In math the difference between exploration (theorizing) by operations, and proof, is narrow. But in argument the difference between exploration using operations on meaning (models) which we call ‘reason’, and operations in reality (those that are existentially possible) ‘actions’, can diverge greatly. For the same reasons that mathematicians call functions numbers – aggregates of operations are easier to work with than many discreet operations….
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 06:43:00 UTC
DAMMIT: TRUTH ITSELF IS A THEORY OF ARBITRARY PRECISION.
argh…
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 06:35:00 UTC
So one of terminological the changes I think I must make is in the use of operationalism and constructivism as proofs. This simplifies the debate a bit. Then again, truth is promise – an action. Facts are facts, events were events. And we may seek to make statements increasingly truthful (statements devoid of imaginary information, error, and deception). So we construct proofs operationally in constructive and intuitionistic mathematics, and a praxeological proof in economics. These are proofs that something is existentially possible. the added virtue in human operations is that we are able to visible demonstrate when some one of our arguments, staements, or concepts of aribtrary precision fail us.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 06:34:00 UTC
SCIENCE IS BASED ON TRUST NOT SKEPTICISM
http://www.amazon.com/Social-History-Truth-Seventeenth-Century-Foundations/dp/0226750191
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 06:29:00 UTC
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~goguen/images/HISTORY OF TRUTH
Quick search and I find this very accurate, brief summary, that is more insightful than I assume the author knows.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 06:27:00 UTC
Truth is not found in words, but in actions. We do not need language to demonstrate truths. In fact, it is hard to imagine that language has any positive meaning other than to provide us with inexpensive models to problem solve with. Unfortunately, while providing us with discount modeling, it also serves as an outstanding means of also obtaining discounts by means of deception.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 03:51:00 UTC
THE SIMPLE TRUTH
It’s pretty simple. Ultimate truth is a problem for priests and gods. But men must act using the available level of precision that their tools allow them to act at. Any statement at the available level of precision that allows actions to produce promised outcomes is a true statement. That does not mean that we cannot increase precision. So newton’s theories are true, as are Einstein’s, as will be whatever subatomic theory we construct that will replace Einstein’s. Because at each level of precision these theories produce promised outcomes.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 03:01:00 UTC
1) HEROISM and SOVEREIGNTY(Competition), 2) TECHNOLOGY, 3) PROPERTY, 4) TRUTH and PROMISE(CONTRACT), 5) JURY, 6) THE HANDS-OFF COMMONS (Sacred Commons).
That is ‘our way’. Nial Ferguson’s six killer apps are consequences (Pareto’s Derivations) not CAUSES (Hegelian differences) nor instincts and intuitions (Pareto’s ‘Residues’).
The western difference is our struggle to speak the truth before the jury of our peers.
It is NOT majority rule.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 02:38:00 UTC
“THE WEST’S UNIQUE STRUGGLE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH”
I think, that this is second only to heroism as the uniquely western value.
Truth is extremely expensive commons to produce. It is perhaps the most expensive commons to produce. Which is why no one else has produced it. And why even our own people often mount resistance movements against it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 02:17:00 UTC
Truth is not found in your means of discovery, but once found, in your reconstruction of the discovery from necessary consequences of available operations.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 02:08:00 UTC