How do you create a truthful society? You don’t. You eliminate deceptive statements from the informational commons with universal standing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-29 16:02:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
frank. Miller on justificationism You know. I look at this problem quite differe
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/miller/wroclaw2b.pdfVia frank. Miller on justificationism
You know. I look at this problem quite differently. But I still agree.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-28 12:27:00 UTC
-
@weeklystandard You failed because you erred or lied, or both. Our mandate is to
@weeklystandard You failed because you erred or lied, or both. Our mandate is to speak truthfully, morally, empirically. Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-28 09:54:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725624156864274432
-
we can measure these things you know. 😉
we can measure these things you know. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-28 07:04:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725581540424605700
Reply addressees: @BhriguTheBard
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725578930615283712
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/725578930615283712
-
Sentiments do not arguments make. Beliefs not policy make. Moralizing not philos
Sentiments do not arguments make. Beliefs not policy make. Moralizing not philosophy make. Counter-signaling is but weakness.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-28 06:04:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725566410383044608
Reply addressees: @BillKristol
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725290299581448192
IN REPLY TO:
@BillKristol
Conservatives once stood athwart History, yelling Stop. And trying to change the course of history, against the odds. They had courage then.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725290299581448192
-
There is a difference between being educated and well read. I loved my education
There is a difference between being educated and well read. I loved my education. But I am just well read. I don’t consider myself well educated. Possibly the opposite. And it is apparent to me that jayman, hbdchick, and I could never work in the academy. Look what happened to Hoppe and McDonald.
I’ve been pondering today how to talk about the differences in decidability at each level of argument. And how this relates to each deviation in intelligence.
People make the arguments they can. They understand the arguments they can.
People practice the ethics they can. Because those are the ethics they understand.
The information in these different methods may be indifferent. But the information required of individuals increases. And the information in the method of a regiment decreases.
Ergo simple people need myth and highly knowledgeable people need theory or formula.
This statement is expressing able as a mathematical relationship where the individual’s information, induvidual’s ability, and argumentative information vary proportionally.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-27 10:06:00 UTC
-
Black / white fallacy. 🙂
Black / white fallacy. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-27 07:00:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725217955202609152
Reply addressees: @BhriguTheBard
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/725187865769029632
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/725187865769029632
-
HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENT Religion (conflationary analogy) Mythology, (mythic analog
HIERARCHY OF ARGUMENT
Religion (conflationary analogy)
Mythology, (mythic analogy)
Literature (narrative analogy)
Reason (possible)
Rationalism (internally consistent)
Science, (physical)
Testimony. (moral/cooperative)
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-26 08:54:00 UTC
-
TRUTH. CAN VS IS. (important) Since all general rules are informationally incomp
TRUTH. CAN VS IS.
(important)
Since all general rules are informationally incomplete until stated in a context of application, It is not that statements are, or are not true. It is that statements CAN or CANNOT be true. Where by “True” we mean, subjectively reconstructed rather than analytically correspondent.
Is True = Correspondent = Justificationism
Can be True = Reconstruction = Critical.
(Our language is a prison built of convenience, much of which is the fault of mathematics.)
“that can or cannot be true” is very different from “that is or is not true”.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 23:25:00 UTC
-
Or rather, any non-exclusionary theory is INSUFFICIENT
Or rather, any non-exclusionary theory is INSUFFICIENT.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 14:35:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/724607648910458880