Theme: Science

  • SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE That was fun. I always enjoy JF.

    SUMMARY OF JFG/DOOLITTLE ON THE MOLYNEUX DEBATE

    That was fun. I always enjoy JF. The public isn’t used to seeing how philosophy, law, science and math are done between practitioners – tediously precisely. I realize this kind of thing is difficult for th… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GRzHdA3lio


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 11:32:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244225873324191745

  • I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I am merely adapting the law

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I am merely adapting the law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 19:07:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243978110581780480

    Reply addressees: @LorenzaTL @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243975451829207042

  • THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES> I didn’t say there is an end to

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrUNO, THE LAW LIKE ANY SCIENCE, CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVES>

    I didn’t say there is an end to history or to law. I wasn’t searching for an idea. I’m claiming that european ancestral law is the reason for the unique success of western civlization. And that continuing the anglo tradition, we must periodically update our constitution and law to reflect innovations in irreciprocity. I am merely adapting the current constitution and law to the present to suppress new known harms, the same way we update all sciences. There is no end to innovation – either in knowledge, good, or irreciprocity(harm). Law is just another science. The difference is that institutions change with greater difficulty than does un-institutionalized knowledge. πŸ˜‰

    JFG – Love you man but you have a habit of declaring understanding when you are hypothesizing understanding, and cannot warranty your words. πŸ˜‰ Of course, in P-Law, you would have to change your behavior, and say your understanding was such, but that you can’t warranty it as true. πŸ˜‰ Otherwise you’d be liable for ten times the air time to correct your prior claims. πŸ˜‰

    And yes, I know you run an opinion show. JFG opinion is entertaining. πŸ˜‰

    youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU http://youtube.com/watch?v=91QuczQxnrU Updated Mar 28, 2020, 3:16 PM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 15:16:00 UTC

  • RE: TEKWARS CLOWN WORD ON “SCIENCE” (more nitwit kantians) SCIENCE Science is ju

    RE: TEKWARS CLOWN WORD ON “SCIENCE”

    (more nitwit kantians)

    SCIENCE

    Science is just the application of law to the market for knowledge. Norms for the limit of normative behavior. Law for the limit of criminal behavior. Tradition for the intergenerational transfer of science, norms, and laws.

    KNOWING

    A paradigm of related ideas that permit one to comprehend possibilities, think, and act upon them. Knowing, the utility of that knowledge, the utility of that knowledge across increasing numbers, and the truth or falsehood of that knowledge are four different things:

    1-Personal Utility,

    2-Cooperative Scope of Utility between people,

    3-Utility in Resolving Conflicts Between Paradigms, and

    4-Limiting others from spreading harmful ways of knowing.

    Young men are concerned with the first two, because you have no meaningful responsibilities. Those of us with responsibilities for groups of people care about all four. This is no different from the moral bias of the left specializing in just care and proportionality, while conservatives hold a consistent across the spectrum including reciprocity, loyalty ,and purity.

    DEMAND FOR METHODS OF KNOWING

    Yes, we need a series of paradigms across the spectrum from the intuitive to rational to the calculative in order to satisfy the demands for decidability suitable for satisfying the demand for infallibility across the spectrum of abilities of different human beings of different genetics, ages, experiences, and training. That does not mean that the most precise system of measurement (paradigm) will not continuously provide higher resolution and greater falsification over the more intuitive. It will. It is better to say that it is useful for the best of us to learn the empathic (child), rational(young adult), and scientific (mature adult) languages.

    THE FUNCTION OF SCIENCE IN THE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES OVER UTILITY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROHIBITION OF FALSE AND HARMFUL KNOWLEDGE

    1. Yes, we can and do use almost any paradigm or paradigms to imagine possibilities.

    2. The means by which we come to an idea (hypothesis) has no bearing on the possibility, good or bad, truth or falsehood of it.

    3. The premises that such an idea must depend upon limit the deductions, inductions, abductions, and free associations that one develops from it.

    4. It’s that all arguments in all frames CAN be made commensurable by the same system of measurement.

    5. That system of measurement consists of what which we can testify to.

    6. Science is the discipline in which we test whether these are testifiable and as such whether they are false.

    7. There is no more parsimonious commensurable internally consistent externally correspondent and complete paradigm by which to test all human thought.

