Theme: Truth

  • QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE “the science of science itself” We’re working on the d

    QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE
    “the science of science itself”
    We’re working on the definition of science and it’s relation to decidability and truth.

    PROMPT
    Can one perform science if one is not seeking to produce the testifiable (that which is testifiable by man) if given the spectrum of science from unfounded speculation through to incontestable law of a first principle: (Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty), as defined in this excerpt?

    Summary: As such any claim of science requires the following three claims:

    1. Degree of Testifiability: A declaration of the categorical demarcation of the [???] of the claim:
    … … |Category of Testifiability (One)|: Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty

    2. Constitution of the Substance: A declaration of premises of the dimensions of the claim one is testifying to:
    … … |Substance (All Appropriate)|:Theory of Existence (Metaphysics, Realism, Naturalism) > Theory of Causality (Operations) > Theory of Description (math or language or both) > Evidence (Measurements)

    3. Mandatory Due Diligence: A declaration of the dimensions of testifiability one has satisfied the demand for.
    … … |Mandatory Due Diligence (All, Promise)|: Explanatory Power > Survivability > Identity, Internal Consistency > Operational Possibility > Rational Choice > Reciprocity > Parsimony > Scope and Limits > Warrantability > Restitutability

    RESPONSE
    This is a challenging and nuanced question, and it strikes at the heart of what defines science and the boundaries of scientific inquiry. Let’s explore this by breaking it down:

    1. Core Definition of Science:
    Traditional Definition: Science is traditionally defined as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Central to this definition is the concept of testifiability—the ability to subject a hypothesis, theory, or observation to empirical testing, and thus provide evidence that can be verified or falsified.

    2. The Spectrum of Scientific Inquiry:
    Speculation to Law: The spectrum you describe—from unfounded speculation to incontestable law of a first principle—represents a range of epistemic statuses within scientific inquiry. At one end is speculation, which may or may not be testifiable or grounded in empirical evidence. At the other end are laws or first principles, which are universally accepted as testifiable due to their empirical validation and logical coherence.

    3. Science Without Testifiability:
    Exploratory Science: In some cases, science can begin with exploratory or speculative phases where the aim is not immediately to produce testifiable results but to generate ideas, hypotheses, or frameworks that may later be subjected to testing. This exploratory phase is crucial for advancing new theories or concepts, especially in fields where empirical testing is currently limited or where the phenomena are not yet fully understood.
    Theoretical Science: Theoretical science often involves developing models, simulations, or mathematical constructs that may not be directly testifiable in the traditional sense but provide a coherent framework for understanding phenomena. Over time, parts of these theories might be tested as technology or methods advance.
    Conceptual Science: Some areas of science focus on refining concepts, definitions, or classifications that are foundational to empirical work. While these activities might not produce immediately testifiable outcomes, they are essential for the structure and coherence of scientific knowledge.

    4. Can It Still Be Called Science?:
    Depends on the Goal: If the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that can eventually be tested, then these activities can still be considered part of the scientific process. In this view, science encompasses both the generation of ideas (which may initially be speculative) and their subsequent testing and validation.
    Pseudoscience: On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid or disregard testifiability—if there is no intention of producing knowledge that can be empirically verified—then this falls outside the bounds of science and into the realm of pseudoscience, philosophy, or metaphysics. Science, by definition, seeks to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified.

    5. Practical Examples:
    Quantum Mechanics: Consider early quantum mechanics. Initial ideas like wave-particle duality began as speculative but mathematically grounded concepts. Over time, these ideas were subjected to empirical testing, leading to their acceptance as foundational scientific principles.
    String Theory: String theory offers a more contentious example. It is highly mathematical and speculative, and many aspects are not currently testifiable. Some argue that it is still part of science because it aims to eventually produce testifiable predictions, while others criticize it for its current lack of empirical testability.

    6. Science as a Process:
    Iterative Nature: Science is an iterative process where speculative or theoretical ideas are refined, tested, and either validated or discarded. The process of moving from speculation to testifiable hypothesis to validated law is what characterizes scientific progress.
    Testifiability as a Guiding Principle: Even when the immediate goal isn’t testifiability, the broader scientific endeavor is guided by the principle that knowledge should, in the end, be testifiable. This commitment distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry.

