Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Performative (Existential) Truth

    Performative Truth rather than the pretense of it, requires consistency of properties (identity) of reference, internal consistency (logical consistency), consistency of operational possibility (sequences in time), consistency of observed consequences (empiricism), rational choice by rational incentives, reciprocity (bi-directional rational choice), coherence (consistency with realism, naturalism, and operationalism), completeness by stated limits, and full accounting within them, are the minimum criteria for due diligence against falsehood by ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, under liability for having performed that due diligence.

    This is the analytic and complete inventory of the criteria we use in the judgment of the truth today – and have for centuries. It’s just that the scientific community is less demanding than the court, the philosophical community less so than the scientific, and the informal community lacking constraint at all. And the academic, public intellectual, commercial, economic, financial, and political communities abuse with reckless abandon. And with religions – whether supernatural or pseudoscientific (marxism – feminism et al) or sophistry (postmodernism et all) – specializing in lying.

  • Performative Truth rather than the pretense of it, requires consistency of prope

    Performative Truth rather than the pretense of it, requires consistency of properties (identity) of reference, internal consistency (logical consistency), consistency of operational possibility (sequences in time), consistency of observed consequences (empiricism), rational choice by rational incentives, reciprocity (bi-directional rational choice), coherence (consistency with realism, naturalism, and operationalism), completeness by stated limits, and full accounting within them, are the minimum criteria for due diligence against falsehood by ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, under liability for having performed that due diligence.

    This is the analytic and complete inventory of the criteria we use in the judgment of the truth today – and have for centuries. It’s just that the scientific community is less demanding than the court, the philosophical community less so than the scientific, and the informal community lacking constraint at all. And the academic, public intellectual, commercial, economic, financial, and political communities abuse with reckless abandon. And with religions – whether supernatural or pseudoscientific (marxism – feminism et al) or sophistry (postmodernism et all) – specializing in lying.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-09-18 20:24:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES Philosoph

    DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

    Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.

    —“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—

    In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.

    In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).

    As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.

    THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
    So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).

    What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).

    EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
    Myth: inter-Imaginary,
    Law: inter-personal, and
    Engeneering inter-physical
    … … … … … Play … Literature ->
    Mythology … History ————>
    … … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
    Law … Politics … Economics —>
    …. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
    … … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
    Engineering … Mathematics —–>

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/104746717748472408

  • Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRIN

    Boost of @curtd DECIDABILITY IS THE OPERATIONAL NAME FOR THE CAUSE OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

    Philosophers often talk about the difference between seeking first principles, and seeking fit, commensurability, untility, choices or preferences.

    —“A first principle is a basic proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption. In philosophy, first principles are from the First Cause method taught by Aristotelians, and nuanced versions of first principles are referred to as postulates by Kantians. In mathematics, first principles are referred to as axioms or postulates. In physics and other sciences, theoretical work is said to be from first principles, or “ab initio”, if it starts directly at the level of established science and does not make assumptions such as empirical model and parameter fitting.”—

    In propertarianism I call this the search for “decidability”. The point at which we can decide (must), versus choose (can), versus prefer (may). So in this sense, “decidabilty” is the operational definitino of ‘first principle”.

    In the examples above, first principles (decidability) in mathematics is provided by position in an order (positional names), adding(increasing) to or subtracting(decreasing) from a position in that order. To say that mathematics instead consists of axioms is only partly true. The axioms are logical consequences of positional names. As such they are variables, and only first principles. For example, ZFC axioms in mathematics are statemetns of set theory (ideals) not operations (reals).

    As I’ve written elsewhere, Kantianism is a psychological not operational system of thought in the german (conflationary) school of philosophy (and logic), versus the anglo analytic (depersonalized, or legal ) school of philosophy (logic), or what I suppose we should call today’s cognitive science or neural network school of logic – which is no longer philosophy but operational science. In Propertarianism I translate Kantianism’s apriori logic into formal logic.

    THE NEW AGE OF PHILOSOPHY
    So I would call the current era the Operational and Neural Network Age of Logic, leaving behind the second age of idealism (Platonism).

