Theme: Truth

(FB 1550154997 Timestamp) MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION” I am not sure a discipline called philosophy exists any longer, just as I am not sure a discipline of theology exists any longer, other than as fictionalisms. Both theology and philosophy are simply statements of limited ability due to ignorance. While useful in their time, I can think of no reason to use them today other than to engage in deception, and I have found no argument put before me that is not an attempt to engage in deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods. You’ve, in the words of Dan Dennett, “take your philosophical baggage onboard” without realizing. As far back as Plato even, it has been understood by some that empirical methodology is limited in scope in terms of what kind of knowledge it can produce. Cognitive science could get as advanced as you like, perhaps even building minds which we can observe via phenomenological verification, but that wouldn’t change anything, because all scientific findings would be couched within the methodology. ….. As I said note, if you’re more empirically minded, temperament-wise, then none of that will probably interest you, as your concerns are pragmatic, and the differences that those who have a more abstract or balanced temperament are things you either don’t notice, or disdain.”—- —“… the method….”— The only methodology in science is testimony. That is the lesson of the 20th century. The rest consists of particular attempts to demonstrate that one performed due diligence prior to testimony. We run ideas thru a sequence of markets(competitions), and they survive or they dont. We are very close now to coherence (consistency) across all disciplines (which is what my work consists of: the completion of the scientific method – due diligence necessary for testimony – and we are left with why, if coherence is possible (operational prose) and fictions are possible (models that assist us in free associations[ideation]) then there is no such thing as metaphysics, only fictions that assist us in either entertainment or ideation that might somehow fit into coherence. There is no reason why (which is the correct argument for you to put forward) why networks of meaning (not truth) should not be constructed (fictions) for the purpose of either simplifying, problem solving, or expanding opportunities for investigation. That is very different from claiming such fictions ‘exist’ or are somehow other than fictions for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self and other deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods”— Actually I don’t. I simply test whether something is testifiable or not (knowledge exists sufficient to make a truth claim) and whether there is malincentive (the equivalent of ‘criminal’ ). And if one makes a truth claim that cannot be made, in support of an incentive to engage in falsehood, I just apply the law: protect others from fraud. —“…. pragmatic…”– Again. This is not an argument. The assertion stands that there exist only two or three disciplines: physical science, cognitive science, and language (grammars), and that every instance of a thing called metaphysics that I can find consists of fictionalisms for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self or other deception. None. Worse, it is under this pretense that metaphysics is other than fiction, that occult, theology, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing, the fictionalisms and deceits are justified. If you can generate an example that survives the above criteria of falsification it would be helpful, since as far as I know – none exist – or can.

(FB 1550154997 Timestamp) MORE “METAPHYSICS IS JUST FICTION” I am not sure a discipline called philosophy exists any longer, just as I am not sure a discipline of theology exists any longer, other than as fictionalisms. Both theology and philosophy are simply statements of limited ability due to ignorance. While useful in their time, I can think of no reason to use them today other than to engage in deception, and I have found no argument put before me that is not an attempt to engage in deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods. You’ve, in the words of Dan Dennett, “take your philosophical baggage onboard” without realizing. As far back as Plato even, it has been understood by some that empirical methodology is limited in scope in terms of what kind of knowledge it can produce. Cognitive science could get as advanced as you like, perhaps even building minds which we can observe via phenomenological verification, but that wouldn’t change anything, because all scientific findings would be couched within the methodology. ….. As I said note, if you’re more empirically minded, temperament-wise, then none of that will probably interest you, as your concerns are pragmatic, and the differences that those who have a more abstract or balanced temperament are things you either don’t notice, or disdain.”—- —“… the method….”— The only methodology in science is testimony. That is the lesson of the 20th century. The rest consists of particular attempts to demonstrate that one performed due diligence prior to testimony. We run ideas thru a sequence of markets(competitions), and they survive or they dont. We are very close now to coherence (consistency) across all disciplines (which is what my work consists of: the completion of the scientific method – due diligence necessary for testimony – and we are left with why, if coherence is possible (operational prose) and fictions are possible (models that assist us in free associations[ideation]) then there is no such thing as metaphysics, only fictions that assist us in either entertainment or ideation that might somehow fit into coherence. There is no reason why (which is the correct argument for you to put forward) why networks of meaning (not truth) should not be constructed (fictions) for the purpose of either simplifying, problem solving, or expanding opportunities for investigation. That is very different from claiming such fictions ‘exist’ or are somehow other than fictions for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self and other deception. —“That’s because you presume an epistemic objectivity of science that isn’t inherent to its methods”— Actually I don’t. I simply test whether something is testifiable or not (knowledge exists sufficient to make a truth claim) and whether there is malincentive (the equivalent of ‘criminal’ ). And if one makes a truth claim that cannot be made, in support of an incentive to engage in falsehood, I just apply the law: protect others from fraud. —“…. pragmatic…”– Again. This is not an argument. The assertion stands that there exist only two or three disciplines: physical science, cognitive science, and language (grammars), and that every instance of a thing called metaphysics that I can find consists of fictionalisms for the purpose of opportunity generation, entertainment, sedation, escape, and self or other deception. None. Worse, it is under this pretense that metaphysics is other than fiction, that occult, theology, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, loading and framing, the fictionalisms and deceits are justified. If you can generate an example that survives the above criteria of falsification it would be helpful, since as far as I know – none exist – or can.