THE GRAND SEQUENCE
Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-12 07:30:00 UTC
THE GRAND SEQUENCE
Truth, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Liberty, Aristocracy, Beauty
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-12 07:30:00 UTC
scary thought…
Testimony:
Identity (Categorically consistent)
Internally (Logically) consistent
Externally Correspondent (Empirically Consistent)
Existentially Possible
Parsimonious (fully accounted, parsimonious, limits)
Moral (productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary transfers)
Beautiful (craft, aesthetic, moral, resources)
That would mean that truth, science, philosophy, law, aesthetics were identical.
TRUTH GOODNESS(MORAL) AND BEAUTY = SCIENCE
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-12 06:14:00 UTC
THE FULLY ARTICULATED OATH
I shall not lie, cheat, steal, cause others to bear unwanted cost, or the commons to suffer loss, nor shall I tolerate those who do, nor leave them unpunished by censure, restitution, imprisonment, banishment, or death.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-12 04:37:00 UTC
Because specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft.
Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior.
The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason.
While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists.
In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 04:36:00 UTC
NO MORE PSEUDOSCIENCE. NO MORE LIES. NO MORE PROPAGANDA. NO MORE SUPPRESSION OF THE TRUTH.
Rule or be ruled.
Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 03:27:00 UTC
People justify what they want by looking for comforting words. People know the truth of what it takes to construct what they want by seeking operational definitions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 02:40:00 UTC
ergo we cannot know the truth, we can only know falsehood. Prescription is what we seek, but it makes for stagnation.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 16:59:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718845834448748544
Reply addressees: @bierlingm
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
IN REPLY TO:
@bierlingm
@curtdoolittle What’s the difference between proscriptive and prescriptive? Seems to be used interchangeably in general discourse…
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
Prescriptive Norm (should), Proscriptive Norm (should not). While we can know what NOT to do, we must always create what we may
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 16:58:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718845637773631489
Reply addressees: @bierlingm
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
IN REPLY TO:
@bierlingm
@curtdoolittle What’s the difference between proscriptive and prescriptive? Seems to be used interchangeably in general discourse…
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
[T]HE COST OF THE SEEN VS THE UNSEEN (what is the cost of lying) What is the cost of requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons? That is a silly question. What is the cost of not requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons?
[T]HE COST OF THE SEEN VS THE UNSEEN (what is the cost of lying) What is the cost of requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons? That is a silly question. What is the cost of not requiring due diligence of truthfulness in speech in the commons?