    8. It is this competition for coherence consistency correspondence and completeness that provides the test of whether propositions are comprehensible, undecidable, testifiable, a truth candidate, or false

    9. This market has and continues to continuously reorganize the paradigm we call science and the sciences.

    There is no other method of testifying about reality than science.

    10. That is the premise of science: testimony.

    Not the means of obtaining knowledge.

    The means of falsifying knowledge across contexts.

    AFTER GREAT INNOVATIONS IN PARADIGMS, THERE IS GREATER VALUE IN ELIMINATING ERROR THAN IDENTIFYING NEW TRUTHS

    This is the period we are in now. We are continuing to falsify the anti-Darwinan revolution by Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Friedan, etc.

    SCIENCE CANT END, BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE CANT END, SO PARADIGMS CANT END

    1. Even if we discover the fundamental rules of the universe across the spectrum – even to thoughts, we can develop potentially infinite combinations of paradigms upon them. In other words the utility of science will shift from discovery of fundamental laws to the greater application of those laws.

    2. The spectrum of the most parsimonious paradigm shifts as opportunities for action shift.

    3. The set of narratives across the spectrum of abilities will gradually adapt to the seizure of those opportunities.

    4. We will always have empathic narratives, rational rules, and methods of calculation to satisfy the demands of people with lesser and greater ability, lesser and greater agency, and lesser and greater responsibility.

    KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED BY AGENCY

    At some point we cannot easily learn more without acting. At present we cannot afford to run tests in physics and medicine.

    And agency is limited by organization of energy.

    MATHEMATICS

    Mathematics (the logic of a positional names) is the simplest possible language (paradigm, logic, grammar, vocabulary, syntax) of constant relations. It has only one relation: position. Because it has only one possible constant relation, it is far less subject to error than all other languages.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 13:46:00 UTC

  • i do operational rather than platonism because it prevents contagion into woo wo

    i do operational rather than platonism because it prevents contagion into woo woo and pseudoscience. But this is a difficult topic for nonprofessionals.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 05:04:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243765888454705152

    Reply addressees: @dylan_anthony14 @We_knQw

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243742379129143296

  • Every reply so far is in p-law (testimony). There is no bootstrapping problem to

    Every reply so far is in p-law (testimony). There is no bootstrapping problem to tests of constant relations in every dimension of the perceivable. You positied a deception. I said it’s a deception. Whether because you’re a carrier or originator of deception remains to be seen.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 01:33:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243712775093977088

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243711711007383554

  • 4) There is no via positiva (justificationary) method in philosophy, science, or

    4) There is no via positiva (justificationary) method in philosophy, science, or law other than the irrelevant (reductive).
    5) P-law is purely falseificationary. It’s just exhaustively falsificationary, and requires warranty and liability.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 00:46:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243701063963889664

    Reply addressees: @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243700649952514055


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @AboveIvan @KANTBOT20K 3) If it is testifiable, then the question is whether it satisfies the demand for infallibility for the context in question. If it satisfies the demand for infallibility within the limits of involuntary restitution, then one has spoken truthfully and reciprocally.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243700649952514055

  • Contacting 1000 people is the minimum number of survey participants in a landlin

    Contacting 1000 people is the minimum number of survey participants in a landline/cell survey that’s necessary to reduce error below the 3% margin. This is how all credible surveys are done. This number is correct. (You will find different numbers for different questions.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 00:36:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243698385573613568

    Reply addressees: @JaiSayWhat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243692970626465792

  • P-Law is a Science. Sorry. I don’t do Philosophy. P-Law is a formal algorithmic

    P-Law is a Science. Sorry. I don’t do Philosophy. P-Law is a formal algorithmic

    P-Law is a Science. Sorry. I don’t do Philosophy. P-Law is a formal algorithmic (procedural) operational (consisting of human actions within human faculties), Paradigm, Vocabulary, Logic, Grammar and Syntax. A ‘formal science’. It just includes ALL OTHER SCIENCES within it. https://t.co/NnaZAziu2A


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 14:19:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243543131355832320

  • Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scie

    Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:36:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243532227239194629

    Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243532024868200454


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @KANTBOT20K 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.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243532024868200454