    What’s the problem with neural networks? We can’t introspect on them yet either (although we will).

    EVOLUTION FROM FIRST CAUSES:
    Myth: inter-Imaginary,
    Law: inter-personal, and
    Engeneering inter-physical
    … … … … … Play … Literature ->
    Mythology … History ————>
    … … … … .. Theology (myth+law) ->
    Law … Politics … Economics —>
    …. … … … Philosophy(law+math) ->
    … … … … … … … …. … ..Science ->
    Engineering … Mathematics —–>

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-24 22:27:52 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/105752621694800353

  • No we’re talking abstractions. No value to that

    No we’re talking abstractions. No value to that.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-18 16:18:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1295757012442198016

    Reply addressees: @_Indirection

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1295756850307137540

  • The First Step in The P-Methodology: “Types”

    [T]he first step in P-Logic is creating Types. Not Ideal Types. Not ideals. Not an archetypes, not an average, not a set, but a scale: an ORDERED list, hierarchy, or map to use as a system of measurement.

    A type is a category whose members varies by one or more of the same properties – one ore more ‘constant relations’.

    We do this by a process called “Disambiguation by serialization and operationalization“. Our goal is to create a system of measurement for any concept.

    The process is relatively simple.

    1) Pick a term. In this example I’l use moral.

    2) Collect all related terms, synonyms and antonyms (3 minimum, 5 better)

    … Habits, manners ethics morals, traditions, laws, good, bad, right, wrong.

    3) Organized them in a sequence (x) from less to more, more to less, or neutral to more and less. Add a second dimension on an orthogonal scale for opposing dimensions ( y ) and another orthogonal (z) after which you’re no longer simplifying anyone’s understanding, so convert, or hierarchy or map or however you want to organize them. Most of the time we keep to simple lists, or sets of simple lists for different degrees of abstraction, or to illustrate different constant relations.

    Right / Wrong is a true or false. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    Good / Bad is a judgment or preference. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    We confuse ethical and moral. Ethical has a more precise meaning, which is an interpersonal action where we abuse the asymmetry of information. Moral is a looser term. It means actions that indirectly and anonymously force others to pay a cost. Manners are something we demonstrate immediately and are testable on the evidence alone.

    So I’m gointo choose to organize them by :
    … Norms: Habits > Manners > Ethics > Morals
    and
    … Cultural Regulations: Traditions > Norms > Findngs of Court > Regulations > Legislations(Laws) > Constitutions
    Or
    I could organize all of them by severity of violation:
    … Rules: habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
    Or
    I could organize them by moral spectrum:
    … Evil< Immoral< unethical< bad < amoral > good > ethical >moral >Virtuous

    And I could stack them so that the moral spectrum was in the middle, the leal spectrum above, and the normative spectrum below and show how all of these terms are related.

    4) Next Define, Modify Definitions, Redefine, or create New Definitions so that each term in the sequence is unambiguous with every other term. In this case it’s only necessary to disambiguate moral an ethical which we did above.

    5) Convert those definitions to Operational Langauge in complete sentences absent the Verb To Be. We’ll study this a bit later. It’s ‘work’ that like mathematics or programming, you only internalize by practice.

    6) Use the Precise Term. When you use a term from the sequence, use the most precise one.

    7) Enumerate and Repeat the Series. When you are educating people, don’t pick an ideal term, but enumerate the series like this “Well that’s avoiding the externalization of an indirect cost, so that would be Moral (as in manners(direct demonstrated) > ethics(direct asymmetric) > morals(indirect anonymous) > laws(institutional)) and that’s a good thing.”

    Results: You will have converted from a colloquial associative vocabulary to a formal vocabulary of measurement. If you do this with a few dozen terms (it’s not that many) you’ll be surprised how precise you’re able to communicate your meaning . And the more you do it the more you’ll think in types (sequences).

    But caution: Now we don’t need to speak in formal operational langauge but just as we can diagram sentences, we can ‘explode’ (or expand) anything anyone says into promissory, complete, formal operational sentences that are the equivalent of testable transactions. And we can break stories into sets of transactions, or accmulate transactions into stories.

    So use the right too for the right purpose:

    … ideomatic speech > colloqual speech > articulate speech > testimonial speech

    Propertarianism teachus ustestionial speech.

    SOME BASIC TYPES:

    … |RULES| habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws

    …|FACULTIES| Physical > Emotional > Mental

    …|COGNITION| Sense > Auto-Association > Model > Perception > Prediction > Imagination > Emotion > Attention > Focus > Daydream > Think > Reason > Calculation > Computation

    SEX DIFFERENCES IN EXTREMES
    Female <———– Ascendant Male ——-> Established Male
    Socialist…………………….Libertarian…………………Conservative
    Empathic ………………….Pragmatic…………………….Analytic
    Promiscuity, Shrlling .. Non-Conforming……….Violent, Criminal
    Social Predator ………… Intellectual …………….Physical Predator

    COMPARE:
    ========

    Data Domain (Computer Science – Databases)
    In data management and database analysis, a data domain is the collection of values that a data element may contain. The rule for determining the domain boundary may be as simple as a data type with an enumerated list of values. For example, a database table that has information about people, with one record per person, might have a “gender” column.

    Type (Computer Science)
    The specification of a set of operations that may be performed on a variable (“name”). Types formalize and enforce the otherwise implicit properties of classes.

    Type System (Mathematics)
    a type system is a formal system in which every term has a “type” which defines its meaning and the operations that may be performed on it.

    Ideal Type (Social Science)
    An Ideal Type is a concept constructed by a social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies of Weberian thought.

    Category vs Type
    A Type is a N to 1 relationship (a thing can be of only one Type) and Category is a M to N relationship (a thing can fit into many categories at the same time). Category fits to a family of different things, while type refers to the actual fact that something exists as being of this type.

    Type
    a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.
    synonyms:
    (What we DON”T use) epitome · quintessence · essence · perfect example · archetype · exemplar · embodiment · personification · avatar · · prototype

    (What we DO use): model · pattern · paradigm

    Category
    a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

    The Techniques

    The Operational Model of the Brain: brain, mind, consiiousness, agency.

    The Grammars. Language, Logics, Paradigms, Periodic Table of Speech

    Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    Opertionalization by Expanding sentences into Operatioal language

    Acquisitionism, Property in Toto, and the Economics of Human Behavior

    Ethics: Decidability, Reciprocity, and Testimony

    Crime: Crimes, Frauds, and Deciets,

    Prosecution (falsification, or ‘Testing’)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (construction) and Applications

    Law and Constitutions (Programmatic Natural law), and Incremntal Suppression

    Institutions, Comparative Rule, Government, Economics, Education, Religion, Family, Demographics, and

    Compartive Group Strategies

  • The First Step in The P-Methodology: “Types”

    [T]he first step in P-Logic is creating Types. Not Ideal Types. Not ideals. Not an archetypes, not an average, not a set, but a scale: an ORDERED list, hierarchy, or map to use as a system of measurement.

    A type is a category whose members varies by one or more of the same properties – one ore more ‘constant relations’.

    We do this by a process called “Disambiguation by serialization and operationalization“. Our goal is to create a system of measurement for any concept.

    The process is relatively simple.

    1) Pick a term. In this example I’l use moral.

    2) Collect all related terms, synonyms and antonyms (3 minimum, 5 better)

    … Habits, manners ethics morals, traditions, laws, good, bad, right, wrong.

    3) Organized them in a sequence (x) from less to more, more to less, or neutral to more and less. Add a second dimension on an orthogonal scale for opposing dimensions ( y ) and another orthogonal (z) after which you’re no longer simplifying anyone’s understanding, so convert, or hierarchy or map or however you want to organize them. Most of the time we keep to simple lists, or sets of simple lists for different degrees of abstraction, or to illustrate different constant relations.

    Right / Wrong is a true or false. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    Good / Bad is a judgment or preference. We use it as an analogy for moral.
    We confuse ethical and moral. Ethical has a more precise meaning, which is an interpersonal action where we abuse the asymmetry of information. Moral is a looser term. It means actions that indirectly and anonymously force others to pay a cost. Manners are something we demonstrate immediately and are testable on the evidence alone.