    Conclusion:
    Science is fundamentally tied to the production of testifiable knowledge. However, the scientific process includes phases where testifiability is not immediately achievable—such as in speculative, theoretical, or conceptual stages.
    These phases are still part of science if they ultimately aim to produce knowledge that can be empirically tested. If the pursuit of testifiability is entirely absent or rejected, then the activity would likely be considered outside the bounds of science, possibly falling into pseudoscience, philosophy, or speculative metaphysics.
    The guiding principle of science is that, regardless of the stage in the process, the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that is testifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 20:08:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827075366034534402

  • No, Elon, you pursue the truth, and the truth is always and everywhere the best

    No, Elon, you pursue the truth, and the truth is always and everywhere the best means of decidability, and decidability the best means of discovering opportunities for exchange, compromise or discovery of alternatives – but most importantly it’s the means of preventing deception,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 17:28:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825948029435916331

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825715527446155288

  • Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist. Look, I have a job. That jo

    Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist.
    Look, I have a job. That job is the truth. I don’t get an opinion about the truth. That’s a luxury you have. It’s not
    one I have. I write law. Constitutional law.
    Do you want a judge to have an opinion, or to adjudicate the law by the truth? I work from the truth whether I like it or not. And there are many truths I have discovered that I do not care for. But that’s my job. And someone has to do it.
    As a person, I care that you’re moral, kind, and of good manners. As an entrepreneur, you’re all green – I can either make money with you or not. As a philosopher of jurisprudence I depend on the science.
    Why? Because my goal is to prevent lies in public, to the public, in matters public, particularly from the government, academy, and media. Why that goal? Because we cannot use the government as a market for cooperation between sexes, classes, and ethnicities unless we work from the truth.
    Why? Because the truth is that sexes, classes, and ethnicities do not need ‘one size fits all’, which is eitehr exclusionary or a race to the bottom. We need what suits our developmental differences until we are capable of equal participation according to our abilities.
    If you think there is a more moral objective then you’re wrong.
    So I will state the painful truth about the differences between sexes classes and ethnicities, and most importantly cultures – because cultures are the source of our problems – not so much our genes.
    Would I prefer to live in a homogenous culture in england or scandinavia or northeastern america? Of course. Would most of us prefer to have the opportunity for a mixed culture urban environment either when young or when seeking novelty? Of course. Would I prefer to live with other technology ceos or other public intellectuals, and not people of classes with whom I do not share anything at all other than moral conviction? Of course.
    But that doesn’t affect my judgement as an author of law. And it doesn’t affect my behavior in treating all people with respect and kindness and care whenever possible. Nor does it prevent me from, when necessary, stating the painful truth to prevent us from conflict, or to prohibit public servants from lying to us with reckless abandon under the presumption than they know better than the people. (they don’t)
    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 04:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825756658846330880

  • Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist. Look, I have a job. That jo

    Apparently someone I care about thinks I’m a racist.
    Look, I have a job. That job is the truth. I don’t get an opinion about the truth. That’s a luxury you have. It’s not
    One I have. I write law. Constitutional law.
    Do you want a judge to have an opinion, or to adjudicate the law by the truth? I work from the truth whether I like it or not. And there are many truths I have discovered that I do not care for. But that’s my job. And someone has to do it.
    As a person, I care that you’re moral, kind, and of good manners. As an entrepreneur, you’re all green – I can either make money with you or not. As a philosopher of jurisprudence I depend on the science.
    Why? Because my goal is to prevent lies in public, to the public, in matters public, particularly from the government, academy, and media. Why that goal? Because we cannot use the government as a market for cooperation between sexes, classes, and ethnicities unless we work from the truth.
    Why? Because the truth is that sexes, classes, and ethnicities do not need ‘one size fits all’, which is eitehr exclusionary or a race to the bottom. We need what suits our developmental differences until we are capable of equal participation according to our abilities.
    If you think there is a more moral objective then you’re wrong.
    So I will state the painful truth about the differences between sexes classes and ethnicities, and most importantly cultures – because cultures are the source of our problems – not so much our genes.
    Would I prefer to live in a homogenous culture in england or scandinavia or northeastern america? Of course. Would most of us prefer to have the opportunity for a mixed culture urban environment either when young or when seeking novelty? Of course. Would I prefer to live with other technology ceos or other public intellectuals, and not people of classes with whom I do not share anything at all other than moral conviction? Of course.
    But that doesn’t affect my judgement as an author of law. And it doesn’t affect my behavior in treating all people with respect and kindness and care whenever possible. Nor does it prevent me from, when necessary, stating the painful truth to prevent us from conflict, or to prohibit public servants from lying to us with reckless abandon under the presumption than they know better than the people. (they don’t)
    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-20 04:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825750158941790209

