ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Continental -> Postmodern Philosophy -vs- Analytic -> Testimonial Philosophy
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
OPINION HAS NO IMPACT ON TRUTH. we use the words ‘true’ or ‘true for me’ incorre
OPINION HAS NO IMPACT ON TRUTH.
we use the words ‘true’ or ‘true for me’ incorrectly.
I believe something sufficiently for action. That is belief. It is not truth.
If it’s true regardless of what you believe, such that it cannot be false, that is truth.
***”Mass opinion creates mass opinion. the Laws of the universe, logic, mathematics, and human behavior do not care for mass opinion. Truth is truth. Opinion is opinion. preference is preference. hallucination is hallucination. lie is lie. Using the word truth to describe anything but truth is either error, wishful thinking, or lie.”***
-curt
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 11:02:00 UTC
-
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY You see all these da
ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY
You see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory?
This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data.
So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein.
But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language.
I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying.
But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.)
Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment.
Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning.
Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth.
Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them.
Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions.
Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 06:45:00 UTC
-
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT. We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIME IS DECEIT.
We spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent.
We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent.
But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying.
Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion).
All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception.
The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit?
That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.)
End the century of lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 03:45:00 UTC
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt
-
Speaking the Truth
(reposted) [Y]ou can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retribution. That is all you can claim. Otherwise you can speak to the air (yourself) but not to another. If you have done so you can err, or your information may be insufficient, or more information in the future may be uncovered. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true. we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. If you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – most of which are saving of effort, others are the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. You probably note by now that I do not rely upon ideal types, but force construction of both spectra and sequences when making arguments. And this is why I can make these statements. Because i have tested them for truthfulness before speaking them, and you on the other hand are speaking honestly, most likely because you do not yet know how to speak truthfully. Because it’s hard. I hope this was helpful to you. Affections. Curt
-
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS
—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-
[T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS
—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-
[T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Western Philosophical Hierarchy
===METAPHYSICAL=== ........Heroism (demonstrated excellence) ........Science (truth) ...... ........Naturalism (reality) ....... Natural Law (sovereignty) ===POLITICAL=== ........Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons ........Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury ===MORAL==== ........Christianity (love/trust bias) ===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC=== .......Love of nature (animism/paganism) ===PERSONAL=== Buddhism..........Stoicism Yoga..............sport Nurturing.........Craftsmanship. Spiritual ........Political (mental?) Experiential......Actionable Feminine ........ MasculineI haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.