—“Operational logic requires demonstrated knowledge and everyone relies on their own available vocabulary. Which reveals something about the speaker, but is why it’s so hard for people without a whole lot of REAL knowledge or the precise means measurements to use (their vocabulary). But once it clicks…you can do it. Just a matter of differing speeds of success. It’s really hard for me. Takes me a while to produce.”— Adam
It’s hard for everyone. But that’s why it’s such a good test.
—“Operational logic requires demonstrated knowledge and everyone relies on their own available vocabulary. Which reveals something about the speaker, but is why it’s so hard for people without a whole lot of REAL knowledge or the precise means measurements to use (their vocabulary). But once it clicks…you can do it. Just a matter of differing speeds of success. It’s really hard for me. Takes me a while to produce.”— Adam
It’s hard for everyone. But that’s why it’s such a good test.
“[A]ny 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.
“[A]ny 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.
RE: “I NEVER ERR”
I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement.
I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err.
The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one.
The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text.
All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.
These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours.
It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.
I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.
And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 21:14:00 UTC
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.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 11:47:00 UTC
Truth: Europeanism (reason and evidence)
(realism, materialism, operationalism, empiricism)
Wisdom: Sinism (‘reasonableness’)
Myth: Hinduism (analogy wisdom)
Lies: Abrahamism (sophistry and deceit)
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 03:18:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231780522155761664
Reply addressees: @PeterAl09732414
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231779554093666304
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@PeterAl09732414 I never err. If I figure it out. It’s right. Period. https://t.co/kSxb4MZkA6
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1231779554093666304
—“Operational logic requires demonstrated knowledge and everyone relies on their own available vocabulary. Which reveals something about the speaker, but is why it’s so hard for people without a whole lot of REAL knowledge or the precise means measurements to use (their vocabulary). But once it clicks…you can do it. Just a matter of differing speeds of success. It’s really hard for me. Takes me a while to produce.”— Adam
It’s hard for everyone. But that’s why it’s such a good test.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:17:00 UTC
—“P’s Operationalism is a lot harder than math. Math is so clear because it’s trivial. P requires much more.”— Adam
Well you’re the first person to fully understand that. This is why I’m getting sort of awed lately – something is happening because people are progressive much faster now.
Well as for your observation, math can construct a degree of precision outside of human scales of perception at the very large and very small. But as we have seen in testimony, law, and economics, in human action, the operations available and the grammar to create fully formed, grammatically complete, fully disambiguated statements in P is a lot harder than it is in math.
So I see: first-order-logic (categorical logic) > math( positional logic)) > computable logic (programming) > operational logic( p-testimony), as the hierarchy of logics today. And in retrospect all the logics make so much more sense now.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 11:14:00 UTC
IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR, SUBJECT = SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY
—“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Adam Jacob Robert Walker
Well done!!!!!
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 10:43:00 UTC