Theme: Decidability

—“Formally, then, Popper’s theory of demarcation may be articulated as follows: where a ‘basic statement’ is to be understood as a particular observation-report, then we may say that a theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic statements into the following two non-empty sub-classes: (a) the class of all those basic statements with which it is inconsistent, or which it prohibits—this is the class of its potential falsifiers (i.e., those statements which, if true, falsify the whole theory), and (b) the class of those basic statements with which it is consistent, or which it permits (i.e., those statements which, if true, corroborate it, or bear it out).”—

PROPERTARIANISM’S POSITION:

Since science ( the academy in general) is a luxury good, insulated from opportunity costs, insulated from market forces, assumedly unbiased, and assumedly free of use in the political sphere as a means of coercion or profiteering or conquest – and prior to the present, assumed to not need to provide warranty on their work products – Popper’s articulation of demarcation is incorrect, because it is insufficient for use as a general rule and grants particular sanctions to scientists that the 20th century has proven, if not the entire american experiment – that we may not do.

There exists only truthful and untruthful speech, and the speaker’s warranty that speech is truthful, by demonstrating the diligence of internal consistency, external correspondence, falsification, and finally existentially demonstrating that it is free of imaginary, erroneous, biased, and deceptive content.

(Under this principle, we could have prosecuted the Frankfurt school for the fabrication of their evidence.)

Free speech requires warranty an operationalism is the only warranty possible for theories.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine

—“Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper’s view, is prohibitive, in the sense that it forbids, by implication, particular events or occurrences. As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood the most rigorous testing, for however long a period of time, that it has been verified; rather we should recognise that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration. and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a better theory.”—

PROPERTARIAN POSITION

An advocate of Propertarinaism would argue that since the distinction is between truthful and non-truthful speech, not between science and non-science, that the term ‘scientific’ is not relevant – merely a ‘more polite’ way of saying someone is not and cannot be speaking truthfully – and therefore is polluting the commons.

Furthermore, Propertarianism would argue that all constraining improvements upon our theories are prohibitive in an effort to eliminate imaginary, erroneous, biased, and deceitful content. And that falsification is insufficient – in that it performs a warranty of correspondence, but fails to provide a warranty of possibility or truthfulness, by demonstrating that all content of the theory is existentially possible.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

—“Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place.”—

PROPERTARIAN POSITION

The operationalists have corrected this view: how you imagine your theory is irrelevant – how you propose your theory and therefore testify to its construction is not. Or better: how you bring the product of your thought to the market requires that you warrantee it is non-fraudulent, and free of harm.

Because scientists and academics and public intellectuals and priests have brought many harmful warrantied products to market – and unless such intellectual products are operationally constructed, one cannot demonstrate that he did not create a hazard by his actions.

Popper confuses the process of guessing: tautology, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing, and intuitive association, about existential phenomenon – with axiomatic deduction and induction as practiced in the logic of constant relations (mathematics and sets).

There are no logical constraints on the production of theories – we can imagine theories by any means we can possibly arrive at them. The only constraint we place upon theories is in the publication of them; because in the publication of them we must know that you have warrantied your speech from harm, just as you have warrantied a law, product, or service from harming others by your due diligence.

We can test our theories through internal consistency (logic), external correspondence (testing), hardening (falsification), and operational definitions (proof of existence, the absence of imaginary information, the absence of cognitive bias, and the absence of allegorical deception.)

Because theories in every theoretical discipline, just like products in any industry, are capable of causing harm. In fact, harmful theories are second only the the great plague in the harm done – and even that is open to challenge. In fact, it is most likely that harmful theories have produced the greatest disasters affecting man in history.

Free speech, dueling, Libel, Defamation and Slander co-habitated well. One could stop lying himself, or via the courts. Each individual could defend against the spreading of deceit by his own action etther by physical threat or by threat of the courts. But with the incremental loss of dueling, libel, defamation, slander, we slowly lost the means of protecting ourselves from harmful gossip. Worse the academy began to adopt gossip systematically.

There is no need to return to dueling. However, it is quite possible to prevent politicians, the academy, the press, businesses and private individuals from the spread of harmful, dishonest and erroneous theories.

All that is required is that we grasp that there is nothing particular to science about the scientific method. It is just the method we must use if we wish to speak truthfully? whether a statement is internally consistent (logical), externally correspondent (tested), hardened (via falsification), and existentially possible (operationally defined).

Why should we be able to distribute harmful theories any more than we can distribute harmful products, services, and policies?

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine