Theme: Truth

  • Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence

    Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Morality additionally requires due diligence against irreciprocity. WE STOPPED.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-09 11:38:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270319444909268992

    Reply addressees: @d116a5 @HDickpunch @V8POW

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270318138505129984

  • Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence

    Truth is the best policy. Honesty requires opinion. Truth requires due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Morality additionally requires due diligence against irreciprocity. WE STOPPED.

    Reply addressees: @d116a5 @HDickpunch @V8POW

  • Again, so you don’t have anything to say but GSRRM, and you have no argument, an

    Again, so you don’t have anything to say but GSRRM, and you have no argument, and you can’t demonstrate an error or falsehood.

    That’s ok.

    You’re only a woman. You can’t help it. It’s genetic (really).


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 21:17:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270102774135619588

    Reply addressees: @patacar

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270101179465453570

  • Again, so you don’t have anything to say but GSRRM, and you have no argument, an

    Again, so you don’t have anything to say but GSRRM, and you have no argument, and you can’t demonstrate an error or falsehood.

    That’s ok.

    You’re only a woman. You can’t help it. It’s genetic (really).

    Reply addressees: @patacar

  • THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE I find it interesti

    THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE

    I find it interesting how few people ever bring up say Dworkin, Hart, Rawls, and the Natural Law (Rule of Law) vs Positive Law (Rule by Man) debate, or even Hayek and Epstein, or Milsom (or Black) or how many know the constitution, the magna carta, germanic law, roman law, and instead fuss with philosophers and essayists who are mostly the people too ridiculous to practice law and government. And so, instead, all of this history was so obvious to me, because I’ve been so deep in programming, law, cognitive science, and economics, for so long, that it’s sort of unimaginable to me that no one goes anywhere near the law at all. But no one does. Instead we learn shallow moralizing, opinion, sophistry, and philosophy.

    AND THAT”S THE PROBLEM.

    Why is that? Well, that’s because the Natural Law (bottom up) and Political Law (top down) are spoken in even WORSE sophistry than philosophy. Seriously. I mean, the law is argued as rules, general rules (principles) and sets of cases. And law is taughta nd practiced as an apprentichship trade over generations, where procedure and these rules like social norms and traditions, don’t require a comprehension of the underlying logic of the law (jurisprudence, legal philsophy, juridical science), just imitation of those legal norms.

    If you study the great legal debates from our present position of knowlege, the geat thinkers are worse excuse makers and fantasists than the philosophers and theologians. Why? They’re trying to make excuses for political law (rule by man) to circumvent the high cost of moral law (natural law, rule of law), and it’s gotten far, far worse in the democratic age, and even worse in the postmodern age.

    And that’s what p solves. It produces the formal logic of natural law, and says ‘well, you can do whatever you want, but this is the law, and if you want to do something pragmatic or expedient, then you’re violating that law, regardless of your political or judicial function. The purpose of natural law is to force you (individuals, social groups, business, political groups, goernemtns) to find solutions that aren’t irreciprocal regardless of how hard it may be to do that.

    And what’s the problem?? There is only one problem. WE’re all trying to circumvent selection pressure: evolutionary law. And the lft is additionally trying to circumvent physical law (scarcity) as well as natural law (human incentives and resulting behavior).

    I am too.. stressed by the rate of acceleration of therevolution so hopefuly I make it through it to reform our civilization so that the law is taught as just another tool next to reading, and math, and physics, and we restore our ‘european sense making’ by restoring our fairy tales, myths, legends, of aryan heroism and achivement, and teach aurelius’s philosophy as our secualr personal philosophy (religion), and teach aristotle restated in p-prose as our method of reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 16:48:00 UTC

  • A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The s

    A scientist testifies

    A philosopher opines

    A theologian recites

    Testimony: The secret of western civilization.

    ===

    Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony?

    Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea)

    Epistemic: Empirical (external verification)

    Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational)

    Grammatical: Etymologically consistent

    Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence)

    I think i’m getting closer.

    ===

    Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task.

    TRY THIS:

    Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability)

    … Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.

    Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions)

    … Meaning,

    … Stories, Explanation, Justification,

    … [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars]

    Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions)

    … Falsification, Due Dilligence

    … Three phases,

    … … 1 – discovery,

    … … 2 – due diligence,

    … … 3 – testimony:

    … 1. Epistemology – Discovery process):

    … Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail

    … … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail

    … … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail

    … … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail

    … … … … … Law > Fail

    … 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process)

    … Adversarial Survival by tests of

    … … Complete Sentences

    … … In promissory form

    … … In operational vocabulary (as actions)

    … … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…)

    … … including all changes in state

    … … including all consequences of change in state

    … … from an observer’s point of view

    … … producing a series of testable transactions.

    … Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is:

    … Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man,

    … in The Series:

    … … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences)

    … … Internally Consistent (Logical)

    … … Externally Correspondent (Empirical)

    … … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable)

    … … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame)

    … … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice)

    … With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation)

    … Warrantied

    … … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions;

    … … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility;

    … … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for.

    As a Defense Against the Series:

    … Ignorance and Willful Ignorance;

    … Error and failure of Due Diligence;

    … Bias and Wishful Thinking;

    … And the many Deceits of:

    … … (a) Loading and Framing;

    … … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda;

    … … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism;

    … … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions).

    … In Defense or Advocacy Of:

    … Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of:

    … … (a) productive

    … … (b) fully informed, fully accounted

    … … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability

    … … (d) voluntary

    … … (e) free of externality of the same criteria

    … Including but Not Limited To

    … The Series of:

    … … (a) murder,

    … … (b) harm, damage, theft,

    … … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard

    … … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons,

    … … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism,

    … … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience),

    … … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding),

    … … (h) conquest (war).

    … 3. Epistemology – Testimony process.

    … … Adversarial competition between Search and Test.

    … … Search Criteria

    … … … Narrative

    … … Test Criteria

    … … … Operationalism: Actions

    … … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 15:19:00 UTC

  • Not an argument. But then, yet again, you confirm the evidence, the research, an

    Not an argument. But then, yet again, you confirm the evidence, the research, and my argument: the vast majority of women cannot distinguish between truth and desirability, reciprocity and proportionality, opinion and testimony.

    You lack agency, and it inhibits your reason.

    Reply addressees: @patacar

  • Not an argument. But then, yet again, you confirm the evidence, the research, an

    Not an argument. But then, yet again, you confirm the evidence, the research, and my argument: the vast majority of women cannot distinguish between truth and desirability, reciprocity and proportionality, opinion and testimony.

    You lack agency, and it inhibits your reason.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 15:04:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270008746605936640

    Reply addressees: @patacar

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1269999508076838912

  • We specialize in the production of commons. Who produces commons other than us?

    We specialize in the production of commons.
    Who produces commons other than us?
    Who produces truth before face?
    Rule of law?
    Why can’t other civ’s do what we do?
    Because the average people can’t produce commons.

    Reply addressees: @noneofitisreal @JosephsEddy

  • We specialize in the production of commons. Who produces commons other than us?

    We specialize in the production of commons.
    Who produces commons other than us?
    Who produces truth before face?
    Rule of law?
    Why can’t other civ’s do what we do?
    Because the average people can’t produce commons.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-08 15:01:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270008097004826624

    Reply addressees: @noneofitisreal @JosephsEddy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270004783022256129