Theme: Truth

  • “[List of developments under christianity]”— ^ Someone want to identify and ex

    —“[List of developments under christianity]”—

    ^ Someone want to identify and explain this logical fallacy?

    In other words, (a) range of choices under monopoly religion, (b) because of -vs- in spite of, (c) rates prior and after vs rates during, (d) evidence of demilitarization and feminization to the point of indefensibility (e) evidence of mandated illiteracy, (f) evidence of capital sequestration and rents, (g) rate of development after restoration of pre-abrahamic thought. (h) rate of development after defunding and disempowering the church, (i) rate of development after restoring literacy, (j) rate of development after de-sequestration of capital…. I mean, and the post darwinian collapse of a church unable and unwilling to reform (k) and the greater remaining corruption by longer under the church (l) the church’s movement to prey upon third worlders that they can ‘fool’ rather than reform to serve the european people. the church institutionalized semitic corruption.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-24 10:56:00 UTC

  • It’s a very simple idea: NO MORE LIES

    It’s a very simple idea: NO MORE LIES.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-23 18:16:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1066032674614185984

  • SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH) (Nutshell version of Testimonialism) [T]AUTOLOGI

    SPECTRUM OF TESTIMONIES (TRUTH)

    (Nutshell version of Testimonialism)

    [T]AUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity.

    [A]NALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth).

    [I]DEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.)

    [T]RUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [H]ONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.

    [D]emonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements

    [O]pinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    [P]osition: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    [P]reference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    [I]ntuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR TESTIMONY (TRUTH)

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    D]EMAND for TRUTH:

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.

    WARRANTY (‘SKIN IN THE GAME’)

    Your ability to warranty is limited to that for which you can perform restitution.

    So, completing the cycle with Demand, your ability to perform restitution determines the depth of and limit of that which you can testify to.

    TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-23 13:43:00 UTC

  • It’s a very simple idea: NO MORE LIES

    It’s a very simple idea: NO MORE LIES.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-23 13:15:00 UTC

  • “The eternal struggle between blowhards growing lie-bubbles and mean pricks burs

    —“The eternal struggle between blowhards growing lie-bubbles and mean pricks bursting them…”—Paweł Płachecki


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-22 16:35:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1065644982193799168

  • “The eternal struggle between blowhards growing lie-bubbles and mean pricks burs

    —“The eternal struggle between blowhards growing lie-bubbles and mean pricks bursting them…”—Paweł Płachecki


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-22 11:35:00 UTC

  • A metaphor is (exists as) that category of fiction called ‘analogy’, that serves

    A metaphor is (exists as) that category of fiction called ‘analogy’, that serves as a method of suggestion, that like all analogies functions as a substitute for description when the audience lacks the direct experience (memories) to reconstruct the intended experience (meaning). We generally use the spectrum of analogies to transfer properties between cases. And therein lies the problem.

    The question is whether one is engaging the transfer of truths or falsehoods, and whether those falsehoods produce externalities that are positive or negative, either directly or cumulatively.

    The central problem arises because as suggestion increases vulnerability increases.

    The economics of meaning (neural economy) are such that reinforcement of false paradigms decreases future cost of paradigmatic expansion.

    Conversely, those same economics mean that reformation of or replacement of those paradigms is a huge cost. And must be (at least for volition to be rational) offset by some reward.

    For the professional liar or snake oil salesman or marketer, or politician, or philosopher, or priest, this threatens not only his cognitive malinvestment, but his means of obtaining attention, status, opportunity – and often, income.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-21 19:52:00 UTC

  • I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to

    I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to marxists, sounds like listening to theologians.

    All the same.

    Testimonialism is a necessity for human evolution.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-20 01:51:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064697708823363584

  • I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to

    I am almost at the point where listening to economists sounds like listening to marxists, sounds like listening to theologians.

    All the same.

    Testimonialism is a necessity for human evolution.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-19 20:51:00 UTC

  • One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a

    One point – an ideal, or ideal type – tells you nothing. Three points to test a line. More points falsify the line. Hence, demand for definitions in series as a defense against conflation, inflation, and fictionalism. -hugs brother.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-18 16:59:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064201454796320768

    Reply addressees: @danqueseq

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064198332363476992


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1064198332363476992