Theme: Decidability

  • It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead s

    It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead say that any premise must be constructable from first premises – and if not we may not claim it is true. And that all arguments derived therefrom must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
    What that means is that there are very few general rules in the universe, and that if premises can be constructed from first principles (effectively ‘laws’) then we can claim we testify truthfully.
    The problem with most philosophy is that it’s orgins are in mathematics and as such are statemetns about words instead of statements about evidence.
    The value of economics (neutral language) and law (demonstrated interest, imposition of costs, motive) are that they answer the questions that philosophical and theological discourse evades by every possible means – the truth.

    That’s the short version. I’m in the middle of something. If you need further clarification let me know.

    Reply addressees: @andrewkatz4


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 17:57:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833565396823379970

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833559230441304206

  • QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE “the science of science itself” We’re working on the d

    QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE
    “the science of science itself”
    We’re working on the definition of science and it’s relation to decidability and truth.

    PROMPT
    Can one perform science if one is not seeking to produce the testifiable (that which is testifiable by man) if given the spectrum of science from unfounded speculation through to incontestable law of a first principle: (Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty), as defined in this excerpt?

    Summary: As such any claim of science requires the following three claims:

    1. Degree of Testifiability: A declaration of the categorical demarcation of the [???] of the claim:
    … … |Category of Testifiability (One)|: Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty

    2. Constitution of the Substance: A declaration of premises of the dimensions of the claim one is testifying to:
    … … |Substance (All Appropriate)|:Theory of Existence (Metaphysics, Realism, Naturalism) > Theory of Causality (Operations) > Theory of Description (math or language or both) > Evidence (Measurements)

    3. Mandatory Due Diligence: A declaration of the dimensions of testifiability one has satisfied the demand for.
    … … |Mandatory Due Diligence (All, Promise)|: Explanatory Power > Survivability > Identity, Internal Consistency > Operational Possibility > Rational Choice > Reciprocity > Parsimony > Scope and Limits > Warrantability > Restitutability

    RESPONSE
    This is a challenging and nuanced question, and it strikes at the heart of what defines science and the boundaries of scientific inquiry. Let’s explore this by breaking it down:

    1. Core Definition of Science:
    Traditional Definition: Science is traditionally defined as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Central to this definition is the concept of testifiability—the ability to subject a hypothesis, theory, or observation to empirical testing, and thus provide evidence that can be verified or falsified.

    2. The Spectrum of Scientific Inquiry:
    Speculation to Law: The spectrum you describe—from unfounded speculation to incontestable law of a first principle—represents a range of epistemic statuses within scientific inquiry. At one end is speculation, which may or may not be testifiable or grounded in empirical evidence. At the other end are laws or first principles, which are universally accepted as testifiable due to their empirical validation and logical coherence.

    3. Science Without Testifiability:
    Exploratory Science: In some cases, science can begin with exploratory or speculative phases where the aim is not immediately to produce testifiable results but to generate ideas, hypotheses, or frameworks that may later be subjected to testing. This exploratory phase is crucial for advancing new theories or concepts, especially in fields where empirical testing is currently limited or where the phenomena are not yet fully understood.
    Theoretical Science: Theoretical science often involves developing models, simulations, or mathematical constructs that may not be directly testifiable in the traditional sense but provide a coherent framework for understanding phenomena. Over time, parts of these theories might be tested as technology or methods advance.
    Conceptual Science: Some areas of science focus on refining concepts, definitions, or classifications that are foundational to empirical work. While these activities might not produce immediately testifiable outcomes, they are essential for the structure and coherence of scientific knowledge.

    4. Can It Still Be Called Science?:
    Depends on the Goal: If the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that can eventually be tested, then these activities can still be considered part of the scientific process. In this view, science encompasses both the generation of ideas (which may initially be speculative) and their subsequent testing and validation.
    Pseudoscience: On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid or disregard testifiability—if there is no intention of producing knowledge that can be empirically verified—then this falls outside the bounds of science and into the realm of pseudoscience, philosophy, or metaphysics. Science, by definition, seeks to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified.

    5. Practical Examples:
    Quantum Mechanics: Consider early quantum mechanics. Initial ideas like wave-particle duality began as speculative but mathematically grounded concepts. Over time, these ideas were subjected to empirical testing, leading to their acceptance as foundational scientific principles.
    String Theory: String theory offers a more contentious example. It is highly mathematical and speculative, and many aspects are not currently testifiable. Some argue that it is still part of science because it aims to eventually produce testifiable predictions, while others criticize it for its current lack of empirical testability.

