Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM

Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements.

Here is what we do in P:

Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations.

We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization.

Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law.

Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions.

This is the propertarian methodology.

And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

Leave a Reply