    So I’m gointo choose to organize them by :
    … Norms: Habits > Manners > Ethics > Morals
    and
    … Cultural Regulations: Traditions > Norms > Findngs of Court > Regulations > Legislations(Laws) > Constitutions
    Or
    I could organize all of them by severity of violation:
    … Rules: habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
    Or
    I could organize them by moral spectrum:
    … Evil< Immoral< unethical< bad < amoral > good > ethical >moral >Virtuous

    And I could stack them so that the moral spectrum was in the middle, the leal spectrum above, and the normative spectrum below and show how all of these terms are related.

    4) Next Define, Modify Definitions, Redefine, or create New Definitions so that each term in the sequence is unambiguous with every other term. In this case it’s only necessary to disambiguate moral an ethical which we did above.

    5) Convert those definitions to Operational Langauge in complete sentences absent the Verb To Be. We’ll study this a bit later. It’s ‘work’ that like mathematics or programming, you only internalize by practice.

    6) Use the Precise Term. When you use a term from the sequence, use the most precise one.

    7) Enumerate and Repeat the Series. When you are educating people, don’t pick an ideal term, but enumerate the series like this “Well that’s avoiding the externalization of an indirect cost, so that would be Moral (as in manners(direct demonstrated) > ethics(direct asymmetric) > morals(indirect anonymous) > laws(institutional)) and that’s a good thing.”

    Results: You will have converted from a colloquial associative vocabulary to a formal vocabulary of measurement. If you do this with a few dozen terms (it’s not that many) you’ll be surprised how precise you’re able to communicate your meaning . And the more you do it the more you’ll think in types (sequences).

    But caution: Now we don’t need to speak in formal operational langauge but just as we can diagram sentences, we can ‘explode’ (or expand) anything anyone says into promissory, complete, formal operational sentences that are the equivalent of testable transactions. And we can break stories into sets of transactions, or accmulate transactions into stories.

    So use the right too for the right purpose:

    … ideomatic speech > colloqual speech > articulate speech > testimonial speech

    Propertarianism teachus ustestionial speech.

    SOME BASIC TYPES:

    … |RULES| habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws

    …|FACULTIES| Physical > Emotional > Mental

    …|COGNITION| Sense > Auto-Association > Model > Perception > Prediction > Imagination > Emotion > Attention > Focus > Daydream > Think > Reason > Calculation > Computation

    SEX DIFFERENCES IN EXTREMES
    Female <———– Ascendant Male ——-> Established Male
    Socialist…………………….Libertarian…………………Conservative
    Empathic ………………….Pragmatic…………………….Analytic
    Promiscuity, Shrlling .. Non-Conforming……….Violent, Criminal
    Social Predator ………… Intellectual …………….Physical Predator

    COMPARE:
    ========

    Data Domain (Computer Science – Databases)
    In data management and database analysis, a data domain is the collection of values that a data element may contain. The rule for determining the domain boundary may be as simple as a data type with an enumerated list of values. For example, a database table that has information about people, with one record per person, might have a “gender” column.

    Type (Computer Science)
    The specification of a set of operations that may be performed on a variable (“name”). Types formalize and enforce the otherwise implicit properties of classes.

    Type System (Mathematics)
    a type system is a formal system in which every term has a “type” which defines its meaning and the operations that may be performed on it.

    Ideal Type (Social Science)
    An Ideal Type is a concept constructed by a social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies of Weberian thought.

    Category vs Type
    A Type is a N to 1 relationship (a thing can be of only one Type) and Category is a M to N relationship (a thing can fit into many categories at the same time). Category fits to a family of different things, while type refers to the actual fact that something exists as being of this type.

    Type
    a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.
    synonyms:
    (What we DON”T use) epitome · quintessence · essence · perfect example · archetype · exemplar · embodiment · personification · avatar · · prototype

    (What we DO use): model · pattern · paradigm

    Category
    a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

    The Techniques

    The Operational Model of the Brain: brain, mind, consiiousness, agency.

