Theme: Truth

October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

—“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

[W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.

October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

—“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

[W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.