Theme: Operationalism

  • FALSIFICATIONISM IN SOCIAL SCIENCE Realism > Naturalism > Operationalism > Empir

    FALSIFICATIONISM IN SOCIAL SCIENCE
    Realism > Naturalism > Operationalism > Empiricism > Acquisition > Rational Choice > Demonstrated Preference > Reciprocity > Power Distribution of Law > Pareto Distribution of Assets > Nash Distribution of Rewards:If it doesn’t pass, it’s false.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-07 18:48:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214619738267115520

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/81760855_548902475706647_74289695327

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_dJ9jhts2Ng/81760855_548902475706647_7428969532770746368_n_548902472373314.jpg FYI

    Realism > Naturalism > Prediction > Operationalism > Empiricism > Acquisition > Rational Choice > Demonstrated Preference > Reciprocity > Power Distribution of Law > Pareto Distribution of Assets > Nash Distribution of Rewards:

    If it doesn’t pass, it’s false.FYI

    Realism > Naturalism > Prediction > Operationalism > Empiricism > Acquisition > Rational Choice > Demonstrated Preference > Reciprocity > Power Distribution of Law > Pareto Distribution of Assets > Nash Distribution of Rewards:

    If it doesn’t pass, it’s false.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-07 13:58:00 UTC

  • WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN? Existence refers to persistence. The universe exists, and

    WHAT DOES TRUTH MEAN?

    Existence refers to persistence.

    The universe exists, and the matter in it exists, because it persists – we can identify that it exists because we posses memory.

    We can identify patterns of constant relations in that persist in that universe – that universe is deterministic at any scale at which we can identify patterns of constant relations.

    We can generalize those patterns of constant relations.

    We can identify unique instances of those patterns of constant relations.

    We can name them.

    We name states(nouns), substitutes for states (pronouns), and properties of states (adjectives), operations (verbs), and properties of operations (adverbs) and we can agree or disagree (yes/no, agree disagree, approve reject)

    We can form and speak(display word and deed) transactions(phrases) and transaction sets (sentences), and sets of transaction sets (stories)

    We can agree with those transactions, transaction sets, and sets of transaction sets (true/false)

    We can speak in promise, suggestion, question, agreement, opposition, or silence.

    When we claim we speak truthfully we speak promissorily.

    One can speak truthfully or untruthfully.

    When we speak truthfully we speak coherently with categorically, internally (logically), externally (empirically), operationally(sequence of actions) consistency, and use due diligence to disambiguate any possibility of misinterpretation.

    We can speak untruthfully because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and denial.

    We are forever ignorant so while we have discovered how to gradually iterate to the most parsimonious hierarchy of consistent and commensurable paradigms (networks of continuous relations at given scales, and in given contexts), in that set of Grammars we call “science”.

    Truth can and only can consist of language in some grammar or other, reducible to analogy to experience, testable by human logical facility.

    So while patterns of cosntant relations exist in the universe, and we can name those patterns, that thing we call truth consists of langauge humans discover, organize and iteratively refine through a process of continuous recursive disambiguation as information increases.

    The human mind works by using sequences of stimuli (patterns) to produce predictions of fragments, object, models, spaces(places), borders, locations, and episodes.

    The mind then recursively predicts possibilities from those predictions using auto association.

    We then use attention to choose which auto associations to permute upon.

    This is how we imagine, and control what we imagine.

    Because we can imagine, we imagine that truth exists, when only phenomenon exists ,and truth consists of the formula by which we describe it.

    Man discovers constant relations and creates truthful descriptions of those constant relations.

    Truthful statements are made by man because only man (so far) speaks.

    When we say honest we say the speaker promises his words are free of suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit and denial.

    When we say truthful, we mean, that operational name (description) which is not false, and satisfies market demand for decidability in the given context, given the present knowledge, and free of bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, where the individual uttering it has performed due diligence against ignorance and error.

    When we claim a statement is true we promise that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context. When we agree that a statement ‘is true’ that means that we AGREE that it satisfies market demand for decidability given the context.

    When we say ‘the truth’ we mean either a parsimonious operational name for the constant relations we refer to, or the MOST parsimonious name for the constant relations we refer to.

    Of the various civilizations which has produced the only method of due diligence with which to speak the most parsimonious categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operational, complete, and fully accounted operational names?

    Of the various civilizations which has paid the high cost of normalizing truth before face regardless of cost to self, competence, dominance hierarchy?

    Only man speaks, only man describes, only man describes in operational names, only operational names are complete and commensurable, only complete and commensurable operational names are parsimonious, only parsimony provides minimum difference between the most parsimonious possible and the current state of knowledge.

    I could work on this further but you get the point.

    That truth must be discovered, named, and uttered (in some form).

    Truth is made. Truth is uttered, Truth is promised, Truth satisfies the market demand for decidability. We consent to that decidability by equal means -or we do not.

    The universe merely exists.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-05 19:31:00 UTC

  • What is the difference between a marx, freud, boas, cantor, einstein, derrida ar

    What is the difference between a marx, freud, boas, cantor, einstein, derrida argument and brouwer, bridgman, poincare, hilbert, darwin, menger, smith, hume argument? And what about a sun tzu, confucius, lao tzu, mao? Why did Aesop write The Cart of Lies? Why do we vary in trust?


