Theme: Truth

  • This is a good general sentiment to hold, just as the golden rule and it’s inver

    This is a good general sentiment to hold, just as the golden rule and it’s inverse are good sentiments to hold. And you’ve correctly disambiguated faith (religion), belief (philosophy), trust (norms), reputation (past success). However, this general sentiment is not necessarily true, because it lacks both the criteria of confidence(knowledge of facts and processes) and logical necessity (all logic is falsificationary).
    So, you’re close. 😉 At least, close enough for common prose. 😉

    Reply addressees: @High1and3r @BrianRoemmele


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-07 22:52:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732895903558565888

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732830741354926477

  • If you were to say ten silly things and two smart things and I quoted the smart

    If you were to say ten silly things and two smart things and I quoted the smart things because they were true, why would you assume that I was endorsing the ten silly things?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-07 18:26:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732829061410349350

    Reply addressees: @dustinapetersen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732828374417219693

  • I won’t attack your silliness here. But just because I quote people who say smar

    I won’t attack your silliness here. But just because I quote people who say smart things now and then doesn’t mean I PERSONALIZE those smart things as support for the individual. The question is … why do you make that mistake? I know the answer. But do you know why you do…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-07 18:23:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732828199178924527

    Reply addressees: @teodoriancu14 @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732824345204887611

  • Postmodernism is reducible to relativism. In that sense, no, postmodernism isn’t

    Postmodernism is reducible to relativism. In that sense, no, postmodernism isn’t dead. As evidenced by every use of ‘true for me’.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-07 14:02:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732762575815766419

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732533590095810605

  • A Discussion with GPT4+ On Science vs Philosophy CURTD What is the difference be

    A Discussion with GPT4+ On Science vs Philosophy

    CURTD
    What is the difference between science and philosophy, and scientist and philosopher. My understanding is that the difference is science=true, and philosophy=good.

    ChatGPT
    The distinction between science and philosophy and between a scientist and a philosopher is more nuanced than a simple binary of “true” versus “good.” Here’s a more detailed comparison:

    Science vs. Philosophy:

    Science: Focuses on empirical methods to understand the natural world. It relies on experimentation, observation, and testing hypotheses. Science seeks to establish truths about the physical universe and its phenomena.

    Philosophy: Concerns itself with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. While it can inform scientific inquiry, philosophy is more abstract and includes normative and conceptual analysis.

    Scientist vs. Philosopher:

    Scientist: A professional engaged in the systematic activity of acquiring knowledge through experimentation and methodology. Scientists often specialize in specific fields and focus on empirical evidence.

    Philosopher: Someone who practices philosophy, which includes a broader scope of inquiry, often involving critical thinking and argumentation about abstract concepts such as ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology.

    The distinction isn’t as simple as science being about “truth” and philosophy about “good.” While science aims to uncover factual truths about the natural world, philosophy explores broader existential and ethical questions, some of which may not be empirically testable. Both disciplines, however, contribute significantly to our understanding of the world and our place in it.

    CURTD
    Hmm… I think the results you have provided are normative but that they are not necessarily true – since as far as I know we have demarcated philosophy and science into the good and the true.

    That said, in my work I have found that the science (research) produces a set of logics (first principles) which then inform applied science (philosophy), consisting of sets of choices that are not false and no irreciprocal – in other words, both true and good.

    I am fairly certain I am correct in this analysis because science does result in (converge on) first principles, and first principles in a coherent logic of what is and what is possible. But the decision of what to do with those principles is one of choice of ‘goods’: philosophy.

    ChatGPT
    Your perspective on the demarcation between science and philosophy aligns with a more functional and integrative view.

    In this framework:

    Science: Produces a set of first principles or fundamental truths about what is and what is possible. This encompasses empirical research and the establishment of foundational concepts.

    Philosophy: Applies these first principles in making choices about ‘goods’ or ethical, moral, and practical decisions. It interprets and utilizes scientific findings to inform decisions that are not just true (in a factual sense) but also good (in a normative or ethical sense).

    In this model, science provides the foundational knowledge, while philosophy bridges the gap between this knowledge and its application in making value-based choices.

    This perspective acknowledges the interdependence of empirical truths and ethical considerations, suggesting a more holistic understanding of knowledge and decision-making.

    CURTD
    😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 15:02:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732415284185534464

  • @SRCHicks Followup. 😉 Listening to you tonight I felt a bit envious. 😉 The wor

    @SRCHicks
    Followup. 😉
    Listening to you tonight I felt a bit envious. 😉 The work of a philosopher most often appears to consist of the pursuit of the good, while the work of the logician, and especially jurisprudence – even more so than the scientist – appears to be the true. I suspect this is why there are so many philosophers and works by philosophers pursuing the good, versus so few works (a handful) of jurisprudence pursuing the true: no one wants to hear a decidable truth (narrowing our options) while everyone wants to hear a choice of goods (expanding our options).
    Always enjoy your work and your presentations.
    Cheers. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 00:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732199130422738944

  • @SRCHicks RE: Atlas Society Live Stream Question: What is the incentive, in the

    @SRCHicks
    RE: Atlas Society Live Stream
    Question: What is the incentive, in the anglosphere, in academia, to advance CRT, rather than our tradition of truth before face (across the spectrum of military reporting, testimony before the jury, confession before a priest)?
    thanks.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 00:36:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732197353266786597

  • I believe nothing, as I am an epistemologist, scientist and operationalist – tho

    I believe nothing, as I am an epistemologist, scientist and operationalist – though I am aware that in all eras there are advangages, or opportunities, made possible by geographic, demographic, technological and conceptual conditions of the moment that people with the ability to do so with the incentive to organize by intent, common interest, or pragmatic utility, knowingly or not, to exploit, and in doing so claim they are ‘doing good’ despite that their efforts produce externalities, and that those externalities often deprive people of choices they might otherwise make that would not produce those externalities. In this, there is no difference between the ages and civilizations other than the greater or lesser utility of each of the three means of human coercion. The primary problem of the age is the failure of states (other than france) to capture fiat money (central banks) so that dividends of government are preserved for the people rather than privatized. And I further understand that the monarchies should have, and would best have, been stewards of these treasuries instead of governments. I further understand that the central subsequent problem has been the introduction of women and a specific group that practices the female group strategy, and that this pairing is the only material source of western civilizational problems as the combination of finance hostile interest, and feminine interest in responsibilty evasion work their way through the institutions of cultural production – as they intended to.

    Reply addressees: @BobbyBrisket


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-02 23:22:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731091373300817921

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731088744437223878

  • RT @CCrowley100: “What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular

    RT @CCrowley100: “What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, m…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-01 11:53:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730555658540405183

  • “What I care about is the reality of goodness not the perception of it. And what

    —“What I care about is the reality of goodness not the perception of it. And what I see all over the place is people who care about looking good while doing evil.”– @ElonMusk

    I absolutely love this man.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-30 19:48:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1730312979285987541