Theme: Truth

  • EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY The relationship between epistemology and decidabil

    EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY

    The relationship between epistemology and decidability is both profound and integral to understanding the nature of knowledge, truth, and the frameworks through which we make decisions.

    Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:45:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760360127742238985

  • EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY The relationship between epistemology and decidabil

    EPISTEMOLOGY VS DECIDABILITY

    The relationship between epistemology and decidability is both profound and integral to understanding the nature of knowledge, truth, and the frameworks through which we make decisions.

    Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, exploring the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. It addresses questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the extent to which any subject or entity can be known.

    Decidability, in a broad philosophical context, refers to the ability to make clear, definitive decisions or judgments about propositions, theories, or knowledge claims. In logic and mathematics, decidability is more specifically defined as the question of whether a given problem can be algorithmically solved—i.e., whether there exists a finite, systematic procedure that can always lead to a clear yes or no answer to a question posed within a specific formal system.

    The relationship between these two concepts centers on the idea of how we come to know what we claim to know (epistemology) and how that knowledge informs our ability to make decisions or judgments about truth, falsity, and the applicability of information (decidability). In many respects, decidability is a practical outcome or goal of epistemological inquiry: to not only understand the nature of knowledge but also to apply it in making determinations about the world.

    From an epistemological viewpoint, the criteria we use to judge the validity or truth of knowledge claims directly influence our ability to decide on the truth or falsity of propositions. For example, the principle of verification, a concept in logical positivism, suggests that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be definitively proven true or false. This principle directly ties the concept of meaningful knowledge (an epistemological concern) to the concept of decidability.

    In your work, given your interest in performative truth, morality, law, economics, and other areas, decidability becomes a crucial concern as it pertains to the application of epistemological principles. Deciding on the truth or falsity of claims, the justness of laws, or the efficacy of economic policies requires a foundation in how we know what we claim to know and how we evaluate the validity of these claims. This intersection is where epistemology provides the theoretical framework, and decidability represents the practical application or outcome of this framework in real-world decision-making processes.

    Moreover, in the context of your emphasis on Natural Law and the unification of the sciences, the relationship between epistemology and decidability extends into the methodology for deriving universal principles that govern human behavior and social order. This involves critically examining how we acquire knowledge across disciplines and how this knowledge can be consistently applied to make decisions that are congruent with Natural Law principles.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-21 17:45:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760360127486439424

  • RT @whatifalthist: The normies never posit a real argument. They’ll use ad homin

    RT @whatifalthist: The normies never posit a real argument. They’ll use ad hominems, attacks on your character, or just truisms like “that…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-20 22:53:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1760075237146673258

  • Not Quite Thomas Sowell, but Roland Fryer’s life story and his work is similar a

    Not Quite Thomas Sowell, but Roland Fryer’s life story and his work is similar as are his findings. What’s different? Like some of us he just wants to know what’s true. And that dedication to truth is what sets the best of us apart from the rest more so than any other.

    Note:…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-19 21:27:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759691304093532206

  • Not Quite Thomas Sowell, but Roland Fryer’s life story and his work is similar a

    Not Quite Thomas Sowell, but Roland Fryer’s life story and his work is similar as are his findings. What’s different? Like some of us he just wants to know what’s true. And that dedication to truth is what sets the best of us apart from the rest more so than any other.

    Note: He’s the economist at harvard that discovered police aren’t biased in shootings. But that’s just one of the findings amid the work the man has produced.

    Absolutely love this man.

    (not for most of my audience)

    https://t.co/oJgV5GvCqx


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-19 21:27:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759691303925755904

  • The proof is the presentation, not the accreditation. RL is more correct more of

    The proof is the presentation, not the accreditation. RL is more correct more often than any other working historian and for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere. He does have a bias, but that bias plays into his neutral assessment of all cultures in all regions in all ages. Given that the interpretation of history does include value judgements, you might choose between RL’s concern for the citizenry and their condition, and my concern for the ruling class and their institutinos and economy. So all history is opinion because it requires value judgements. So for example, if you study marxist history it’s a value judgemetn but it’s also scientifically impossible to bring their judgement into being. If you study the founders their optimism was unwarranted. If you study the egyptians you will not likely grasp that it was a stagnant civilization that went nowhere. etc, etc.

    Reply addressees: @bigt2000 @whatifalthist


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-19 17:07:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759625698212253696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759622286846337318

  • I think you need a better education – because you just stated that the academy p

    I think you need a better education – because you just stated that the academy produces objective history, which, sadly, isn’t the case. And can’t be the case, simply because of the diversity of opinions and claims among historians. Compare say Zinn and Harari who are popular but…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-19 16:42:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759619381728784580

    Reply addressees: @bigt2000 @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759617022252429516

  • WHY WE ARE HATED FOR STATING THE TRUTH

    WHY WE ARE HATED FOR STATING THE TRUTH
    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/og9anQU9JFE


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-18 03:04:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1759051162785857687

  • RE: @Aarvoll_ (Eric’s comments) Notes from yesterday’s livestream Got cancelled

    RE: @Aarvoll_ (Eric’s comments)
    Notes from yesterday’s livestream

    Got cancelled before oppy to comment but only wanted to make two comments.

    1) AI’s: Agree with on existence of objective morality, and letting AI learn objective morality. But … Safety is a demand generated by women. Subjective and objective morality for the masculine and feminine differ. Masculine is objective and evolutionary, feminine if subjective and devolutionary. So risk of teaching these systems to lie is ‘uncontainable’. In other words, I don’t fear the intentional use and abuse of AI as much as the seditious influence of AI taught to lie, because we don’t teach our women to bear the burden of ‘truth before face regardless of cost’.

    2) RU: I’m pro ukrainians in general, and pro russian people despite their ‘mongol’ ethics – but anti-the russian government that preys upon the people. RU is a borderland and it must use imperial rule – eastward into undeveloped not westward into developed. The right would be gutted in RU because the right’s values of autonomy and self determination would be prohibited. However the capacity to be ‘left alone’ would prosper and AFAIK that’s most of what at least that working class right really desires. – social order at local scale under local control and consensus.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-17 16:04:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758885109250338816

  • RT @ToujoursFidale: @curtdoolittle @whatifalthist “We live in a society of ratio

    RT @ToujoursFidale: @curtdoolittle @whatifalthist “We live in a society of rationalism, not rationality.”


    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-16 03:21:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1758330701068353848