Theme: Decidability

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