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-20 14:32:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1208032373268471808

    Reply addressees: @scprsp @razibkhan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1208031371849031680


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @scprsp @razibkhan Now, I can give the same explanation for each civilization in history – at least the ones we have enough legal records from. And in particular the semitic revolt against reason in the ancient world, and the french, german, jewish revolts against empiricism (truth) in the modern.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1208031371849031680


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @scprsp @razibkhan Now, I can give the same explanation for each civilization in history – at least the ones we have enough legal records from. And in particular the semitic revolt against reason in the ancient world, and the french, german, jewish revolts against empiricism (truth) in the modern.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1208031371849031680

  • Fixes US (anglo common law) constitutions by strict construction by formal opera

    Fixes US (anglo common law) constitutions by strict construction by formal operational logic, with strict definitions, of all terms currently flexible under common and continental law. Restores rule of law. Restores Defamation, Outlaws rent seeking, and Baiting into Hazard.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 15:35:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206961029206466561

    Reply addressees: @drownded @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206960523633463298


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @drownded @paulkrugman Easily. Extend requirement for due diligence in public, to public, in matters public, from commerce to all. Most differences in P’s proposed amendments to the constitution create this change. Will end all biz ,fin, econ, political, academic pseudoscience, sophism, lies of 20thc.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206960523633463298


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @drownded @paulkrugman Easily. Extend requirement for due diligence in public, to public, in matters public, from commerce to all. Most differences in P’s proposed amendments to the constitution create this change. Will end all biz ,fin, econ, political, academic pseudoscience, sophism, lies of 20thc.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206960523633463298

  • Easily. Extend requirement for due diligence in public, to public, in matters pu

    Easily. Extend requirement for due diligence in public, to public, in matters public, from commerce to all. Most differences in P’s proposed amendments to the constitution create this change. Will end all biz ,fin, econ, political, academic pseudoscience, sophism, lies of 20thc.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-17 15:33:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206960523633463298

    Reply addressees: @drownded @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206958906016034817


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206958906016034817

  • And that is how it must be, because only choice is subjective and justificationa

    And that is how it must be, because only choice is subjective and justificationary. All else objective and falsificationary.

    Ergo almost nothing remains in philosophy that is not but another therapeutic theology other than choice.

    Which is fine. We need a philosophy of choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 11:53:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206542920460972032

    Reply addressees: @YvesBurri

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206542207009918981


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @YvesBurri If the 20th c. attempt to define the sci. method failed, then how do you know that w/o a definition of science or its method? Like all other previous branches of left for science, truth departs into sci. of Testimony, & Ethics to reciprocity. Only choice remains in philosophy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206542207009918981


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @YvesBurri If the 20th c. attempt to define the sci. method failed, then how do you know that w/o a definition of science or its method? Like all other previous branches of left for science, truth departs into sci. of Testimony, & Ethics to reciprocity. Only choice remains in philosophy.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206542207009918981

  • I never err. Ever. Just how it is. Either I can construct an operatoinal proof o

    I never err.
    Ever.

    Just how it is.
    Either I can construct an operatoinal proof of possiblity or I say I can’t testify to it, or we don’t know yet. It’s much easier to simply say I I dunno than it is to lie about everything.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 01:27:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206385347946536961

    Reply addressees: @YvesBurri

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206385063350472713


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @YvesBurri Do you want to explain that?
    There is no paradox. Just a deceptoin by suggestion, using conflation, that takes advantage of the ignorance of the audience.

    Russell gave the correct answers (as usual) by the way.

    There are no ideals. Just fairy stories in our heads.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206385063350472713


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @YvesBurri Do you want to explain that?
    There is no paradox. Just a deceptoin by suggestion, using conflation, that takes advantage of the ignorance of the audience.

    Russell gave the correct answers (as usual) by the way.

    There are no ideals. Just fairy stories in our heads.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1206385063350472713

  • The grammatical error in most cases becomes obvious when one fully expands a sen

    The grammatical error in most cases becomes obvious when one fully expands a sentence into one or more complete sentences in operational language. The vast majority of speech is allegorical (non-inferential, only suggestive), so we must operationalize it to falsify it.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-16 01:02:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206378959107219462

    Reply addressees: @YvesBurri

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206374414696075264


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1206374414696075264

  • What the opposite(female cognition), and all leftists tend to do, consciously or

    What the opposite(female cognition), and all leftists tend to do, consciously or not, is DISAPPROVE of statements by circumvention operational possibility, distribution of ability, consequences over time, and kantian imperative, by use of DENIAL, SOPHISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE and GSRRM.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-12-12 01:30:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1204936532152463361

    Reply addressees: @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1204936062981885952


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Steve_Sailer What Steve Sailer does, and what all conservatives tend to do, consciously or not, is falsify statements by tests of (a) operational possibility (b) distributions of ability (c) consequences over time, (d) Hyperbole or Kantian Imperative asking “What if everyone did that?”

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1204936062981885952


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Steve_Sailer What Steve Sailer does, and what all conservatives tend to do, consciously or not, is falsify statements by tests of (a) operational possibility (b) distributions of ability (c) consequences over time, (d) Hyperbole or Kantian Imperative asking “What if everyone did that?”

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1204936062981885952