Theme: Truth

[T]he Complete Answer – in Proper Propertarian Fashion It’s hard to know what you’re asking given the sentence structure of the question. If you mean ideals as in aspirations, or metaphors, or if you mean ‘truths’ – most people who ask this category of question are trying to preserve some form of malinvestment in their education, or some form of lying to themselves, or some form of lying to others, or some form of social construction of lying along with others. I don’t know why your asking. I’ll assume for purely intellectual reasons. So we only “reject” in so far as people use them to state falsehoods, lie, and defraud. P is as language, logic, and science of testimony in court, for the purpose of detecting, prosecuting, demanding restitution and punishment for failure of due diligence against falsehoods, deceits, and frauds. P is law a formal logic, meaning science of Law. It is not philosophy. it is not ideology.   I (we) then use this logic to understand and explain the world, to make arguments and resolve disputes, and to construct laws, constitutions, governments, and policies within those governments. I (we) demonstrate a bias to maximize the suppression of falsehood and irreciprocity in a polity by recommending a political system that applies this law. Whether this constitutes and application of human science (truth), a philosophy (choice), or a preference (choice), is something else. As far as I know I just state what truthful government would be and let people choose from there what to do about it. What Is P? P is a formal operational logic, like software programming. Not a set logic (language). A system of measurement by which we can compare almost anything across any discipline. And we‘re comparing it to what’s testifiable. We can develop the logic of operations (actions,), measurements (mathematics), of scriptural interpretation or textual interpretation, or numerology (reading INTO something), or we can resort to emotional free association (tea leaves, divination, entrails, astrology). P provides a complete system of decidability in matters of dispute across all disciplines. It tells us what is un-testifiable, false, deceitful, and fraudulent. Under decidability (not choice, not preference, but decidability), anything that is not false, or irreciprocal, is either amoral or moral, useful or not useful. Under P-epistemology (cognitive science), all contents of the brain are produced by sensation, perception, integration, auto-association, and recursive auto-association, in a continuous search for utility – usually a caloric discount. The means by which one performs free association, whether under realism, naturalism, operationalism (demonstrated), verbal analogy and idealism, or imaginary occult and supernatural has no bearing on anything. Instead, we perform due diligence by a sequence of rational or logical testing, empirical testing, and market testing. And P provides a checklist of testifiability for those tests. And either a Promise, Claim, Statement, or Theory is testifiable and therefor ethical (non-criminal) to use in communication, education, persuasion, and argument, or it isn’t. There are three reasons I invented P, all of which I consider accomplished: (a) so that Europeans could describe their history, group strategy, traditions, norms, and values in rational and scientific terms. (b) So that political discourse could be conducted rationally instead of dishonestly. (c) And later on, so that we could end the industrialization of lying made possible in the twentieth century by the second Abrahamic wave of deception (marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, denialism), by extending our law on fraud to false promises that bait us into hazard, which is the Abrahamic method of deceit. So to answer your question, **we all find ‘wisdom’ in narratives **whether scientific (descriptive), historical(analogical), fictional(archetypal), magical and pseudoscientific (pseudoscience and pseudomathmatics), sophistry and idealism (philosophy), or supernatural and occult (theology). The question is only whether you’re deceiving or defrauding yourself or others by claiming any of these things are true and testifiable, whether outright or used in premises for further deduction, rather than vague analogies from which we can get ideas to benefit from (or denial to sedate or escape from reality.) And most of the time appeals to the untestifiable are attempts to preserve some form of malinvestment in their education, or some form of lying to themselves, or some form of lying to others, or some form of social construction of lying along with others. And since we test for incentives to engage in falsehood, deception, and fraud, we are only seeking whether you are engaging in deception or fraud or in analogy and ideation. Most people are. The degree to which most people lie constantly is exasperating once you know the P-Method. How Does This Method Work? 1)  Propertarianism is a via-negativa methodology for detecting falsehood, ignorance, bias, deceit, and irreciprocity. Where philosophy tends toward justificationism, or a test of falsificationism, Propertarianism is adversarial: the competition between construction and application of a claim (theory, promise). (Methodological Adversarialism is the First Innovation in P.) 2) Propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, by producing the criteria for testimony. We tend to think of the scientific method as something you do while investigating, but that’s false – and that’s the result of the failure to discover a via-Positiva scientific method. Instead, the scientific method consists of criteria we must meet in order to TESTIFY to speaking Truthfully: meaning free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism(the spectrums of physical: magic to pseudoscience, verbal: sophistry to idealism, or imaginary: supernatural to occult), or outright fiction (deceits), by limiting ourselves to testifying to what is testifiable: realism, naturalism, operationalism, rational choice, reciprocity, ensuring we’ve defined limits (no overgeneralization), fully accounted within them (no cherry-picking), and where we warrant (subject ourselves to the crime of perjury) if we don’t perform these due diligences. In other words, we illustrate that science evolved in European civilization as it did, and nowhere else, as an extension of our ancient, traditional, European common law of tort. (Formal Logic of Reciprocity in display, word (Testimony), and deed (action) is the second Innovation in P) 3) This methodology includes the technique of precise definitions limited to realism(materialism), naturalism(first cause of entropy), operationalism(actions), internal consistency, external correspondence, rational choice, and reciprocity et al. This technique is called “Disambiguation by Serialization, Operationalization”.  Meaning we collect all terms that describe a spectrum of constant relations (say the color spectrum of red> orange > yellow > green > blue > indigo > violet is obvious, but say, morality: *immoral <unethical < amoral > ethical > moral *may not be. We then disambiguate each term and define it, modify its definition, or redefine it, so that the spectrum creates a subsystem of measurement of whatever constant relation. (Disambiguation by Serialization inherited from Computer Science is the third innovation in P) 4) Next, we use complete sentences, in the promissory form (“I promise that …”) in operational vocabulary, without the verb to-be (which is how most sophistry is created), that describe complete transactions – of changes in state, including externalities. So try to say anything without the verb to be and you will find most philosophical questions that appear difficult are just errors in grammar. This means we have produced what amounts to accounting entries, free of ‘assumptions’ by the audience or ‘suggestions’ by the speaker. (Transformation from performative and promissory truth to Formal Grammar of Testimonial Speech is the fourth innovation in P) 5) Next, we produce a ‘periodic table of the grammars’ which like the periodic table of the elements describes the evolution of all ‘logical paradigms’ from say, math, to sciences, to testimony, to ordinary language, to storytelling, to fictionalisms, to outright deceits. (The Grammars are the fifth innovation in P) 6) Together this methodology produces a universally commensurable, value-neutral, language of all disciplines. In other words, a system of measurement for speech. We call this P-Logic. (This is the result of the P-Project. A formal, value-neutral, logic, grammar, and vocabulary of truthful speech across all disciplines. A universal language of the sciences.) 7) We then write arguments in what looks very much like computer software. That’s because we have combined testimonial speech, operationalism (computation) transactions, the economics of human behavior, to write strictly constructed law – or what we would call a ‘Formal Operational Logic” of cognitive science, language, psychology, sociology, and group strategy. this provides us with the ‘missing’ formal logic of the human sciences and unifies the formal sciences (logics, grammars), physical sciences, and human sciences (psychology, sociology, group strategy, and ethics, law, economics, politics). Write the law in this form and we call this ‘P-Law’. (This is the second result of the P-project. The solution to strictly constructed law that is absent from modern law and constitutions, and why the law is no longer ‘respected’ as in the past as a logic rather than arbitrary judgments)