  • Truth is not a viewpoint it’s unavoidable. But I am happy to respect your needs,

    Truth is not a viewpoint it’s unavoidable. But I am happy to respect your needs, because truth and practicality and love are different things. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 23:39:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824954179627942151

    Reply addressees: @theyakadude

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824953317488750595

  • The difference between truth on one hand and the utility of myths, legends, para

    The difference between truth on one hand and the utility of myths, legends, parables, given the difference in human variation and ability.
    But you are probably, like most, unaware that especially in china the concept of religion as we mean it in the abrahamic and indic traditions is considered rather silly and childish.
    The japanese still practice somewhat the only ‘natural and non false religion’ of shinto which is ancestor and nature worship. Because worship is thanks for the debt to those who came before us and the nature upon which we depend.
    All religion is debt service. Because it provokes the mindfulness of submissions to the pack(herd). Which is a very primitive and necessary instinct for social animals.
    Likewise the purpose of that debt is to overcome human neuroticism (negative thoughts), anxiety, and fear that results from the gradual alienation of post-tribal life and continuous social regulation and reinforcement.
    The question is whether we need more false religions or whether we can restore non-false religions. The greeks (west) and the chinese (east) thought philosophy, mythology, and ritual were superior to ‘falsehoods’ so common in the abrahamic tradition of slave morality (equality as rebellion against aristocracy) and less common but present in the indic religion of serf morality (social hierarchy as a substitute for military rank).
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one @theyakadude


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 23:26:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824950878153129984

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824948307304812634

  • Imprecise presumption. At present there is an inversion between the scope of inf

    Imprecise presumption. At present there is an inversion between the scope of information available and the number of recursive adversarial processes that self eliminate error.
    This is possible to overcome by a division of knowledge, more layers of attention, more parallel attempts, and more adversarial competition between them for Identity consistency, correspondence, operational possibility and even rational choice and reciprocity.
    In other words we’re climbing a Pareto power curve where each incremental step in decreasing error bars is qualitatively more difficult.
    The ‘simple version’ is that LLMS solve the input and output problem, but they have quite far to go in imitating the brain’s massively parallel competition at all levels from facets to objects to spaces to borders, to places to locations, to episodes, to predictions from sets of episodes,wayfinding between present episode and desired episode, to adversarily competition between those routes.
    What’s been amazing is just how great the tools are at generalization. That’s the easy part. the hard part is analysis by adversarial competition. Which means we probably have to convert to neuromorphic hardware (many tiny cores) updating continuously from large collections of traditional cores by costly updates we call ‘training’.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Danil_KV


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 22:54:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824942950452719616

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824905597210550623

  • RT @NoahRevoy: We want the truth and only the truth because the truth is enough

    RT @NoahRevoy: We want the truth and only the truth because the truth is enough to decide.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 18:32:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824876875614982241

  • THE REVOLUTION PROVIDED BY NLI What we are doing is revolutionary… we want peopl

    THE REVOLUTION PROVIDED BY NLI
    What we are doing is revolutionary… we want people to speak the truth – at least in public to the public in matters public: truth before face regardless of cost.

    Because People are currently revolting in both senses of the term. Because they are saturated in lies – that are revolting to them, and their behavior is a revolting to one another as a consequence.

    We’re providing a method of cooperation by which they can peaceably resolve their differences with one another. And if we cannot resolve those differences by truths, then we may separate.

    Because: “If you think you’re oppressed, then we should separate, go our separate ways, then both of us can discover by your actions whether you were in fact oppressed, or if you were wrong, incompetent, lazy, parasitic, criminal, seditious, or treasonous.”

    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-17 17:17:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824858208524988417

  • I would be happy to allow such theologians to attempt to run circles around my a

    I would be happy to allow such theologians to attempt to run circles around my analysis.

    And yes, I have read augustine and aquinas – and if you understood the development of natural law from aristotle, through Aquinas, through Blackstone and finally my work you’d grasp that it’s a civilizational project – an attempt to reduce european success into empirical, scientific, and finally operational terms

    There is no theologian live or dead that would survive an argument with me. Sorry.

    Even the best I know of merely takes the Aquinan position that I’m correct for the mind, but the spirit needs faith – which I would agree with. I just question what group strategy the faith indoctrinates one into. Because most religions caused failyre of their civilizations to develop by 800ad.

    Try it. No one will take it. Try to find anyone.

    Reply addressees: @RenOfMen @Alex70008182 @beherleader


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-16 18:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824510733566218241

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1824441026297422232