RT @ahaspel: Philosophy is so well-trod that there is scarcely room for a new mistake.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:39:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885841076183060482
RT @ahaspel: Philosophy is so well-trod that there is scarcely room for a new mistake.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:39:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885841076183060482
Honest(reporting) Truthful(survives personal criticism) Scientific Truth(survives market for application) Analytic Truth(Ideal) Tautology.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:34:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885839900792287232
Reply addressees: @ahaspel
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
IN REPLY TO:
@ahaspel
Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
Proof: test of internal consistency – meaning ‘deductive possibility’.
Proof = Logical.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:30:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885838884902514688
Reply addressees: @ahaspel
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
IN REPLY TO:
@ahaspel
Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
Preferable: Self. Good: Others. True: Independent of preferential or good.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:28:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885838306239557632
Reply addressees: @ahaspel
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
IN REPLY TO:
@ahaspel
Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
Philosophy: decidability within a domain. True: decidability independent of domain.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:24:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885837413632942080
Reply addressees: @ahaspel
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
IN REPLY TO:
@ahaspel
Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
Identity(category), Proof(logic), Correspondent(science), Operational(causal), Reasonable(incentives), Reciprocal(moral), Complete(True).
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:23:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885837120501428225
Reply addressees: @ahaspel
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
IN REPLY TO:
@ahaspel
Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760
Retweeted Aaron Haspel (@ahaspel):
Philosophy is so well-trod that there is scarcely room for a new mistake.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 08:39:00 UTC
Once you get over the need to be right, as if there is some shame attached to being wrong, then it is much easier to think scientifically and testimonially. So make arguments as best you can, and keep refining them. But abandon them as soon as you find it necessary. There is no shame in being wrong. There is only shame in adhering to the wrong in spite of the evidence.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:56:00 UTC
SORRY. WE PERCEIVE REALITY AND WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AT THE SCALE OF IT.
That doesn’t mean that many people are not still the victims of solipsism who cannot separate the self from either others, or reality.
—“…nobel laureates…”—
I wouldn’t be too impressed with nobel laureates. We have a lot of wrong nobel laureates and some what were disastrous. Statements are false or not false regardless of who makes them.
One observation that helps us is that detailed knowledge of a particular does not translate to general understanding. This is most common in economics where just about everything is increasingly counter-intuitive at each increasing level of precision.
So that said, (a) any cognitive scientist of any skill will will state that the internally composited experience of any number of different observers of the same phenomenon will differ, but it is the commonality of the observation, deflated of that information supplied subjectively by the process of internal construction from fragmentary stimuli that provides test of our fragmentary perceptions of reality.
That said, the cumulative observation of reality independent of fictions that we ourselves add by process of imagination turns out to represent reality both apprehensible by our senses and apprehensible by proxy through instrumentation far more capable than our senses.
As far as we know all that increasing cognitive and sensory power of the human mind would do is increase the scale and accuracy of the model of reality we each imagine, but wha twe consider ‘reality’ (existence : that which persists independent of our actions and experience) is extremely accurate and increases in quality as our collective knowledge increases.
There is no magic.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 14:14:00 UTC
LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE DEFLATION IS AND HOW CHEAP CONFLATION IS
Lies are cheaper than truth.
Look how much work we have to do to deflate statements into terms and series and operational sequences to refute a lie-by-conflation-and-fictionalism.
It’s costly. That’s why we have to punish the hell out of people for it, so that we reduce universal transaction and opportunity costs.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:11:00 UTC