Form: Argument

(CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.

(CORE) Feb 12, 2020, 9:16 PM [I] would rather let this conversation go forward without my interjection to let the team demonstrate their skills but to save time 0) I use falsification. Falsification in science evolved from falsification by contest (competition, adversarial) in European law. And falsification by adversarial competition in law is our oldest continuous political tradition after sovereignty. 1) I do not presume people have agency, or that they have other than the minimum consciousness and self-reflection and self-regulation to engage in negotiation deception, parasitism, and predation to minimize the costs of obtaining wants and needs by productive voluntary exchange (people only demonstrate the minimum morality necessary to act in their interests.) 2) I do not presume that people seek truth but that people seek to justify priors, to lie, or sow social constructions for manipulation in pursuit of a discount, to engage in fraud, or to engage, or to conspire. 3) I do not presume when I don’t know the answer – I say something from the spectrum “We don’t know, I don’t know yet”, or “as far as I know”, or “we only know x so far”, or” we only know x so far and these possibilities are consistent with what we know so far”, or “as far as I know that’s false”, or “that can’t be true” – as that is the only truthful testimony I can give. 4) The history of all thought consists of the history of falsification of all causal claims other than realism naturalism under operationalism 5) All alternatives, all knowledge claims that are consistent with failure of all alternatives to realism, naturalism, under operationalism, must depend on some incentive other than “we don’t know yet, but all causality will depend upon realism, naturalization under operationalism”. 6) While we can testify to causes of realism naturalism operationalism and empiricism including subjective testing of incentives (rational choice), we cannot possibly testify to any claim that is not dependent upon realism, naturalism, under operationalism, because we cannot claim to have that knowledge, 7) If we can identify incentive, meaning, means motive and opportunity, for giving false testimony, by claiming the untestifiable then there is nothing else to determine – the person is lying. 8) In other words, theology and philosophy, negotiation and chit chat (exchange of signals of safety) seek opportunity for agreement or consent by means motive and opportunity, while, mathematics, logic, science, and law seek opportunity for falsification or decidability in dispute resolution by means motive and opportunity. In other words, if you can’t testify to a claim you’re starting out informing, negotiating, persuading, threatening by lying. Now, in a public forum at distance without direct physical contact I can’t engage in physical punishment for lying. But as a European man, defending the informational commons, I do the best I can in prose.