    The Grammars. Language, Logics, Paradigms, Periodic Table of Speech

    Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    Opertionalization by Expanding sentences into Operatioal language

    Acquisitionism, Property in Toto, and the Economics of Human Behavior

    Ethics: Decidability, Reciprocity, and Testimony

    Crime: Crimes, Frauds, and Deciets,

    Prosecution (falsification, or ‘Testing’)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (construction) and Applications

    Law and Constitutions (Programmatic Natural law), and Incremntal Suppression

    Institutions, Comparative Rule, Government, Economics, Education, Religion, Family, Demographics, and

    Compartive Group Strategies

  • Consciousness and Understanding ‘the Grammars’ Is About as Important as Understanding Basic Physics.


    (a) This Paper uses the “lego” system of postmodern pseudoscience by accumulating cites while proposing no operational dependencies just loose analogies. (b) it’s true we don’t know if frequency ‘matters’. (c), slow speed of human memory feedback(recursion) in hierarchies …

    … explains the persistence of experience. (d) economics(information, delay) rather than physics (energy, immediate) better explains brain function for the same reasons. (d) geometric (spatial) modeling in the hippocampal region explains consciousness. (e) the same for …

    … competition for attention (economics). (f) action is calculated along with prediction, so explains why we detect choice before aware of it – explaining reaction times. (g) dorsal interrupt allows capture of state (control) for impulsive reactions. (h) cerebellum appears to…

    … produce timing across actions (very complex), (i) We know the brain structures …that produce each of these phenomena. As far as I know, the mind including consciousness is solved, variation in geometry trivial, variations in experience minor, …

    … weights (personality) limited, and the primary difference in experience due to predictions (imagination), given wide variation in experiences. So while task performance is marginally indifferent between individuals, predictive performance and emotional reaction to ….

    … those predictions account for what we perceive as wide variation in experience. In other words, we vary greatly in prediction and evaluation, but not sense-perception. This is rather obvious in retrospect.However, it allows not only adaptation but division of cognitive labor.

    .. and this division of cognitive labor is just as important to our evolutionary history as is language to transmit information between us.

    … To understand the operational function of the brain it’s better to follow Jeff Hawkins, and Joscha Bach, etc. and the research they cite. Computational and economic(real) thought is a profound improvement over mathematics and physics(ideal) b/c accounts for causality and time.

    … FYI: I was asked to comment on this paper b/c it’s an area of my work. And the author blocked me for this thread. But just as physics is supporting a vast population of pseudoscientists, so is almost every other area of the academy other than applied math, compsci, and biochem.

    … If you can’t state it’s dependencies (realism, naturalism ) measure it (categories) or operationalize (transformations) you don’t understand it (narration).

    … It’s this difference between verbal-idealism(words), mathematical-physical idealsism(existence), and computational-economic thought (action).

    … At this point I’m convinced that understanding ‘the grammars’ is about as important as understanding basic physics.

    RE: Author Complaint: I wasn’t responding to you, but to the audience that asked me to comment, given that I do work on the operational explanation of mind. You claimed you presented a ‘theory’ but didn’t. I explained why, as another illustration of what’s wrong with the academy and how to reform it.

  • Consciousness and Understanding ‘the Grammars’ Is About as Important as Understanding Basic Physics.


    (a) This Paper uses the “lego” system of postmodern pseudoscience by accumulating cites while proposing no operational dependencies just loose analogies. (b) it’s true we don’t know if frequency ‘matters’. (c), slow speed of human memory feedback(recursion) in hierarchies …

    … explains the persistence of experience. (d) economics(information, delay) rather than physics (energy, immediate) better explains brain function for the same reasons. (d) geometric (spatial) modeling in the hippocampal region explains consciousness. (e) the same for …

    … competition for attention (economics). (f) action is calculated along with prediction, so explains why we detect choice before aware of it – explaining reaction times. (g) dorsal interrupt allows capture of state (control) for impulsive reactions. (h) cerebellum appears to…

    … produce timing across actions (very complex), (i) We know the brain structures …that produce each of these phenomena. As far as I know, the mind including consciousness is solved, variation in geometry trivial, variations in experience minor, …

    … weights (personality) limited, and the primary difference in experience due to predictions (imagination), given wide variation in experiences. So while task performance is marginally indifferent between individuals, predictive performance and emotional reaction to ….

