Feb 3, 2020, 9:09 AM
—“It’s way faster/easier to learn to think talk in “operational language” (and force others to that standard, and to the standard of the 5-pt definition of recipricity) than to go thru a checklist of 2 dozen fallacies. (See my video “Don’t Talk Like a Leftist”.)”—by John Mark
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
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
Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM
—“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler
Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit
Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM
—“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler
Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit
Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.
Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM
—“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD
SCIENCES:
1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:
1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.
Mar 27, 2020, 9:56 AM
—“You are not a scientist. You are a story teller. Arranging information, data, statistics, iqs into a self-deceptive, bias confirming narrative. As are the majority of scientists generally. Empirical science is inferior. Lacking holism and art. I renounce it.”—Learned Dr. Kantbot, PhD
SCIENCES:
1. Formal(Logics: logic, mathematics, algorithmic, operational). 2. Physical (the laws of nature). 3. Psychological (cognitive science), and; 4. Social (Social science: economics, law, politics, group strategy). P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of thought: coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible). Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any present definition P-law is scientific. It is logical, empirical, operational, and under realism, naturalism, rational choice, and reciprocity. Human Faculties (physical process) > Epistemology > Grammar > Vocabulary > Speech > Due Diligence > including Ethics. Faculties:
1. Sense, Integration by prediction 2. Space-Time Modeling prediction, 3. Auto Association prediction (intuition), Auto Evaluation (emotion), 4. Attention-Recursion, 5. Reason, Planning, Calculation, Computation, 6. Action-Release > Repeat.Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat. In P we use a ‘grammar’ to refer to the Paradigm and Vocabulary, grammar, logic, and syntax of a paradigm. And when we use the term “the Grammars’ we mean the spectrum of those grammars. A Grammar: refers to the Paradigm (permissible dimensions of perception, cognition, and action), the Names, Operations, and Rules of Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (morpheme, word, phrase, sentence, story organization) and the LOGIC (constant relations) that limit consistency, correspondence, coherence, and completeness. Vocabulary: Deflation and disambiguation by competition, operationalization, and serialization, ex: Moral: Evil < Bad < Immoral < Unethical < Amoral > Ethical > Moral > Good > Righteous. or Truth: Tautological < Analytic < Idea < Testifiable < Honest < Untested. Speech: Deflation (constraint upon) ordinary language grammar, limited to a single point of view, absent the verb to be, using complete promissory sentences, describing a series of operations (human actions), resulting in testable transactions (sentence),and sets of transactions. Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable. Ethics (Morality): Productive, Fully informed, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warrantied, by due diligence against error bias and deceit, within the limits of restitution. No more sophistry. Philosophy is closed. Science has fully replaced it. P-law is complete. Including Metaphysics, Epistemology, Psychology, Ethics, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Law, Group Strategy, and Aesthetics.
Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.
—“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan
How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.