Theme: Truth

  • The only Two Search Criteria Available for Scientific Statements.

    “[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Dr. Crawford; In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Dr. Crawford; In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • re: “I Never Err”

    RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • re: “I Never Err”

    RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I

    RE: “I NEVER ERR”

    I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement.

    I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err.

    The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one.

    But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else.

    A mistake has no bearing on the outcome.

    An error has a bearing on the outcome.

    It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic.

    The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame.

    All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.

    The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify.

    So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to.

    In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people.

    And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful.

    If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.

    I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.

    And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 05:36:00 UTC

  • And not proposing an alternate framework that is open to equal criticism. Follow

    And not proposing an alternate framework that is open to equal criticism.

    Followed by Derrida’s social construction, undermining of truth itself, and then Alinsky’s method.

    I know you aren’t informed enough to hold this discussion or you would state a canned response. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 01:54:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232121716614270976

    Reply addressees: @WinslowFrancke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232121237863792645


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @WinslowFrancke The shift from generating class conflict to undermining the civilization’s foundations – family, religion, institutions, and truth.
    But again, the application of sophistry, ‘critique’, pseudoscience, and ‘making it up’, in order to undermine host civilizations.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232121237863792645

  • The shift from generating class conflict to undermining the civilization’s found

    The shift from generating class conflict to undermining the civilization’s foundations – family, religion, institutions, and truth.
    But again, the application of sophistry, ‘critique’, pseudoscience, and ‘making it up’, in order to undermine host civilizations.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 01:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232121237863792645

    Reply addressees: @WinslowFrancke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232120471430320129


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @WinslowFrancke Google cultural marxism. You can read Hicks’ book “Explaining Postmodernism” that covers the development from Rousseau to the present.

    You can read Macdonald’s Chapter 5 “The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances” for sources.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232120471430320129

  • Just because something is unpleasant doesn’t mean its false. Nietzsche, Menger,

    Just because something is unpleasant doesn’t mean its false.

    Nietzsche, Menger, Darwin, Hume, Galileo, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Socrates – all faced the same problem.

    If it’s true, it’s true.

    No more lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 01:27:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232114896403410944

    Reply addressees: @WinslowFrancke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232114557163909120


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @WinslowFrancke https://t.co/9JJuhJZRXb

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232114557163909120

  • What claim? You haven’t criticized a claim. 😉 You’ve just called me names. 😉 l

    What claim? You haven’t criticized a claim. 😉 You’ve just called me names. 😉 lol


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 01:03:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232108708458614784

    Reply addressees: @WinslowFrancke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232106676905500672