding its usage.”– Francis
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-28 03:25:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684766978794192897
You shouldn’t try to use E-Prime in daily language. It’s just a strict grammar – just as programming or mathematics require strict grammars. The point is to use it enough, either in writing or just in mind, so that you begin to understand when you’re speaking clearly and coherently, and when not. Use it to internalize operational prose. If you do you will, in general, speak, and most importantly think more clearly, and communicate better, and even better, identify when people are “talking shite” even when they don’t know they are.
Reply addressees: @costelloe_w
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-27 15:14:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684583122543804422
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684562745918988288
via Moritz Bierling and Martin Stepan
“And to be clear, e-prime is only a training tool to provide an onramp to operationalization, serialization, enumeration, etc. It doesn’t actually give you operationalization “right out the box”
When you integrate it into subconscious like we have, if you can, you won’t say things that cannot be operationalized, even when you don’t use operational language directly.
This is what Curt means when he says that how we speak looks like English but “is” actually math with words
That only works because English was already pretty close.”
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-27 13:28:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1684556479611768832
In your example the facts didnt change, only the explanation. The implication you’re making by stating facts change is that induction is possible from facts when you later demonstrate its not.
Instead, both possibilities were supported by the facts, yet the facts were insufficient to disambiguate the completing explanations to sufficiently provide decidability between them. As such facts dont change, and induction isn’t possible, only the falsification of alternative explanations.
This said, yes there is a great deal of bad science, and many studies are the product of junior people publishing nonsense, vying for attention, to satisfy a job or grant related requirement – though the perception is as much a product of journalists as scientists. 😉
Reply addressees: @TheRealVerbz
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-25 06:34:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683727479289131008
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683539219803963392
Jay,
You’re right as you mean it. Most people are referring to bias within a group prefering one choice over the other. I don’t know how to fix this terminological problem, of conflating a reproductive process with a behavioral process even when there is a minor correlation between psychological biases and genetic factors.
All individuals within a group may favor say neotenic mating whenever possible. Is this “group selection”? No. It’s still individual selection. But spread of the selection through the group does occur. Even if only expressed say in certain classes.
This is the only thing (over the years) I’ve disagreed with you on because blatantly stating ‘group selection doesn’t exist’ is technically correct, but doesn’t educate those who are conflating the term across domains. And I’d like to ‘fix the confusion’ so to speak.
And maybe you could apply a little ‘education’ instead of nullification to improve matters.
Hugs. 😉
Reply addressees: @JayMan471 @BronskiJoseph
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 19:52:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683565829101608961
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683489870059126785
That is probably a the result of your age and exposure. There is a difference between pseudoscience and simply being theoretically wrong, and being pragmatically warong. For example, Marx Boaz, Freud, The Frankfurt School, were pseudoscientists and sophists. There is no sciencender what they claim, only mythicism (fictionalization) to suit their bias. Was einstien a pseudoscientist? He was wrong, and in some ways ridiculous, but his math worked out. Did he know he was a pseudoscientist? It’s not clear.
Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 16:04:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683508569403011072
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683501817769123841
WHY IS PHILOSOPHY NOW RELEGATED TO THE PAST AS WAS THEOLOGY?
Painful truth: (a) science (truth) and philosophy(choice) are fully demarcated, a process which began with Darwin and ended in the 60s with the failure of the analytic movement’s last attempt to save it. (b) philosophy is still predicated on premises insufficient for it’s ambitions (sets). (c) I’m referred to as a philosopher and a social scientist only because we have not yet fully disambiguated the distinction between the two. But I consider myself a scientist, in all four of the domains: formal, physical(before), behavioral(during), evolutionary(after).
Can one produce a science (epistemology) and resulting logic (paradigm of first principles, grammar, vocabulary) of decidability, and subsequently of testimony (truth), ethics(cooperation), and scale (politics, group strategy), and aesthetics( goods)? Of course. At present, as far as I know, the discipline of philosophy is capable only of integrating findings of science (testimony), into various paradigms of *choice* instead of truth. Truth is settled science. And with that philosophy is limited to the selection of preferences within that which is not false and not irreciprocal (immoral) and not devolutionary (harmful).
However, given that anthropomorphism, mythology, thoeology, philosophy, history, the sciences, the logics place increasing burdens on human knowledge and cognition, and especially burdens on bias and priors, then there will always be those who are trapped within the limits of their abilities to reason by more complex means just as there are those trapped within the limits of their ability to use mathematics. In particular my struggle (our organization’s struggle) is the repetition of the problem of transitioning people from mysticism to empiricism.
However, the tendency to oversimplify to ideal types, or slihgtly better use of sets, is human cognitive nature, while converting from ideal types and sets to series (measurements) and supply vs demand (adversarial equilibria) is somethign that appears very difficult to teach people to do, just as it is difficult to teach them calculus and analysis. Despite that those measures within human experience are much easier to grasp than the abstract relations we use with number systems.
IMO studying philosophy is useful largely in the suppression of human ignorance and error It is not sufficient for the provision of problem solving that has been achieved through the greater complexity of the sciences of testimony.
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 12:12:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683087565790801923
Very articulate.
Evolutionary Hierarchy:
Embodiment > Anthropomorphism (naming) > Mythology(counting) > Theology(arithmetic) > Philosophy(Geometry) > Empiricism (Natural Philosophy, Algebra) > Science (testimony, Calculus) > Operationalism (Computation,Simulation).
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 11:15:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683073302225379330
Reply addressees: @JonBear48176174
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682479187414724609
I did my first serious philosophical work ‘sciencing’ art criticism by creating an analytic model for disambiguatin and measurement by triangulation as a solution to the problem of overcoming bias in teaching art hisory and theory. I’m not confident that its possible – especially with the fall of Yale – that such education is possible any longer. meaning the world is dependent on independent scholars of art and history to counter the war by the “march through the institutions of cultural production” undermining the western demand for individual responsibility for improving the world for having lived in it, by the heroic duty of truth, excellence and beauty produced as our legacy of the hand of man in the transformation of nature’s disorder into a garden of order as a monument to the potential virtue of mankind, as we into the gods we imagine – those that are better than those that we have.
Reply addressees: @ArtyArtHistory
Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 02:41:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682944095390449665
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682937917625311234