Dec 28, 2019, 4:52 PM We focus largely on the law but not on the other innovations in the Propertarian program: Yes, Propertarianism consists of a set of innovations 1. Grammars (metaphysics) 2. Testimonialism (epistemology) 3. Acquisitionism and Propertarianism – Together making possible strictly constructed law (ethics) But we also have: 4: Cooperationism, Compatibilism, Cognitive division of labor This means that we specialize, largely along lines of gender cognition and age, in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy, and negotiation. And then we ‘calculate’ by discovering opportunities to cooperate across the spectrum of population, time, and space. So we function as a neural network that discovers opportunities despite variations in our division of labor in perceiving and comprehending the world. And we also have: 5. The Ternary Logic of Political Science. Let’s look at this a bit There are three states of logic, in order: 1. False 2. Truth candidate (actionable) 3. Undecidable (In-actionable) There are three options to cooperation 1. avoidance (ostracization) 2. exchange (cooperation) 3. predation-parasitism (conflict) There are three means of coercion 1. Remuneration (deprivation of trade, or benefit from trade) Middle class – Libertarian Meritocratic 2. Force (imposition of harm, defense from harm) Upper class – Conservative Eugenic 3. Undermining (ostracizing/inhibiting opportunity, including/generating opportunity) Under Class – Progressive Dysgenic There are three axes of elites 1. Scientific, Technical, Entrepreneurial, Financial, Treasury 2. Military, juridical, Police, Sheriff, Militia 3. Priests, Politicians, Public Intellectuals We can organize by three axes of elites (cooperate by) 1. Production and Evolution (Europe) 2. Administration and Stagnation (strong: China, weak: India) 3. Parasitism and Degeneration (Semitia, gypsies) We can rule by three axes of decidability 1. Science and Law (Europe) 2. Reason and Command (china India) 3. Sophistry and Propaganda (Semitia) We can govern by three axis 1. Markets, Law, Courts, (Europe) Middle Class 2. Bureaucracy (china) Upper class 3. Priesthood (Semitia) Underclass The ranking assuming we eradicate the Semitic dark ages: Europe, China, India, Iran-Assyria-Babylon, Egypt Mesoamerica, Semitia(Jewish Muslim), S-Pacific, E Africa, W Africa Africa, S Africa, Austronesia The only hard choice being Iran vs India and that choice possible only because the Persians were not able to shake off Islam and reassert Persian civilization despite efforts just as the Germans can’t sake of Christianity despite their efforts and reassert germanic civilization. If something had not ‘gone wrong’ in India she would have produced the best culture with time. It may be climate and a demographic curse. But I don’t quite understand what went wrong yet but I”ll figure it out. I think we understand what went wrong with Persia and Germania. And Russia, Germania, and china are our fault for not letting Russia retake orthodoxy, not letting Germany retake Europe, and not letting MacArthur and Patton finish the job of the second world war with Russia and China.
Theme: Decidability
-
Ternary Logic of Social Science
Dec 28, 2019, 4:52 PM We focus largely on the law but not on the other innovations in the Propertarian program: Yes, Propertarianism consists of a set of innovations 1. Grammars (metaphysics) 2. Testimonialism (epistemology) 3. Acquisitionism and Propertarianism – Together making possible strictly constructed law (ethics) But we also have: 4: Cooperationism, Compatibilism, Cognitive division of labor This means that we specialize, largely along lines of gender cognition and age, in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy, and negotiation. And then we ‘calculate’ by discovering opportunities to cooperate across the spectrum of population, time, and space. So we function as a neural network that discovers opportunities despite variations in our division of labor in perceiving and comprehending the world. And we also have: 5. The Ternary Logic of Political Science. Let’s look at this a bit There are three states of logic, in order: 1. False 2. Truth candidate (actionable) 3. Undecidable (In-actionable) There are three options to cooperation 1. avoidance (ostracization) 2. exchange (cooperation) 3. predation-parasitism (conflict) There are three means of coercion 1. Remuneration (deprivation of trade, or benefit from trade) Middle class – Libertarian Meritocratic 2. Force (imposition of harm, defense from harm) Upper class – Conservative Eugenic 3. Undermining (ostracizing/inhibiting opportunity, including/generating opportunity) Under Class – Progressive Dysgenic There are three axes of elites 1. Scientific, Technical, Entrepreneurial, Financial, Treasury 2. Military, juridical, Police, Sheriff, Militia 3. Priests, Politicians, Public Intellectuals We can organize by three axes of elites (cooperate by) 1. Production and Evolution (Europe) 2. Administration and Stagnation (strong: China, weak: India) 3. Parasitism and Degeneration (Semitia, gypsies) We can rule by three axes of decidability 1. Science and Law (Europe) 2. Reason and Command (china India) 3. Sophistry and Propaganda (Semitia) We can govern by three axis 1. Markets, Law, Courts, (Europe) Middle Class 2. Bureaucracy (china) Upper class 3. Priesthood (Semitia) Underclass The ranking assuming we eradicate the Semitic dark ages: Europe, China, India, Iran-Assyria-Babylon, Egypt Mesoamerica, Semitia(Jewish Muslim), S-Pacific, E Africa, W Africa Africa, S Africa, Austronesia The only hard choice being Iran vs India and that choice possible only because the Persians were not able to shake off Islam and reassert Persian civilization despite efforts just as the Germans can’t sake of Christianity despite their efforts and reassert germanic civilization. If something had not ‘gone wrong’ in India she would have produced the best culture with time. It may be climate and a demographic curse. But I don’t quite understand what went wrong yet but I”ll figure it out. I think we understand what went wrong with Persia and Germania. And Russia, Germania, and china are our fault for not letting Russia retake orthodoxy, not letting Germany retake Europe, and not letting MacArthur and Patton finish the job of the second world war with Russia and China.
-
Explaining Anti-Abrahamism
Mar 2, 2020, 9:24 AM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).
—“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but…
A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction.
The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson
-
Explaining Anti-Abrahamism
Mar 2, 2020, 9:24 AM (controversial post warning) (explanation of social bias) 1) P-Law and its Logic are universally decidable, because testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence) are universally decidable. (Let that sink in a moment.) 2) Any people can eventually enjoy the benefits of a high trust civlization like europeans if they adopt P-Law, Logic, and Constitution – including market (via-negativa) soft eugenics. 3) While ethnocentrism is the optimum strategy at the local, state and civilizational level – because it decreases genetic, kinship, social, economic and political competition and decreases resistance to trust, reciprocity, and mutual insurance and care; so is heterogeneity polities, producing a market of commons because it allows moral and cognitive biases to play out at the cost, and to the benefit, of those who do it. 4) But groups whose competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), must convert from predatory and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means of survival and competition. And groups that practice any and every strategy habituate, specialize in, and transfer between generations, the strategy, mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits, means of education, and especially means of communication, collaboration and argument that advances that strategy. 5) As such groups need incentives to adapt from destructive, predatory, and parasitic means of survival and competition to productive means. To do so requires reformation of mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument, to suit new the new productive strategy. 6) To produce those incentives we can outlaw the expression of those strategies, and use social, economic, and political alienation to cause deprivation of opportunity – and cause them to adapt their mythology, traditions, values, norms, habits , means of education, communication, collaboration, and argument. 7) The Purpose of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious monopoly monotheism and religious identitarianism; and of Boasianism-and-Freudianism ( pseudo-sociology and psychology), marxism(pseudo-economics), neo-marxism (cultural marxism, undermining), postmodernism (relativism), feminism (undermining the family), and human biodiversity denialism (science denial), were constructed by design to deny and undermine the universal decidability of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence).
—“In response to the post of the Institute regarding Jewish participants [in the Propertarian Movement], I understand the desire to have universal appeal across all groups, but…
A feminine argumentative strategy paired with a parasitic evolutionary strategy knowingly employed to the detriment of European-descended peoples is the Jewish Group strategy, to which anti-Semitism is therefore a logical and natural reaction.
The frame of anti-Semitism in my judgement provides the greatest immunity from resistance to, reversal of, and prevention of, the threats mentioned in the post, all of which originate primarily from those of Jewish descent.”— Reece Haynes via Facebook Correct. Complaints of anti-semitism, whether that semitism is in jewish, christian, or muslim group strategies, are expressions of the attempt to prevent the use of testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), in universal decidability, and to preserve the competitive strategy requires successful practice of deceit, irreciprocity, and devolution(demographic decline), against people who practice testimonial truth(word), reciprocity(deed), and evolution(consequence), and the high trust, productive, evolutionarily successful nations that they parasitically depend upon. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thus Endeth The Lesson
-
Morality by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation and Expansion
Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)
a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).
Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
-
Morality by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation and Expansion
Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)
a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).
Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.
-
Advanced P-Testimonialism
Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?
-
Advanced P-Testimonialism
Mar 9, 2020, 11:37 AM Andrew M Gilmour and I discussing the order of the tests (falsifications) in testimony. In the discussion, Andrew is correctly comparing the Aristotelian Trivium’s order of testing statements: “How it exists, How we know it, and is it logical”, with the Testimonial method and asking why is the P-Testimony checklist in order that begins with categorical consistency, and logical consistency, then empirical, then operational. And we answer that question. ANDREW: For the most part I use the Trivium (Aristotelian) system. For an utterance to be true it must follow a specific order; and can be examined at each level for truth/accuracy: 1 – Ontic, how it exists (objective/subjective, mode of being, categories) 2 – Epistemic, how we know it (empirical, rational, falsification, justification) 3 – Logical, a thing becomes a logical entity once it exists and we know it. Grammatical, a logical entity can be named making it a grammatical entity. Rhetorical, a grammatical entity can be communicated. P-method seems to broadly use the classical method; but with a few tweeks to assist in disambiguation and enforce realism, naturalism, empiricism in speech. ERIC DANELAW Correct, realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism (causality), plus limits and completeness (defense against cherry picking), and rational choice and reciprocity (economics, morality). Updated to add physical science, economics, natural law, using programming rather than set logic. ANDREW M GILMOUR One thing that doesn’t make sense to me is your truth candidate order reverses logical and empirical from the traditional method. To me it cannot be a logical entity until it is known (epistemic) What was the reasoning behind this? ERIC DANELAW Great question. I organized from most simple and internal to most complex and external of the tests, when processing speech (text) in the sciences. Sometimes i’ll organize them for a specific problem. example ANDREW M GILMOUR Ok, in that list empirical precedes logic in the traditional way. So the order is only reversed to quicky disqualify a truth candidate. That order used is for efficiency, not absolute hierarchy of thought? ERIC DANELAW Not sure which question your asking. 1-the order is in ascending information (complexity) 2-that’s because it’s a checklist not a recipe 3-There are sets of related tests (see image above) … not-illogical, … not-impossible, … not-immoral, … not-incomplete, … not-unwarrantied. 4-Some questions do not require all tests (some questions are amoral for example) 5-Some questions rely on moral pretense, verbal pretense, or physical pretense. Some all three. 6-So it’s more a question of choosing the first tool for the job. I’m wondering if the shift from aristotelian presumption of honesty under idealism to testimonialism’s presumption of deceit under pseudoscience, sophistry, and immorality is what you’re intuiting. I think that might be the answer. In other words, the traditional “is the statement not false” under presumption of honesty and error, vs “is this person speaking falsely” under presumption of dishonesty and deception. I think that’s it. One of the first things I noticed in 09 or so, was that what I then considered the victorian and western in-group presumption of goodwill testing for error, was no longer sufficient for defeating the modern abrahamic presumption of dishonesty and undermining seeking deceit. So this is another example of ‘complete falsification’. I think the extension of that change has been that we’re much more ‘bots’ than ‘agents’. And that is why we’ve had to move from lying by design (via positiva) to lying by falure of due diligence (via negativa) So: Presumption of lack of agency. Presumption of deceit Presumption of deceit by failure of due diligence. Guilt by failure of due diligence not just intent. Make sense?
-
Questions on Falsification
Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM
—“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—
We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.
—“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—
Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.
—“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—
What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:
Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.
-
Questions on Falsification
Mar 19, 2020, 3:29 PM
—“Greetings, …. I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: … A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—
We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.
—“What do you mean by underdetermination making no sense?’—
Underdetermination means (critical rationalism) that all scientific statements are incomplete (open to increase in parsimony), and reorganization into the most parsimonious paradigm.
—“The problem as I see it is that from what I’ve seen from posts by propertarians, the notion of falsification is heavily depended upon. Now I understand that notion as saying that we can be sure about what’s false even though we’re never sure about what’s true, is that accurate for the term as P uses it? And if it is, I’m not sure how the Quinean point has been answered. Given that the scientist can always either abandon his current theory /or/ change some other one of his theories, the best he can do is to make an “educated guess”. But not only with regards to what’s true (as you rightly point out), but also with regards to what’s false. … As an example: The addition of the deferent and epicycles are revisions or tweaks of the geocentric theory since(among other reasons) it preservers the centrality of the earth and so on(instead of taking retrograde movement as a falsification of the Ptolomeic model, the scientists chose to tweak their theory). They are revision of external rather than internal nodes: “well the planets do spin around the earth but they also have an epicycle and geometrically the earth is not really the center(deferent)”. Likewise when testing a theory that accounts for the movement of some particle, an incongruous result could cause the scientist to abandon his theory(or tweak it somewhat) or he could alter some of his other theories (say, his understanding of what that particle is in the first place).”—
What does that have to do with anything? What are you asking? What you are doing is trying to get me to educate you by criticism under the pretense that there is any legitimacy at all to justificationism, rather than asking how the method functions by falsification, parsimony, and competition. Testimony requires due diligence against ignorance error bias wishful thinking, loading, framaing, suggestion, obscurantism, sophistry, the fictionalisms, and deceit. There are a limited number of testifiable dimensions against which we can perform due diligence. We enumerate those tests:
Consistency under: realism, naturalism, identity, logical, operational, rational, reciprocal, empirical, within stated limits, fully accounted within those limits, reversible (restitutable), and within your ability to perform restitution, thereby satisfying the demand for infallibility, Because truth must satisfy the demand for infallibility. If it survives those tests then we have a truth candidate. If not then you may not make a truth claim, nor advocate for the imposition of costs upon others dependent upon the truth of that claim. This test absolves you from restitution punishment and prevention if you err. Theories consist of two components: the search criteria (explanation) and the set of operations (formula). If you state your explanation, state limits, and state formula you are speaking truthfully. The market in application will determine if it is in fact true. Most of the time, as we have seen, and still pursue, gravity is continuously improved (refined) but the direction since ancient times has been correct. Even dramatic failures like humours (phlogiston) was not entirely false, just too imprecise. So, we seek to eliminate error. Because that is all we can do. Because the only method of investigation (epistemology) is free association. That’s the lesson of the 20th century. And while it pains me to say so Wittgenstein was right: philosophy is finally correctly relegated to the analysis of speech. And I would take it further, that philosophy is of no value other than speech regarding the pursuit of preferences. Otherwise Transcendence Law (Evolution), Natural Law (cooperation) and Physical law (sciences: formal-logical, physical, and cognitive) have replaced philosophy. With law (testimony) usurping (or restoring) its role of arbiter of truth.