    6. Science as a Process:
    Iterative Nature: Science is an iterative process where speculative or theoretical ideas are refined, tested, and either validated or discarded. The process of moving from speculation to testifiable hypothesis to validated law is what characterizes scientific progress.
    Testifiability as a Guiding Principle: Even when the immediate goal isn’t testifiability, the broader scientific endeavor is guided by the principle that knowledge should, in the end, be testifiable. This commitment distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry.

    Conclusion:
    Science is fundamentally tied to the production of testifiable knowledge. However, the scientific process includes phases where testifiability is not immediately achievable—such as in speculative, theoretical, or conceptual stages.
    These phases are still part of science if they ultimately aim to produce knowledge that can be empirically tested. If the pursuit of testifiability is entirely absent or rejected, then the activity would likely be considered outside the bounds of science, possibly falling into pseudoscience, philosophy, or speculative metaphysics.
    The guiding principle of science is that, regardless of the stage in the process, the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that is testifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 20:08:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827075366034534402

  • No, Elon, you pursue the truth, and the truth is always and everywhere the best

    No, Elon, you pursue the truth, and the truth is always and everywhere the best means of decidability, and decidability the best means of discovering opportunities for exchange, compromise or discovery of alternatives – but most importantly it’s the means of preventing deception,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 17:28:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825948029435916331

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825715527446155288

  • RT @NoahRevoy: We want the truth and only the truth because the truth is enough

    RT @NoahRevoy: We want the truth and only the truth because the truth is enough to decide.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 18:32:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824876875614982241

  • IS THIS TECHNICALLY PHILOSOPHY OR IS IT FORMAL SCIENCE? Cognitive Science > Ling

    IS THIS TECHNICALLY PHILOSOPHY OR IS IT FORMAL SCIENCE?
    Cognitive Science > Linguistics > Epistemology > Decidability > Ethics (Natural Law) > Economics > Politics > “Mythology” > Mindfulness


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-16 21:10:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824554376242844004

  • DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM: |Assurancess|: Warr

    DISAMBIGUATING MEANS OF COMMITMENT OF ASSURANCES OF A CLAIM:
    |Assurancess|: Warranty > Guarantee > Insurance > Ensurance

    1. Warranty: A written promise to repair or replace a product if defects occur within a specified period.
    Typically covers specific defects in materials and workmanship.
    Usually provided by the manufacturer and has a defined time frame.

    2. Guarantee: A broader promise of quality, performance, or satisfaction.
    Can cover various aspects beyond just defects.
    May be offered by manufacturers, retailers, or service providers.

    3. Insurance: A contract providing financial protection against specified future risks or losses.
    Involves regular premium payments to an insurance company.
    Highly regulated and legally binding.

    4. Ensurance (as a neologism):A commitment to ensure a specific outcome or state.
    Could involve ongoing actions or processes to maintain a certain condition.
    Might be used in contexts where “guarantee” is too broad and “warranty” too narrow.

    [ Definitions ]


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-02 22:49:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819505872646905856

  • “Most think tanks don’t do much thinking. It’s just bias promotion and propagand

    –“Most think tanks don’t do much thinking. It’s just bias promotion and propaganda. Instead, we work as a ‘decision’ tank so to speak. We seek decidability – truth. And then we suggestion options from there.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-25 14:40:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1816483741411528809

  • RT @WalterIII: “The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that yo

    RT @WalterIII: “The purpose of a Sophism is to overload your reason such that you must appeal to intuition for decidability. And intuition…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-24 00:58:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1815914539839545369

  • It’s not a preference but a measure. In all my work I for decidability and full

    It’s not a preference but a measure. In all my work I for decidability and full accounting. This is the only expression of decidability and full accounting that is NOT preference. As such, yes he’s silly, no I’m not expressing a preference. And yes I could easily anticipate your…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-16 19:00:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813287611722833953

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1813286965032415454

  • Yes, I am a legal scholar, as well as a philosopher, and behavioral and social s

    Yes, I am a legal scholar, as well as a philosopher, and behavioral and social scientist. I specialize in decidability which you would archaically refer to as ‘truth’, and the science of cooperation including law and economics. Though what I do is likely as incomprehensible to you as fundamental physics.

    Here is the explanation for a high school student. I’m afraid commonality concurrency and sovereignty are a bit of a reach for five year old’s.

    Though as usual, if you submit my prose to ChatGPT, since it understands my work, you can in fact ask it to explain it to an X year old. And it will do a fair enough job. 😉

    https://t.co/zY1yAYk8sT

    Reply addressees: @susalaesq @tribelaw


    Source date (UTC): 2024-07-15 16:07:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812881579489763328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1812874188417348065