Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Definitions: Truth, Truthfulness, and Honesty

    [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants). Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.A Hierarchy of Truths:

    1. True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
    2. True enough for me to feel good about myself.
    3. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
    4. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
    5. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
    6. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
    7. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
    8. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.Source: (1) Curt Doolittle

  • Definitions: Truth, Truthfulness, and Honesty

    [D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants). Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.A Hierarchy of Truths:

    1. True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
    2. True enough for me to feel good about myself.
    3. True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
    4. True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
    5. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
    6. True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
    7. True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
    8. Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.Source: (1) Curt Doolittle

  • DEFINITIONS OF TRUTH. TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if you

    DEFINITIONS OF TRUTH.

    TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, and warranty free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, would provide the same testimony.

    TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-28 04:15:00 UTC

  • IS A THEORY GOOD BECAUSE IT IS USEFUL, OR BECAUSE WE FEEL IT IS TRUE? And is it

    IS A THEORY GOOD BECAUSE IT IS USEFUL, OR BECAUSE WE FEEL IT IS TRUE? And is it truthful because we can defend it, or because we cannot falsify it?

    (slightly tricky question)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 03:59:00 UTC

  • YES, MY POINT OF VIEW (MY VALUES) ARE WESTERN: SCIENTIFIC. BUT THAT IMPLIES BIAS

    YES, MY POINT OF VIEW (MY VALUES) ARE WESTERN: SCIENTIFIC. BUT THAT IMPLIES BIAS AND RELATIVITY NOT TRUTH. SO WHY AM I SO INTERESTED IN TRUTH?

    (h/t Karl )

    My point of view *IS* western; meaning: scientific. That is correct.

    Operations named can indeed be used as narrative for meaning. That is correct. Although that says nothing about the truth of the meaning inferred from the operations..

    Other cultures do not use rule of law, as such do not require logic in decision making. Yet liberty is only logically possible under rule of law. Other cultures don’t desire liberty. They desire consumption (as do most people in our culture as well). At present, liberty is a cultural preference of aristocratic civilization. But that just means that aristocratic civilization is scientific in function.

    I don’t generally make moral arguments except for ‘fun’ – I make AMORAL arguments. That’s the beauty of this logic: it’s not loaded. So, if one seeks to use this logic to create any possible political order, one can do so. But one need not (and cannot) resort to deception to do it.

    What isn’t obvious is that if you use this logic you can create non-monopoly social orders in a heterogeneous polity assuming that the rulers (monarchy) persists in maintaining rule of law, common organic law, property en toto, decide-able by the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange.

    Unlike unlimited free-associationists (advocates of the heroism of science) I am not interested in furthering free association – I don’t think it can be furthered. I’m only interested in preventing bias, propaganda and deceit. I am not even that concerned with error.

    Just as christianity was used to destroy western religion and thought, pseudoscience as used to destroy western law and thought.

    Rule of law is our religion. Virtue is our religion. Nature is our religion. Commons are the produce of our religion. And truth is our most precious commons.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 03:54:00 UTC

  • Things are complicated when your premises are false. Explanatory power is an awe

    Things are complicated when your premises are false.

    Explanatory power is an awesome test.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testi

    OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testimonial truth and operational criticism that complete the suite of criticisms that we call ‘science’.

    Just riding high today. Sigh.

    I wish I could talk to Popper. He would have understood. Hayek probably not, but Popper for certain.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths. I judge the ara

    I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths.

    I judge the arational expression of agreement with falsehhids; and the rational justification of falsehoods, and the pseudoscientific justification if falsehoods.

    But increasingly I judge the incomplete use of due diligence in truth claims.

    Which is novel.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:19:00 UTC

  • Knowledge equips you with material with which to imagine by free association. Kn

    Knowledge equips you with material with which to imagine by free association.

    Knowledge fills the shelves of your mind with possible permutations you need only labor to imagine.

    The scientific method equips you with means of eliminating from your statements what you imagine, what you err, what you bias, and what you use to deceive, prior entering them into the informational commons – as a means of not causing harm to the commons (pollution).

    The scientific method – the method of removing imaginary content – is both a procedural one (contrary to scientific common knowledge), an empirical one (that removes imaginary content), and a moral one (with which you promise others you have done your due diligence).

    And I would like to hold you accountable for your claims of ‘science’: wherein you state what warranties of due diligence you have performed, and what warranties of due diligence that you have not. Because there is no reason to grant you a partial warranty.

    If you wish to publish your ideas, you can be held accountable for warranty you must provide in order to publish, whether you desire to provide that warranty or not.

    Social scientists would diminish rapidly in number.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 12:15:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION Proof: A test of existential possibility using a sequence of operatio

    DEFINITION

    Proof: A test of existential possibility using a sequence of operations that demonstrate that a statement can be constructed from first principles.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 08:21:00 UTC