“Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.” “Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible. For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.
Theme: Truth
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle
Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle
Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
I’LL BET (MONEY) I CAN ARTICULATE the falsehoods (errors in decidability) of alm
I’LL BET (MONEY) I CAN ARTICULATE the falsehoods (errors in decidability) of almost every philosopher practicing today. Without even expending much effort. The discipline has been merged with religion in both the university and library systems. And for good reason. It’s actually taught and practiced as fantasy literature of the mind rather than of the circumstance.
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:43:00 UTC
-
Why are so many scientists bashing philosophers? 1 – Philosophy has not kept up
Why are so many scientists bashing philosophers?
1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.
2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that:
…… While undergraduate, graduate, and PHD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology?
3.1 – Does not incorporate costs.
3.2 – Does not preserve
3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability.
3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error)
3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum.
3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For:
… – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning)
… – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching)
… – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning )
… – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible)
… – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics)
… – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:04:00 UTC
-
Literary Philosophy Is Just Speculative Fiction
Friday, August 5, 2016 at 2:18pm [I]t’s probably about time to classify Continental Philosophy as little more than a bridge between historical and fictional literature. – operational documentation, – descriptive historical literature, – propositional philosophical literature, – authoritarian pseudoscientific literature – authoritarian supernatural mythical literature – escapist fanciful fictional literature, – a parable – poetry