Form: Question

NEEDING BETTER CRITICISM

I need better criticism.

I think that I finally understand his arguments well enough, that if I could talk to David Miller I could get useful criticism of my work by attempting to argue that he and remaining Critical Rationalists are correct as far as they go, but since all ignore (“discount”) costs, as do all members of the sciences, and most members of philosophy, that this is casting as false, that which is merely cost effective.

Y-AXIS – Degree of Criticism

0).Induction (guessing) is adequate for searching for hypotheses.

1) …Confirmation is adequate for constructing hypotheses

2) …..Justification is adequate for indifferent consequences.

3) …….Scientific (truthful), consisting of Logical (internally consistent), Experimental (externally correspondent), Operational (existentially possible), Falsifiable and Falsified (parsimonious), is adequate for statements of analytic truth.

4) ……….and most importantly Moral ( Warrantable – absent involuntary transfers), is adequate for truthful, warrantable speech.

X-AXIS – Degree of Warranty (risk)

We can subjectively test these criteria with the question of warranty:

0) That which I am unwilling to act upon due to personal cost.

1) That which I am willing to act upon in spite of personal cost.

2) That which I am willing to warranty in the event of personal cost to others.

3) That which those I cooperate with are willing to warranty in the even of personal cost to themselves and others.

If you will not warranty your speech, then you should not speak, since a high trust people will hold you accountable for your speech, because information is as important a commons as is land, air and water.

(Scientists practice this discipline already, although they use ostracism rather than legal reparations or punishment, as I suggest we should apply to public speech on matters of possible involuntary transfers. I am not sure for example, why the Japanese female geneticist who committed fraud should not be prosecuted and forced to perform restitution at triple damages, just as our recent bankers should have been prosecuted and forced to pay restitution at triple damages.)

Now, this criteria assumes a high trust polity that demands truthful and moral speech. And a society that states that it practices science in the absence of truthful and moral speech is stating a contradiction. And no society that did otherwise would or could invent science.

WHAT CAN WE WARRANTY?

We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

0) Sensible (intuitively possible)

1) Meaningfully expressible ( as an hypothesis )

2) Internally consistent and falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)

3) Externally correspondent and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)

4) Existentially possible (operationally construct-able/observable)

5) Voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)

6) Market-survivable (criticism – theory )

7) Market irrefutable (law)

8) Irrefutable under original experience (Perceivable Truth)

9) Ultimately parsimonious description (Analytic Truth)

10) Informationally complete and tautologically identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.

All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

SO WHAT? BECAUSE IF WE ADD COSTS, THEN SCIENCE THEN IS THE NAME FOR A MORAL DISCIPLINE OF WARRANTABLE TRUTH TELLING ACROSS ALL DOMAINS

one philosophy. one method. one discipline. across all disciplines.