    … those predictions account for what we perceive as wide variation in experience. In other words, we vary greatly in prediction and evaluation, but not sense-perception. This is rather obvious in retrospect.However, it allows not only adaptation but division of cognitive labor.

    .. and this division of cognitive labor is just as important to our evolutionary history as is language to transmit information between us.

    … To understand the operational function of the brain it’s better to follow Jeff Hawkins, and Joscha Bach, etc. and the research they cite. Computational and economic(real) thought is a profound improvement over mathematics and physics(ideal) b/c accounts for causality and time.

    … FYI: I was asked to comment on this paper b/c it’s an area of my work. And the author blocked me for this thread. But just as physics is supporting a vast population of pseudoscientists, so is almost every other area of the academy other than applied math, compsci, and biochem.

    … If you can’t state it’s dependencies (realism, naturalism ) measure it (categories) or operationalize (transformations) you don’t understand it (narration).

    … It’s this difference between verbal-idealism(words), mathematical-physical idealsism(existence), and computational-economic thought (action).

    … At this point I’m convinced that understanding ‘the grammars’ is about as important as understanding basic physics.

    RE: Author Complaint: I wasn’t responding to you, but to the audience that asked me to comment, given that I do work on the operational explanation of mind. You claimed you presented a ‘theory’ but didn’t. I explained why, as another illustration of what’s wrong with the academy and how to reform it.

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion

    In P-Law, ‘science’ is a testable definition, requiring inter-disciplinary categorical consistency: identity, internal, external, operational; testifiability(rare), limits and completeness(rare), test of malincentives(!!!), warranty (very rare), and liability(only extant commercially.
    We treat scientific speech like any other commercial product, where one must warranty and remain liable for any claim. By requiring specified limits, we limit claims, and with that alone prevent ‘hypothesis’ raging.

    Little applied science – Mathematics, chemistry, technology, engineering fails. Some physics fails. Most econ fails. And all climate, social, psych, fails.

    On the other hand, the academy was not formed to educate but de-indoctrinate from Christian superstition into reason, and eventually begrudgingly into science. The academy has been captured once again as an unaccountable religion with an unaccountable priesthood profiting from the sale of unwarrantable goods, that have undermined our civilization as badly as Judaism Christianity and Islam in the ancient world.

    Marxism, Neo-Marxism, Postmodernism, Anti-Male Feminism, and HBD-Science-Denialism are just another Abrahamic religion of false promise from the Physical (scarcity), Natural (reciprocity), Evolutionary (eugenic) laws of the Universe, and casting European males, like Romans before them, as the makers of these laws, rather than discovering, adapting to, and applying them.

    Marxism – Bolshevism – NeoMarxism – Postmodernism – AntiMale Feminism – HBD-Science-Denialism is a secular religion of pseudoscience and sophistry that replaces political Judaism and political Christianity as a religion of supernaturalism and sophistry. And it will lead to political Islam.

    Because that’s the progression of devolution of cognitive ability: European Science, Reasoning, and law by Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism undermined by Jewish sophistry, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, adopted by Christians, who then undermine the martial empirical aristocracy and markets, who then make the civilization easy to conquer by Islam.

    There is no difference between the destruction of the ancient world and the destruction of the modern world. Sampe people same process.

    The only thing we can do is extend our law on fraud from commercial, to political, intellectual, and yes – religious – speech. And the only way to preserve Christianity for Christians is to make a specific exception for it, under specific limitations – deliver under god (faith), vs deliver under caesar (law), vs deliver unto alexander (war).

    I will fight for Christians to preserve their religion under those conditions. But only those conditions. Because Christianity without military aristocracy, and empirical law, exposes people to destruction by excessive expression of the feminine instinct. Christianity allows common people to tolerate the truth of markets and science while retaining empathy, emotion, and social inclusion. The universe is too absent caring nature, beast, man, or god for common people to bear. And for those of us with agency, we chose to face the truth of that universe and bend it to our will so that those who cannot face the truth of the universe no longer have need to.