Form: Definition

THE DIMENSIONS OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH

Existentially Possible Truth in Speech:

TRUTH

That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

TRUTHFULNESS:

that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

HONESTY:

That testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

DEMAND FOR TRUTH

Categories of Demand for Truth:

1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.

2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

FALSEHOOD

Categories of Falsehood:

1 – ignorance,

2 – error,

3 – bias,

4 – wishful thinking,

5 – suggestion,

6 – obscurantism,

7 – fictionalism, and

8 – deceit:

DUE DILIGENCE

Dimensions of Due Diligence by which we eliminate falsehoods:

1 – categorical consistency (identity)

2 – logical consistency (internal correspondence)

3 – empirical consistency (external correspondence)

4 – existential consistency (operational correspondence)

5 – rational consistency ( correspondence to incentives )

6 – moral consistency ( reciprocity – reciprocal correspondence)

7 – scope consistency (limits, parsimony, and full accounting – scope correspondence)

CRITICISM

Categories of Incremental Demand for Criticism (Survival):

1 – hypothesis,

2 – theory(falsification), and;

3 – law (market application).

KNOWLEDGE

Because Justificationism is false – a misapplication of mathematical proof, moral observation, and legal observation – and only survival from criticism can produce a truth candidate, the knowledge cannot consist of justified belief, but of survival from the incremental markets for criticism: hypothesis, theory(falsification), and law (market application).

TRUTH, TRUTHFUL, HONEST

1 – because our demand for Truth varies greatly. (1-8 above), and;

2 – because our efforts at due diligence in different dimensions (1-7 above) varies greatly;

3 – because our efforts at due diligence in the markets (hypothesis, theory, and law, above), varies greatly (1-3 above), and;

The best we can do is speak truthfully. To speak truthfully we must:

1) Test our speech against the degree of Demand for Truth.

2) Test our speech against the applicable dimensions for that form of truth.

3) Test our speech against the scope of markets sufficient for the Demand for Truth.

(Everyone tries to escape due diligence, and warranty of their speech)

WORKING WITH SCIENCE, NOT PLATONISM

You are making the error of set comparisons that is so common in rationalist ‘pseudoscience’, by which you use framing to create false dichotomies.

DEFINITIONS

—“Thus, if you try to define the concept of “truth” by appeal to the concept of “knowledge”,”—

I don’t. I define the concept of TRUTH by the spectrum of survival from due diligence.

I define KNOWLEDGE as anything from awareness to perfectly informed.

INFORMATION CONTENT UNDER CONSIDERATION

We work, I work, not with ideal types, but with series (a spectrum).

We work, I work, not with sets but with supply demand curves.

We work, I work, not with set operations, but with algorithmic (existential) operations.

We work, I work, with the information content of reality, not a subset of reality.

Ergo We work, I work, with actions(reality) not just language(ideals).

In other words, I work with science, not platonism.

SPECTRUM OF KNOWLEDGE

1) True (decidable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(law)

2) Truthful (actionable) in the given context of a given question. (truth candidate)(theory)

3) Undecidable (inactionable) in the given context of a given question. (non-truth)(hypothesis)

4) Suspect (undecidable) in the given context of a given question.(non-truth)(theory)

5) False (decidable) in the given context of the given question.(non-truth)(law)

WHAT DOES THIS RESULT IN?

Truth by Triangulation

One can only estimate by triangulation.

Truth is a process of incremental improvement of estimations.

And in fact. If you were to study all facets of man (I have) this is how truth is determined in all disciplines wherein men act upon their statements (‘Skin in the Game’), and those disciplines that are ‘just talk’ do not.

Hence the similarity in nonsense between rationalism and religious law (Hermenutics) that it evolved from.

Hence the similarity in not-nonsense between sciences, and the common empirical law that they evolved from.

CLOSING

If you understand the past two long posts I have made you will understand the entire history of philosophy in those few words.

The Iranian laws evolved to prevent retaliation cycles.

Abrahamic religion was invented to lie.

Greek philosophy to reform greek law – more reason.

Stoic philosophy evolved out off greek law to speak the truth.

Roman law evolved out of stoic philosophy.

Western law evolved out of roman law and germanic pagan law.

English law evolved more out of anglo saxon pagan law.

Empiricism evolved out of germanic and anglo saxon law.

Nothing else to be understood.

In other words, if you’re practicing ‘cherry-picking’ using set operations on language, you’re engaging in pseudoscience.

No dimension of reason’s subsets of reality is capable of proving itself without appeal to the next dimension of reality.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine