THE TESTIMONY WE CALL “TRUTH”
The Decidability of Testimony
—“We evolved to negotiate pragmatically not testify truthfully. The reason we need Truth is because it’s counter-intuitive – it provides decidability independent of opinion or value – and so it’s often undesirable.” —
Deflating the word “True”.
|Testimony| > Dishonesty(bias, deceit) > Error (ignorance, error) > ... Meaningful (intuitionistic) > Honesty(rational) > ... ... Truthfulness(by due diligence) > Scientific (Testifiable) > ... ... ... Ideal Truth (imaginary) > ... ... ... ... Analytic Truth (logical) > ... ... ... ... ... Tautological Truth (linguistic).
The etymology of the word “True” is:
Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith,” from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”, “oak” “Strong as an oak”.
Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) “faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.,” from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith” (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws “faithful, trusty”), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”
Sense of “consistent with fact” first recorded c. 1200; that of “real, genuine, not counterfeit” is from late 14c.; that of “conformable to a certain standard” (as true north) is from c. 1550. Of artifacts, “accurately fitted or shaped” it is recorded from late 15c. True-love (n.) is Old English treowlufu. True-born (adj.) first attested 1590s. True-false (adj.) as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. To come true (of dreams, etc.) is from 1819.
Sense of correspondence. “make true in position, form, or adjustment,” 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense “agreeing with a certain standard.” Related: Trued; truing.
(source: from the online etymology dictionary)
An Action (Verb): We Lack a Primary Verb for “Speaking the Truth”
While we have admittedly fuzzy definitions for true and truth, one of the frailties of English and most other IE languages is that they do not have a primary verb for “speak the truth,” as a contrast to lie and lying (v.). As we will observe repeatedly over the course of this book, the lack of a primary verb for Speaking the Truth is but one of many apparent confusions that are cause us so many problems of grammar and vocabulary.
In order to solve the problem of the ‘missing term’ we will use the terms “truthful”, “truthfulness”. For example: ‘He lies’, vs. ‘He speaks truthfully’. I’m not adventurous enough with terminology to suggest we use truths and truth as in ‘He truths’, and ‘That’s a truth’, even if it’s not uncommon for us to use “True” and less frequently “Truth” as statements of agreement.
A Term of Promise: All Statements are Promissory, With Varying Degrees of Contingency
If I say ‘it’s raining’, I am saying “I promise it is raining”. I might say “I think/believe it is raining” which expresses contingency. I might also say “isn’t it raining?” Or “maybe it is raining” to suggest a possibility rather than state a contingency or a promise. Yet we seek to avoid that accountability.
The Term Testimony Instead of Promise: ‘Testimonial Truth’
In philosophical discourse the terms ‘promissory’ or ‘performative’ truth are used for similar purposes. But because we are working in the context of law not norm and because we want to distinguish our work from prior authors, we will use the term “Testimony” and “Testimonial Truth”.
Only the Conscious (Humans) can Testify or Promise
Only those capable of speech (testimony), possessing sentience (feeling) consciousness (reason) and agency (cognitive independence from intuitionistic interference) are cable of making such promises. And not all individuals are possessed of sufficient agency (knowledge, skill, ability) to make such promises – and unfortunately we are not ourselves aware of our own limits. For this reason honestly is insufficient for truth claims. Instead we must perform due diligence against our limitations in order to make truth claims. And to guard against deception we must demand warranty (Or as Taleb argues, ‘skin in the game’.) Not simply because people are deceptive, but because they often lack the agency to speak truthfully having performed due diligence against their frailties.
The Degree of Promise in Testimony
So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of three axes;
- the demand for decidability given the context of the question we decide
- the decidability of the testimony necessary to fulfill that demand
- the degree of warranty of due diligence that such testimony is sufficient for decidability, and demand for infallibility
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not.
A Term of Agreement
In English grammar we refer to yes and no as a subtype of word we call ‘Agreement’, as in |Word| Noun > Verb > Relation > Agreement. We also use ‘true’ and ‘false’ as methods of ‘agreement’, but agreement on the correspondence of testimony (speech) with reality (existence). So when we say ‘That is true’, we mean ‘I agree with your testimony’. Or less supportively ‘I consent to your testimony’. Or “I promise you will agree with my testimony”, or ‘I cannot disagree with your testimony’. In this sense yes and no, true and false, good and bad are statements of agreement.
|Agreement| Agree, True, Good < Undecidable > Disagree, False, Bad
A Point of View
We habitually conflate (a) the words uttered by the speaker, with (b) the audience’s judgment of the correspondence of those words with reality, (c) the incentives of the speaker that bias his speech with (d) the sufficiency of decidability for the speaker, (e) the sufficiency of decidability of the audience who may or may not possess the skill, and (f) sufficiency of decidability for the judge who may or must possess such a skill to do so. And in doing so we conflate point of view (speaker, audience, judge), even though those points of view possess different information and different incentives, and different objectives.
The audience and the judge must ask, what demand for sufficient decidability is required to answer this question? What degree of due diligence is necessary to claim an answer is honest, truthful, or true – and is it warrantable? And is that degree of honesty, truthfulness or truth sufficient to provide the decidability demanded by the question? In other words, is the testimony decidable true, and is the question decidable given that degree of truth? If not then what is the scale of possible consequence (harm), and what is the possibility of restitution (correction of the error)?
|Point of View| Speaker (Producer)(Hypothesis) < > Audience (Market)(Theory) > Judge (Court)(Finding of Law)
So a speaker (voice), author (text), or craftsman (symbols or illustrations), produces a product (hypothesis), that is tested by an audience (market), and negotiated (recursively), and either agreed with (purchased), or disagreed with (boycotted – exited), or submitted to a court (fraud).
The Act of Testimony: Copying, Describing, and Reconstructing
Speaking Truthfully requires accurately copying (reporting on) existential reality and then representing that copy in thoughts, words, displays, and actions or other symbols, where the audience’s use of those thoughts, words, and symbols reconstructs the same perception of reality as the speaker.
Challenges of Our Language
Idealism: The Conflation of Speech (exchange) vs. Text (interpretation) Agreement vs Ideal (normative)
( … )
The Correspondence Definition of Truth
The most common and reductive definition of truth is ‘correspondence’ – meaning that one’s description corresponds to whatever one refers to by it. Which is deceptively simple until we decompose it.
The name Socrates normatively corresponds to a (long dead) skeptical philosopher.
The meaning of correspondence: ie: numbers.
The word “red” normatively invokes the sufficiently infallible expectation to observe a color in another.
(the definition of correspondent truth)
The properties, or constant relations, of two words, phrases, sentences, and stories are identical.
The properties of the speech, consisting of analogies to experience, produce in the audience the experience of recalling the same perceptions, objects, relations, and conclusions (s) that the speaker recalls and reports upon.
These definitions differ from “correspondence with reality” to correspondence with another’s perceptions of reality either directly (sensation), or by instrument, or by imitation of action, or by imitation of imagination and reason.
consistent, correspondent, and coherent (with what?)
Textualism: Deflationary Definition of Correspondence
( … )
1) “Snow is white” is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact that snow is white.
Is then Deflated to:
2) “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white.
Is then Operationalized to:
3) I promise (or recommend, or suggest the possibility) that my statement “Snow is white” is true, and therefore correspondent with reality, if and only if any randomly selected observer will testify that, as a general rule of arbitrary precision, the color of common snow appears white, and will appear white to other observers, unless otherwise tainted by some other coloring.
Is simplified to Testimony:
4) “I promise that you will observe as I have observed that snow appears white.”
|Commitment| Promise < Recommend the Likelihood < Suggest the Possibility
And “Snow is White” serves as a convenient Ordinary Language (colloquial) reduction that reduces the computational cost, time, and effort of conveying the same information.
As we will see, these reductions are the origins of most sophistry in argument, and philosophy.
The Problem of Imperfect Knowledge and Vocabulary
Our knowledge of other than the trivial is always incomplete. Language consists of general terms (names of categories that describe distributions of properties), and as such Man cannot know the Ideal Truth even if he speaks it. But he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. So we can separate the knowable(testimony) from the unknowable (truth)
The Problem of The Copula
Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “I don’t know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance.
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of maintaining state while searching for testifiable phrases.
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand.
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
The Problem of Blame Avoidance in Prose
( … )
The Problem of Costly Construction.
( … )
The Testimonial Definition of Correspondence.
“Agreement”: with text …. Sufficient fulfillment of demand for infallibility…
“Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, fictionalism, and deceit.”
“Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.”
For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.
(Diagram here) demand, promise, agreement, recursively
The Certainty of Falsehood and the Contingency of Truthfulness
|Decidability| Unknown > Undecidable > Truthful > True(All) > False
Truth: Decidability of the correspondence ( consistency, coherence, completeness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony.
True: Testimony is decidedly correspondent (consistent, coherent, compete, rational and reciprocal) with the referent.
False: Testimony that is decidedly over truth over undecidable over unknown.
Falsehood: Decidability of the non-correspondence ( inconsistency, incoherence, and-or incompleteness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony.
We Can Only Know Statements Are Not False
( … )
|DECIDABILITY| Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)
Truth Claims: Justification (Support, Ideal) vs. Truthful Claims: Criticism (Survival, Real)
1) Obverse: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation.
2) Reverse: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe.
The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral, cooperative, and legal (dispute resolution), and therefore justificationary reasoning.
Defense Against Infallibility
The Degree of Warranty in Testimony (Due Diligence, and Insurance)
Restitution as the limit of warranty in Testimony
(The range of consequences is not arbitrary – determined by choice, but by liability for consequences as determined by the market (harm).)
The Law Alone Provides Decidability Across Full Accounting (real), Testimony, Warranty, and Restitution.
Differences in scope between Science, Economics, Law, Literature
DEMAND FOR MEANING
The problem of meaning (scope of associations) vs truth (limit of mal-associations)
DEMAND FOR TRUTH
The Demand for Infallibility of One’s Testimony
( … ) Explain the upcoming section listing the dimensions of testimony needed, and the due diligence and warranty given the population and outcomes.
PRODUCING SUFFICIENTLY DECIDABLE AND INFALLIBLE TESTIMONY
We possess at least these faculties: Our physical perceptions (perceptions), our intuitionistic and emotional faculties (intuitions), and our intellectual faculties (reason), action (movement) and speech (communication).
|Faculties| Sense Perception (physical) > Intuition (emotion, impulse, intuition) > Intellect (reason) > action(testing) > speech (testing - communication(via others)).
Using these faculties, we have produced instrumental means (instrumentation) by which to improve upon our perception, intuition and reason.
1) Logical (Intellectual)(Comparisons(words))(Results)
1.1 The Differential (Identity and therefore Category)
1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative.
1.2 The Logical (internally consistent across categories)
1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states).
When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice)
1.3 The Logical Fallacy of Closure.
( …. )
2) Empirical (Perceivable)(Physical)(Actions)(Consequences)
2.1 The Empirical (Externally Correspondent) – what we call empirical
2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony.
When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud.
2.2 The Operationally Possible (Existentially Possible) – what we call operationally possible.
2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations.
When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific)
3) Rational (imaginable) (Intuition, Incentives)(choices)(Returns)
3.1 The Rational (Rational Choice) – what we call subjectively testable.
When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes.
Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony.
Decidability in Choice
1 – Time is limited and a scarcity
2 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.
3 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.
…Emotions are a change in state…
cognitive biases are to encourage acquisition despite evidence.
4 – Man Acquires the Physical, Intuitionistic-Emotional, Intellectual, Reproductive, and Social as either gains (increases) or discounts (savings).
Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:
1 – Survival: Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation
2 – Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
3 – Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)
4 – Signals (Reputation, Status, Self Image)
5 – Several Interests: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.
6 – Shareholder Interests: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset),
7 – Commons Interests: Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
8 – Informal (Normative) Interests: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
9 – Formal Institutional Interests: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion),Government, Laws.
10 – Man must inventory his acquisitions (Possessions, Interests) against the kaleidic unpredictability of the future and the vicissitudes of nature.
11 – Man must defend those interests that he has acquired and inventoried
12 – Man engages in parasitism by:
1 – harm, violence, murder
2 – theft,
3 – extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
4 – fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
5 – free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
6 – conspiracy, rent seeking, corruption
7 – conversion, immigration,
8 – conquest, war and genocide.
Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy
13 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is in a division of labor is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity man can engage in.)
14 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
1 – Productive (increases property)
2 – Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
3 – Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).
14 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity) Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)
16 – Man organizes to increase cooperation, and to increase cooperation on the suppression of parasitism.
Man is a Rational (amoral) not moral or immoral actor
Incentives to acquire are marginally indifferent
(Network of decidability , Hierarchy of decidability, Constant rotation to pursuit of opportunity in time.)
Empathize with feelings, sympathize with reason
Malincentives in Choice
3.2 The Reciprocal and Ethical (Reciprocally Rational Choice) – what we call ‘ethical.
(incentives are a substitute for emotions)
(emotions are a description of changes in state)
(describe subjective testability of incentives)
3.3 The Reciprocal and Moral
Decidability in Cooperation ( … )
Harm : Theft (imposition of costs) is decidable. Moral intuitions are not.
Decidability in the Criminal
Decidability in the Ethical
Decidability in The Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest.
Decidability in the Amoral
But Not the Emotional (Values)
Note that while we can experience emotions, we cannot testify to them, not just because they are unobservable (testable), but because the evidence is quite clear that our reported experiences and preferences have little to do with our demonstrated behaviors and preferences.
Cultural Differences in the Attribution of Emotions to Costs
( … ) Negative consequences, of doing so.
4) The Contractual (Limited, Complete, Parsimonious, and Coherent)
The contractual provide warranty that one or more transactions for meaning result in a batch of transactions that is complete (coherent, and complete)
1 – The Complete (Limits, Scope) – what we call ‘fully accounted’
(no or few unlimited general rules of arbitrary precision)
The Problem of Full Accounting vs. Cherry Picking and Selection Bias. (that we address all dimensions) (this is what separates the real from the idea)
2 – The Coherent (consistent across the logical, empirical, rational, and complete) this is where parsimony: coherent with actions, reality, matters and why operational language provides a test of coherence.
3 – The Parsimonious. (parsimony)
( discuss parsimony in the dimensions, … address determinism in the universe and cheapest transformation…. And compare with human incentives )
“Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man”
– Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions;
– And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness;
Parsimony must refer to:
“Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
- the lowest cost (least information), description of a chain of causation
- surviving tests of: entropy, realism, naturalism, operationalism,
p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- bounded rational self-interest:
– in the seizure of opportunity,
– from the field of identified opportunities,
– given the opportunity cost of the opportunity,
– determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk,
– to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration,
– eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities.
p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- and
– reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction.
(- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.)
The difference between:
– Testimony (due diligence by self),
– Coherence(consistency by audience),
– Parsimony(competition by market),
… is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to,
– the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving)
I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.
When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical and moral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences, and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong.
Hierarchy of Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality
So, given our four faculties, we have evolved two tests of each, giving us ten dimensions of reality that we can test. Those Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality are:
1 – Differences (identity)
2 – Internal Consistency
3 – External Correspondence
4 – Operational Construction
5 – Rational Choice
6 – Reciprocal Choice (moral, ethical, legal, political)
7 – Limits (max and min boundaries stated)
8 – Completeness (completeness, full accounting)
9 – Coherence
10 – Parsimony
We will use this set of dimensions of actionable and testifiable reality throughout the rest of this book.
So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of four axis;
- the demand for decidability given the context of the question we decide
- the decidability of the testimony necessary to fulfill that demand
- the degree of due diligence that such testimony demands
- the degree of warranty that restitution under fallibility demands
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable, subject to due diligence, and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. But of due diligence (proof or excuse) or warranty (skin in the game) it is warranty that provides greater insurance.
MALINCENTIVES IN TESTIMONY
Bias, Wishful thinking
Loading, Framing, Suggestion,
Murder, Harm, Violence
Fraud, Fraud by Omission
Restitution Upon Failure
Warranty cannot be given for more restitution than is possible
Law Encompasses All Dimensions of Reality
Law requires all dimensions of reality. Truth is determined by law (testimony), all else is a subset of legal testimony, given the subset of reality we are testifying to.
( … list disciplines and how they address subsets of reality … )
|Disciplines| Law < Cognitive Sciences < Economic and Social Sciences < Physical Sciences and Engineering < Mathematics < Logics
DUE DILIGENCE IN TESTIMONY
Warranty: One’s Due Diligence Against Demand for Infallibility.
If you claim you speak truthfully, you can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retaliation and demand for restitution or retribution. That is all you can claim.
But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true, we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability.
if you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence.
We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – including saving of effort, the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans.
What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation”
So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak.
So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience.
You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement, so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible.
Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean.
Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness.
So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence.
This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence.
So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for.
TRUTH ISN’T COMPLICATED
Truth is Not a Complicated Subject (Really)
If we research the different definitions of (theories of) truth we will find that they fall into (a) consistent, (b) correspondent, (c) constructible (operational), (d) coherent, and (e) contractual (consensual, normative), and (f) the whether the speaker offers a promise, testimony, and warranty or not. Unfortunately (g) Full Accounting, consisting of limits, completeness and parsimony are rarely discussed as a formal requirement even if all such definitions. This has turned out to be a significant problem in all disciplines because it allows fuzzy definitions and cherry picking, and willful ignorance of consequences.
And so the mistaken proposition that there are different theories of truth is simply a failure to articulate each theory of truth as simply those subsets of dimensions of reality that we are testing when we seek to produce a truth claim.
In other words: any Truth proposition creates demand for Testimony, Due Diligence and Warranty in those dimensions that the proposition depends upon. There exist only so many dimensions to test, and there are no (and likely will never be) other dimensions – a subject we will address later under The Grammars.
- In mathematics we require only 1 and 2 – although ostensibly, they should be open to 4, either by direct construction or by deduction from a construction (i.e. a proof of construction or deduction from construction).
- Logic is a term we will explore in depth later, but in the sense we are discussing the dependence of two or more propositions on the same constant relations, we require 1,2, at least, and as many others that are required by the propositions.
- In the physical sciences, correspondence requires 1,2,3,4, and 7.
- Economics should require 1 through 8, even though macro economics is questionably pseudoscientific because it rarely if ever includes 5,6,7. In fact, macro economics is the most notorious for cherry picking of all fields, since the major schools simply arbitrarily choose measures, rather than accounting for the full scope of measures (changes in all forms of capital).
- In Juridical Dispute, we make use of 1 – 8 out of necessity, since we are discussing human actions in reality.
- In social science and psychology, we find none of the dimensions made use of, for the simple reason that social scientists do not demand due diligence or warranty of those they survey, and they cannot therefore warranty what they speak. Why? Only demonstrations of preference tell us anything, and reported statements tell us nothing but what we wish to hear. This is why surveys are decreasingly in accuracy, and it’s questionable if they measure anything other than the intentions of the surveyors.
Note that with the decline of truthful speech in the postmodern era we have simply produced an increasing delta between reported and demonstrated preferences.
This pattern, in which we add or remove dimensions of reality given the subject matter of our speech (context) will appear as a constant theme throughout this book. Most of our speech across all our various disciplines consists of including or excluding dimensions of one kind or another so that we produce both content sufficient for communication of meaning, and limiting the scope of that meaning such that we avoid falsehood. And also, we will discover that falsehood is created by either communicating with insufficient and extraneous dimensions.
A statement(testimony) is True if its sufficiently consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete to provide decidability given the context of the question being decided.
A statement (testimony) is true if and only if it provides sufficient decidability given the demand for decidability in the context of the decision.
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
The spectrum of definitions of truth determines the scope of one’s promise of: identity, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness, and parsimony versus the Scope of warranty, demand for Infallibility, scale of Consequence (harm), and possibility of Restitution (correction):
The demand for each category of Truth is determined by:
- Dimensions requiring Warranty of due Diligence
- Demand for Infallibility
- Scale of Consequence and
- Possibility of Restitution
So if we take the sentence “that’s True”, and fully expand it we end up with:
“I promise (or I agree) that (or those) statement(s) consist(s) of constant relations that are (exist as):
1 – non-conflationary (identities),
2 – internally consistent (logical),
3 – externally correspondent (empirical),
4 – operationally possible (possible),
5 – consisting of rational choices (rational),
6 – that are reciprocal (ethical and moral),
7 – that all of the above are coherent (consistent across all of the above), and;
8 – that the claims are limited in scope (to a max and minimum), and;
9 – fully accounted (complete) as a defense against cherry picking, and;
10 – parsimonious (not open to over-extension).
11 – Each dimension has received sufficient due diligence
12 – To satisfy the demand for infallibility;
13 – In the effected population;
14 – Given the scope and scale of the possible consequences; and;
15 – The possibility of restoration and restitution.”
Which is so rich in content that it’s no wonder we process truth claims by intuition, and then struggle with the definition rather than attempt to decompose and articulate why we claim statements are either true or not. And worse, why we see so much conflation of the logical, rationalist, scientific, and operational uses of it.
Or stated differently: Truth is sufficiently complex a question that it causes overloading, and forces us to rely on intuition. But we are in the process of articulating the means of preventing overloading, and preserving the use of reason.
THE SPECTRUM OF TRUTH CLAIMS
Next we will define the Truth spectrum so that we begin to see what categories of truth we may claim without ignorance, error or deceit.
1) Tautological Truth (Linguistic):
Domains: Referrers (names): Identity, Mathematics, Logical Equality, Textual Interpretation.
Actor: That testimony you give when promising the equality of the properties, relations, and conditionally, the values of two referrers by using two different terms: a circular definition; a statement of equality; or a statement of identity.
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your description provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Identity ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the indifference (lack of difference) between one term, concept, statement, construction, or argument, and another; provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Tautological truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between terms and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony.
2) Analytic Truth (Logical):
Domains: Axiomatic: Mathematics, Logical Argument, Textual Interpretation.
Actor: 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 (grammar). (A Logical Truth).
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations) provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the preservation of constant relations (internal consistency) across a set of given operations provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Analytic truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between statements, and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony.
Axiomatic (Systems) grammars, can be declared (arbitrary) and internally consistent, while theoretic must be observed (existential) and externally correspondent, while operational must be actionable (possible). And therefore existentially possible
3) Ideal Truth, The Truth, True (Unknowable, Ideal):
Domains: Logic: Identity, Mathematics, Rational Argument, Textual Interpretation, Models.
Actor: 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.)
An observer of the same phenomenon, (or knowledgeable of the subject matter), and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations), external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context – and anticipating the possibility of future knowledge will falsify it. In other words, the observer estimates the unknown, the demand for infallibility, and the possibility of ignorance, error, bias, and the incentive for fraud, fictionalism, and deceit, versus the actor’s ( speaker’s) warranty (skin in the game).
Judge: The Truth( Ideal, Unknowable):
A promise of a perfectly parsimonious recipe for the reconstruction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.
As such non trivial ideal truths do not knowingly exist. And we should not engage in the pretense that other than trivial ideal truths exist as other than convenient fictions for the purpose of conveying meaning (teaching, communication), which must then be corrected from truth claims to truthful claims in order to provide warranty against misrepresentation, in the same way a parable using animals does in fact convey meaning, but also requires at the end, we state and extract and directly state the general rule of wisdom, morality, or ethics that the parable conveys by illustrative example.
The function use of Ideal Truth is to create an internally consistent model we can use to characterize (just as we do with fictional characters), and provide a cartoonish (simplified ) method of comparing that which is too complex for us to manage without such simplification.
As such the test of ideal truth is (a) whether the meaning conveyed is sufficiently infallible for the purpose claimed, and (b) whether it is sufficiently infallible that the the externalities (falsehoods) that the audience might, as a consequence, freely associate, induct, or deduct from it. In other words, that it is free of suggestion or obscurantism.
4) Truthful, Truthfulness (Testimonial, Knowable, “Scientific”):
Domains: Speech: Promissory Testimony, Commercial Testimony, Scientific Argument, Scientific Hypothesis, Theory and Law.
Actor: 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.
An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that you have demonstrated internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, and limits, scope, and parsimony, to provide a warranty of one’s due diligence in the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Judge: Truthful Testimony ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud.
Truthfulness is the only testimony it is possible to warranty as descriptive of existential reality. Ideal, Analytic, and Tautological Truth are merely testimony to internal consistency (constancy of relations) of expressions (language).
So to restate the differences between the True(Ideal, Imaginary) vs. Truthful (Due Diligence, Performative, Real), what is the difference between “Correspondence” and “Reconstruction”? The first is platonic (imaginary), the second operational (real).
5) Honesty (Knowable):
Domains: Speech: Interpersonal Testimony, Court Testimony; Reasonable Argument.
Actor: 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.
An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that your description
Judge: Honest Testimony (Knowable):
A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence only against and deceit. It is for the jurists, and the jury to decide if you speak honestly. In practice both judges and juries seek to identify malincentives one the one hand and conformity to norm, tradition, and law on the other, by subjective testing of testimony to detect malincentives that might have been seized or at least influenced behavior.
Honesty consists of testimony that you do not engage in suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. It is a warranty against your pursuit of malincentives no matter how mild.
Categories of Honesty
- Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.
- Honest Testimony () – ( … )
- Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.
- Opinion: (Justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.
- Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).
- Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, un-criticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
6) Meaning (Comprehensible – Allegorical)
7) Pragmatic Truth (Actionable – Rationality)
Domain: Personal and interpersonal Decision, Action, Agreement.
Actor: The testimony you give promising the correspondence and coherence of one or more statements is sufficiently infallible for the meaning, decision, action, and consequences in the given context.
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements provides sufficient correspondence and coherence given the demand for infallibility in the given context.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the utility of one or more statements due to sufficient correspondence, coherence, and infallibility provided with limited warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.”
Pragmatic Truth requires nothing other than Actionable or Decidable for the individual or group to obtain it’s want, and sufficiently infallible to provide warranty against irreciprocity (harm) that one might be forced to provide restitution against – regardless of identity, consistency, correspondence, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony.
In other words, true enough to remain blameless. Pragmatic truth is that definition of Truth most people operate by. Only those who must decide insurance of others and restitution in case of irreciprocity (harm), or who seek to compete by argument, or seek to expand our knowledge of the world concern ourselves with the rest.
8) Consensus Truth (“Agreement”, Consensual – Reciprocity)
(agreement on paradigm)
Domain: Personal and interpersonal Negotiation – Particularly in the context of fictionalism: politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion.
Actor: The testimony you give promising the coherence of one or more statements with consensus. Particularly some fictional paradigm.
An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements are coherent with consensus.
Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable):
A promise of (testimony to) the adherence of a statement to consensus. Consensus need not require identity, consistency, correspondence, possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness or parsimony – only coherence.
In other words, coherent enough with group consensus to remain blameless. Consensus truth is required for all fictionalisms – particularly religion and ideology.
As such consensus truth is not truth whatsoever, but a promise of agreement, conformity, or approval.
Religion and Idealism in the ancient world, and Marxism, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the modern world, specifically rely upon Consensus (agreement) for decidability. They cannot survive the tests of consistency, correspondence, rationality of choice, reciprocity in particular, and limits, and completeness. But as ideologies they do not have this purpose. They seek only to gain consensus on means of obtaining power through the vulnerabilities of majority monopoly democracy. In the absence of democracy they seek to cause synchronicity of decision making such that by indirect action in speech (or deception), trade (or theft or fraud), and violence (or shirking or pacifism), they achieve their desired ends.
9) Ordinary Language Speech (Negotiation)
Domain: Ordinary Speech
Actor: that speech you would utter when in common unwarrantied and unfiltered conversation.
Observer: The observer of that speech expecting exchange of information without externality of service or good, or impact upon service or good.
Judge: That the speech contains neither promise, nor demand, nor fraud.
Ordinary language consists entirely of Negotiating for something whether information, option, action, or material. We may or may not be conscious of what we are negotiating for, in large part because it’s often entertainment, attention, status, trust, belonging(approval), alliance – all of which are evolutionary incentives to acquire options on insurance against future risks to the same, no matter how small.
Much of the time, when not seeking options, we are seeking information. When not seeking information then cooperation. When we are not seeking cooperation we are seeking gift or exchange. If not then for alliances of some degree or another in the pursuit of some end or other.
As such, negotiations vary from deception to negotiation to status production, to option creation to entertainment. And we rely upon the entire spectrum of truth as the discourse at hand demands.
Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.
The Fallacy of Proof
One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.
You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.
The questions are un-falsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.
Justifiable(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)
Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.
There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.
But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.
Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(temporal), or insure (Intertemporal)
As soon as you admit the criteria of:
– deception and fraud
…. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.
REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION)
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)
|Knowlege| Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop].
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)
Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable))
Decidability under Prosecution:
Via Positiva Vs Via Negativa And The Competition Between Both
( … )
constructible vs deducible
THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT.
Rationalism was invented to attempt to reconstruct christianity without mysticism. I understand the great deceits. It’s but one of them.
Rationalism’s Obscurantism and Scriptural Mysticism are similar techniques. The Contemporary version uses propaganda and repetition. But the technique is reducible to suggestion by loading framing and overloading in all three. Suggestion works. The science says that we can’t even defend ourselves from it even if we work hard at it.
This is why we invented analytic philosophy and operational definitions in science. And why I have completed that project with testimonialism and propertarianism.
To make suggestion impossible.
At least to make it impossible in matters of finance, politics and law where it can be so readily used for ill.
Suggestion is necessary or teaching each other by analogy would be impossible.
Suggestion is necessary or supposition of intent would be impossible.
Supposition of intent is necessary or cooperation is impossible.
Cooperation is necessary or a division of labor and exchange is impossible.
But in all human cooperation and all transfer there is a difference between suggestion of meaning, and the test of truth.
We have been, as normal humans, attempting to define a single test of truth for millennia. But we have failed.
Because epistemology requires the transfer of meaning by suggestion, and the test of truth by criticism.
As such the single most important solution to communication is to limit the divergence between the means of communicating meaning, and the means of criticizing meaning.
This is what I believe we, I, have accomplished: to speak in a manner that the least difference between meaning and truth exists.
This is testimonialism.
The scientific method is a process of creativity followed by criticism. invention followed by testing. Imagination followed by survival from scrutiny.
The easiest way to limit suggestion is to refer to existential operations using a continuous point of view.
With the tests of operationalism, we slowly train ourselves to speak the truth, just as we have slowly trained ourselves to speak in the language of science instead of the language of mystical analogy.
And the benefits of this truthfulness will be as great as the benefits of science.
We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,
|TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological.
As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.
I’ll deflate it further into TESTIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.
TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).
DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.
WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.
And can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.
We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”
The question is whether one uses then truth that is sufficient for, and therefore survives the demand for, the circumstances.
Demand for Decidability
Truth claims are matters of law.
Transfer of properties by analogy culminating in the transfer of experience (meaning) by the process of “suggestion”.
The process of creating shared experiences using symbols – primarily language.
(reconstruction of same experience)
(where the experience corresponds to reality)
Due diligence that we have not engaged in deception, or error, bias, wishful thinking, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit.
We perform due diligence by testing every dimension of knowledge we know how to. (just as we have different mathematics for each of the increasing dimensions):
Identity and Category
Internal Consistency (logic)
External Correspondence (empirical consistency)
Existential Possibility (operational definitions)
Parsimony, Limits, Full Accounting (limits)
Morality (Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same.)
There is only one sequence to knowledge, and all others are false:
Perception(observation) -> Free Association(awareness) -> Hypothesis(guess) -> Theory(Due Diligence) -> Law(Survival) -> Tautology(identity/name) -OR- False
Knowledge is not a qualifier as some pretend, nor does it or can it convey truth content. It is anything in any state of the process of knowledge evolution that we can observe, are aware of, imagine possible, seems consistent, cannot seem to falsify, that is not yet false.
Knowledge: anything that works for the purposes we intend and we cannot yet deem false.
Science = due diligence. While we cannot know if we speak the most parsimonious truth, or whether we speak the truth, what we can do
THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSFERRING EXPERIENCES
(we use scientific language because it imposes the lowest cost of truth testing upon the audience. we avoid scientific language because we wish to impose costs upon the audience. We embrace unscientific language when we want to deceive.)
THE CREATIVITY OF MEANING AND THE CRITICISM OF TRUTH
(two part process: 1-transfer meaning, 2-test for truth – Reverse, Obverse)
(skin in the game)
=================== Where does this go?
|Yields|: (Potentials/Forces > Operations > Symmetries) > (Algorithm > Model > Simulation) > (Axiom > Proof) > Law(Model) > (Theory > Paradigm) > (Sentence > Story).