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.
Theme: Decidability
-
It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
-
It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method
Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.
-
Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court
Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/yes-we-can-falsify-all-human-speech-in-court/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 15:43:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264945170262474752
-
Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court.
Jan 30, 2020, 10:11 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. Edit
-
Yes We Can Falsify All Human Speech in Court.
Jan 30, 2020, 10:11 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. Edit
-
The Explanatory Power Is There.
Feb 7, 2020, 11:28 AM Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth. Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve. So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration. In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality. As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified. So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline. The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The explanatory power is there. On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision. Cheers
-
The Explanatory Power Is There.
Feb 7, 2020, 11:28 AM Scott – I don’t understand your post. My work completes the falsificationary method making possible the test of possibility of testimony under performative (deflationary) truth. Popper wasn’t able to get that far. He was partly correct in parsimony but couldn’t define it without market competition. He correctly stated that in the absence of omniscience we can only claim truthfulness not ideal truth. He confused verisimilitude with competing markets. He had no empirical evidence of decidability for scientific exploration although it appears cost determines it. Kuhn’s correctly converts to markets for paradigms increasing the scale from the individual to the network. He poorly articulates but correctly articulates that the explanatory power of networks reach limits as do all economic organizations, thereby exhausting opportunity for explanatory power, which leads to punctuated equilibrium (as in biology). Wilson suggests that underneath all of these similarities is a universal rule of all sciences (which I think my work provides the structure of). Kuhn fails to identify that operational vocabulary evolves semantic incommensurability to semantic commensurability, the same way that paradigms evolve. So, the progress from aristotle to newton to einstein to Planck-Pauli-heisenberg-shrodinger (and the current regression seeded by bohr) is merely the evolution of special cases to general cases. In kuhn’s second attempt he also failed to solve the incommensurability problem for the same reason popper was stuck with scale – failing to grasp that logic is falsificationary and only justificationary in special cases, and that deduction is just another means of free association by which we identify candidates. of course there is much more that can be said but the point is that there is no such thing as proof of anything other than internal consistency of claims. Otherwise the only closure is demonstration. In other words, science is indifferent from legal adversarial contest (market) – and that is why europeans invented reason, empiricism, and science: the application european traditional law of sovereigns, in adversarial competition before the market, dependent upon evidence and testimony where testimony must be observable, and actions possible, under realism and naturalism and human incentives for action under bounded rationality. As such science consists in testifying to any claims by the continued application of testimony and evidence, ever converging through adversarial competition to increasingly parsimonious vocabulary and increasingly commensurable paradigms, u How one conducts scientific investigation is merely a craft like any other. What demarcates science from non-science is the testifiabilty of the claims made. As such all science like all testimony is merely a market falsification leaving only (a) undecidability due to insufficiency, (b) a truth candidate (Truthful Speech) with permanently open falsifiability, and (c) falsified. So when I say “I discovered truth” I discovered the completion of methodology for falsifying claims, and used that discovery to produce a value neutral language across all disciplines, and most importantly the value neutral language of explaining all language regardless of discipline. The reason we know I’m correct is it’s explanatory power at present appears limitless. We even have a table of grammars that cover the spectrum from deflationary (logics) to ordinary, to inflationary (storytelling) to fictionalisms (pseudoscience, idealism, and theology), to the deceits. So we have ‘periodic table of speech’. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The explanatory power is there. On average it takes about six months for those with some legal, some economic, some scientific, and some software backgrounds to understand, and about two to four years to put into practice like any other technical discipline. It’s not like you’re going to find holes in it without quite a bit of time. And even if you spent the time we tend not to find holes only to increase precision. Cheers
-
Re: “I Never Err”
Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
-
Re: “I Never Err”
Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.