Theme: Truth

  • Instead of truthfulness, the left has diluted libel, slander, duel, and deceit –

    Instead of truthfulness, the left has diluted libel, slander, duel, and deceit – all of which were punishable in our past.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 14:45:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660105185600135168

    Reply addressees: @mariamarty16

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640


    IN REPLY TO:

    @mariamarty16

    Stephen Hicks sobre Igualdad:
    https://t.co/uHau9FPyCD https://t.co/QGWUK8P96O

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640

  • Should we require truthfulness in free speech, superstition, lies and pseudoscie

    Should we require truthfulness in free speech, superstition, lies and pseudoscience would be laundered from public speech.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 14:44:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660105018847191040

    Reply addressees: @mariamarty16

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640


    IN REPLY TO:

    @mariamarty16

    Stephen Hicks sobre Igualdad:
    https://t.co/uHau9FPyCD https://t.co/QGWUK8P96O

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640

  • The right of Free Speech did not mandate truthful speech. It is through propagan

    The right of Free Speech did not mandate truthful speech. It is through propaganda, fallacy, and lie that the left propagates.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 14:43:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660104706270863360

    Reply addressees: @mariamarty16

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640


    IN REPLY TO:

    @mariamarty16

    Stephen Hicks sobre Igualdad:
    https://t.co/uHau9FPyCD https://t.co/QGWUK8P96O

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659861813568368640

  • “Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t

    —“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 10:38:00 UTC

  • PROOFS AND TRUTHS (important summary) When we write a proof, we demonstrate that

    PROOFS AND TRUTHS

    (important summary)

    When we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:23:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH? —“It sounds like you’re reco

    Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH?

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    Well, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered.

    Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish.

    Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance.

    Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done.

    Liars all. Particularly to ourselves.

    So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 10:59:00 UTC

  • THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY What if neither stat

    THE HIGH COST OF TRUTH AND THE HIGH RETURN OF CIVIC SOCIETY

    What if neither state, academy, religion or media could speak falsehoods into the commons (audience) without fear of legal retaliation and necessity of restitution? What if state, academy, religion and media had to warrant their product as all other products are warranted?

    What if religious could state what prophets believed, but could not claim it was true, only myth, parable, and metaphor? What if professors could not teach falsehoods and had to warrant as such? What if philosophers could not rely upon conflation, loading, framing and overloading?

    What if we taught truth-telling, history, and literature again as well as science and mathematics? Meaning grammar, rhetoric, observation, and testimony?

    Given that the Flynn effect appears to be caused by the spread of scientific methods of thought – general rules rather than individual uses – why wouldn’t we experience the same expansion of human capability by the institution of truth telling that we have experienced with literacy, general education, and science?

    Wouldn’t truth telling be the next obvious stage in pacification, continuing humanity’s long history of incrementally suppressing parasitism and forcing people into productive rather than parasitic behaviors in order to survive?

    What is the price you would be willing to pay to remove lies from public discourse as we have largely eliminated deception from contract, and fraud from products and services? Why should we not cleanse the commons the same as we have cleansed the private sector.

    Why not end the marxist, socialist, and postmodern era’s profligate deception as a means of uniting academy and state at the expense of civic society and church? Is telling the truth so high a cost that you would preserve the various means of deception that seek to restore the authoritarianism of the church?

    Truth is enough. But liars love their lies, and the utility of their lying. They argue that a beneficial lie is better than a difficult truth. But when in history has an increased tax – a cost we must pay to produce a commons – not a burden for us?

    Truth is a high tax to pay.

    But with that tax we create liberty, prosperity, and a better mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • MEANING VS TRUTH VS LAW The difference between Meaning, Truth, Morality and Law

    MEANING VS TRUTH VS LAW

    The difference between Meaning, Truth, Morality and Law is profound.

    We learn and teach through meaning.

    We seek improvement and advantage with Truth.

    We cooperate using Morality.

    We resolve our conflicts by Law.

    There are those who are learning;

    Those who are refining;

    Those who are seeking to cooperate;

    And those of us resolving conflict when meaningful, truthful and moral intentions fail.

    There are those who need virtue ethics;

    Those who need rule ethics;

    Those who need outcome ethics;

    And those who need objectively resolve conflicts in ethics.

    There are those of us seeing sustenance

    Those of us seeking reproduction

    Those of us seeking experiences

    And those of us seeking transformation

    Warriors pay costs

    Producers reap profits

    Priests and Politicians seek rents

    And those of us who seek to limit parasitism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 09:27:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHIES: SOME JUST GET OTHERS OUT OF THE WAY (choice words) Some philosophi

    PHILOSOPHIES: SOME JUST GET OTHERS OUT OF THE WAY

    (choice words)

    Some philosophies quell us in order to tolerate mundanity. Some philosophies inspire in order to create hope and motivate action in the face of reality. Some philosophies have no answers but inspire a search for them. Some philosophies have answers and inspire us to act on them. Some philosophies merely get those who lack inspiration out of the way of those who have it.

    Propertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 04:27:00 UTC

  • Justification is logically limited to moral and Criticism to truth. 😉

    Justification is logically limited to moral and Criticism to truth. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 15:19:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/658664315025797120

    Reply addressees: @JasonKuznicki @libertarianism @CatoInstitute @GrantBabcock @ARossP

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/658621795910754304


    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/658621795910754304