“Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot
be fooled.” —Richard Feynman
Feynman was a progressive. Too bad he didn’t focus his appreciation for reality on Postmodernism. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-19 11:38:00 UTC
“Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot
be fooled.” —Richard Feynman
Feynman was a progressive. Too bad he didn’t focus his appreciation for reality on Postmodernism. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-06-19 11:38:00 UTC
“IT DON’T WERK THAT WAYE” 🙂
All knowledge does is convince you of your ignorance. All a lot of knowledge does is convince you that every one is even else is even more ignorant than you are. Knowledge isn’t power. It’s humility.
Source date (UTC): 2013-05-11 07:59:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-American-US-ways-that-cause-people-from-other-cultures-to-find-them-hard-to-work-with
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-eth/TRUTH, BEAUTY AND EXCELLENCE
Why are western academics afraid of Truth, Beauty, Excellence? And god forbid, our martial virtues, and the aristocratic creation of civilization through conquest of the primitive.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-24 05:29:00 UTC
ARISTOCRACY: “I’M WILLING TO DO THAT”
If you want get into a dialog whose objective is to determine truth or falsehood, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to lower your standard, and enter into a utilitarian debate, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to lower your standard and get into an eristic debate, I am willing to do that.
if you want to get into name calling, and threats, then I’m willing to do that.
If you want to get into a fist fight, I am willing to do that.
If you want to get into a gun fight, I am willing to do that.
What I am not willing to do is let ignorant, stupid or evil people pollute the world of ideas in my presence, any more than I am willing to let them pollute the physical world in my presence.
That is what it means to be an aristocrat.
And aristocracy is what it means to be a gentleman.
It has absolutely nothing to do with wealth.
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 02:02:00 UTC
Benford’s law of controversy:
“Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available. The fewer facts are known to and agreed on by the participants, the more controversy there is, and the more is known the less controversy there is. Thus, controversies in physics are limited to areas where experiments cannot be carried out yet, whereas controversy is inherent to politics, where communities must frequently decide on courses of action based on insufficient information.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-11 00:13:00 UTC
QUESTION (REALLY) ON TRUTH
If I argue that truth is a spectrum with different standards, is this weaker than it is illustrative? In the sense that the erroneous conclusions that can be drawn are substantial vs incidental?
Please understand before you jump on me too much that I think I understand the rules of science and the rules of human interaction pretty thoroughly. And I am trying to describe the difference between the two in propertarian language (as, well, what you would think of as a supply-demand curve).
1) In order to state something is absolutely true, it must be a tautology, or perhaps better stated, an identity.
(The Correspondance Theory or Identity Theory of Truth)
2) In order to state something is scientifically true, the standard of truth is that one is describing causal relations that are free from error given the totality of scientific knowledge currently at our disposal. And given that so much scientific knowledge is correlative, this is a lower standard than identity.
(The Correspondance theory of Truth)
3) In order to conduct an exchange, the standard of truth is that I must not lie. Err is permissible, and it’s assumed that we err.
(The Pragmatic Theory of Truth)
4) An individual’s perception, (not statement) of truth is simply preference. We lie to ourselves as a matter of course. But the need to construct an intellectual compromise with our arational emotional framework, that allows us to act in order to suit our preferences is simply a functional necessity.
(The cohesive theory of truth)
5) Truth doesn’t exist, the only purpose of language is to obtain power, and the end justifies the means.
(The postmodernist/gnostic, Relativistic “Consensus” Theory of Truth)
Now, I keep shooting this full of (small) holes, but I can’t do any better. And I have to be able to say it in language that is at least vaguely comprehensible to non-specialists.
Help? Kenneth Allen Hopf? Matt Dioguardi? Anyone?
Thanks.
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-07 07:41:00 UTC
https://www.quora.com/Why-should-I-provide-my-knowledge-to-Quora-for-free
ARGUMENTATIVE SCIENCE
I just construct arguments. It’s just like science. You compose an experiment. You run a test. You observe the results. You ask others to corroborate or refute your findings. You are never sure that your argument is ever right. You can only struggle to eliminate every known possibility that it is wrong. The only way to get better is to run a lot of experiments, and create a lot of arguments. And I create a lot of arguments. And get a little better with each one.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2013-04-06 10:59:00 UTC
FINISHED MY WORK ON RORTY. (eh.)
His criticism of the metaphysical project is accurate. His definition of truth as ‘whatever we agree upon’ is just a justification for postmodern verbal deception. It’s a justification not a description.
Waste of time.
Sigh.
As for political philosophy, we are back to the philosophy of science, but where instead of testing hypotheses against the regular patterns of the physical universe, we are testing hypotheses against the willingness to enter voluntary exchanges.
Of course, the universe has a fairly constant periodicity at the newtonian scale of our human actions (albeit at much faster and slower, larger and smaller, that’s something else entirely). But human beings exhibit any number of periodic patterns due to age, generation, state of current knowledge, arrangement of current resources, and arrangement of humans into complex webs of production that we call a division of labor, all of which is signalled by prices made possible by the commensurability of money, subject to flocking and swarming, and external shocks from the physical world.
Just as we hypothesize that the universe expands and contracts, so does our civilization, as we gain new knowledge of how to more effectively extract calories from the world’s resources, then via fertility, consume the incremental value of that knowledge.
Meanwhile we school like fish to national opportunities, until they too are exhausted via boom and bust. And within that boom and bust the constant signaling necessary for mating and reproduction take place giving rise to subtle differences in fashion and aesthetics, which are the micro-applications of those advances in our capture of calories from the material world.
Truth is a description of actions that if repeated, reproduce previous results among categories with a similar periodicity. This is somewhat problematic because first, periodicity becomes extremely complicated outside of the newtonian physical world, or, among humans, outside of the family.
Second because production cycles and therefore all the categories of measurement, randomly fall apart and then are recreated in response to changing demand on one and and availability of solutions on the other.
Truth is not what we agree it is. Ambitions may be whatever we agree upon. Even if those ambitions are metaphorically, a-rationally or irrationally stated.
It may be true that we can chant false things often enough that people will for some time believe them long enough to implement som policy or other. In fact, that is what happens most of the time. That is the purpose of the progressive-postmodern program.
But truth in the physical world and truth in the world of human action are different in the sense that the actions needed to replicate something in the physical world will remain constant, and actions needed to replicate something in the human world will not remain constant.
In either case, any true statement is a statement about the set of actions, not about the thing or process itself (which doesn’t exist as a set of conditions except as a collection of statements or symbols or stimuli). Most confusion is caused by this confusion. We can make statements. We can test these statements.These statements under test, will either reproduce prior results (true) or not (false), or be inconclusive (not true, not false, but simply non logical).
True statements are true by means of analogies constructed of abstract categories we call actions – and they are indeed categories. And these statements are just statements. They are statements that if imitated, produce consistent results each time that they are tested. And without additional information they will not change. But since we are always subject to new information, they are constantly open to possible change, even if that change is largely only an increase in the detail provided by smaller and larger, or faster and slower scales.
Humans must be able to reduce conceptual analogies to something that can be processed by the brain in two or three seconds. Most of our work is to produce some means by which we create causal categories that can be submitted to our senses in a form that we can associate with other associations in three seconds or less.
Lots of associative power. Short periodicity for processing that much information.
Source date (UTC): 2013-03-31 13:20:00 UTC