Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

Jan 5, 2020, 2:48 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before.

Jan 5, 2020, 2:48 PM We can, and do, falsify all human action in court. The question was, could we falsify all human speech in court. The answer is yes. The usual problem is that someone wants an ideology(political) philosophy (secular theological), or theology (supernatural theological) solution – which is impossible. Because Science (truthful testimony) is falsificationary. As far as I know, P is complete. And there are no false or ir-reciprocal statements that can survive its falsification. That fact that people can’t get their noggins around the fact that all science (testimony) like markets (competition) is falsificationary is a common problem. But it stems from a failure to understand that science is falsificationary, then demanding P, like philosophy, ideology, or religion be justificationary. It’s not. So they criticize P for not being a science on the one hand by false presumption science is justificationary, and then complain P isn’t justificationary. Kind of silly really, but you can see where they get it from. Most people are stuck in the error of “Mathiness” because they don’t grasp the constitution of, or limits of, mathematics. Math breaks down in all three directions: the very small, the very large, and the very-human (cognitive): economics. If you need a positive theology, philosophy, ideology, sophism, or pseudoscience, then I understand the via-positiva is necessary for simple minds. But grownups are not afraid of via-negativa (skepticism), because we know all non trivial non tautological propositions are contingent, because we may always or nearly always, discover some novel parsimony that allows us to reorganize our paradigms for greater consistency, correspondence, coherence, completeness and parsimony than before.