The principles of science – v6

Every day, we face numerous statements about how things work – about how things relate to each other. Science is normally thought of as the way of conduct that provides certainty about such relationships. However, beliefs and statements that are not sufficiently substantiated can often be seen – also within science. This work provides a set of fundamental principles for science that can be used to distinguish knowledge from beliefs.

The principles provided here have not been taken out of thin air. Some principles may be recognised as sound scientific principles phrased in various ways in various sources. Other principles are distilled from existing international standards. However, this is an original work that provides a unique set of well-defined principles.

This work itself, or parts thereof can be proven wrong simply by identifying a logically invalid principle or definition. The work can also be proven wrong by identifying a concept that is known to be true, that can not be put forward in a way that complies with relevant principles, or by identifying a concept known to be wrong that complies with these principles.

One might imagine that such set of principles already exists. I dare say that it don´t. To my knowledge, no one has yet provided a similar work that is readily available on the internet.

The set of principles and the associated definitions are provided in the first section of this work. The first section is self-contained. The second part of this work provides some arguments for each principle and references where relevant.

If you like this set of principles – hit the like button and spread the word about this work. If you find something wrong, have an idea about an improvement or just want to discuss a particular aspect – tell me about it by leaving a comment.

This work may be reproduced on the condition that the principles are not detached from the definitions and that the reproduction includes a link to the original work:
https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-principles-of-science-v6

1 The principles of science

§1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

§2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

§3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

§5 A scientific concept consists of scientific conclusions. A concept that has not been validated is clearly identified as an hypothesis.

§6 A scientific concept about nature is a well-defined concept having a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

§7 A scientific concept about nature can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurements. Whenever predictions differ from measurements, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement and the claimed capability of the concept,  there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

§8 A scientific concept about nature can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

§9 A scientific statement about nature is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

§10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

§11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-principles-of-science-v6

argument: a conclusion inferred from a set of premises 
axiom: a statement that is self-evidently true and accepted as a true starting point for further deduction
calibration: comparison of a measurement with a reference having a known uncertainty
capability: maximum difference between predictions and measurements
comparison: quantification of the difference between
concept: any expression of a relationship between two or more measurands
conclusion: a statement inferred from one or more premises
context: a set of those things that have an influence on a measured or predicted value
corrected: replace a measured or predicted value with another value
data: measured or predicted value of a measurand or relationship between measurands
deduction: logically valid combination of premises into a conclusion by means of mathematics and logic
definition: identification of the set of properties that distinguish a measurand or a concept from all others
disregard: remove a value from a series of data used as a premise
document: an identified collection of words, numbers and symbols
explicit: stated in a manner that is only open to the intended interpretation
false: a statement that can be contradicted, within the defined context, by a logically valid statement
hypothesis: a propounded statement or concept that has not been verified or validated
independent: not under influence of the party propounding a concept
inference: logical connection between premises and conclusion
logically valid: the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion – it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.
mathematics: a consistent and logically valid system of symbols and operations on these symbols
measurand: well-defined property that can be quantified by a measurement
measurement: quantify a measurand by a value and an associated unit

(Here also meant to cover if a measurand is or is not equal to the definition of the unit)

nature: any thing and any relation between things in the universe
non-contradictory: either true or not true
precise information: sufficient for replication by an independent person using equal tools
prediction: quantification of a measurand without any foreknowledge about an eventual measurement result
premise: a statement used to infer a conclusion
property: an attribute of an entity or of the relationship between entities
prove: verify a statement by means of theorems.
readily available: available without further request
reference: a measurement having an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit.
relationship: a quantified change in measurand A is followed by a quantified change in measurand B
source: identified document containing the premise
statement: a logical proposition that can be either true or false within the defined context
test: an activity that can verify a part of a concept or validate a concept
theorem: a concept which has been proven and which can now be used as the basis of other proofs.
traceable: having an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit
true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on true premises
uncertainty: quantified accuracy
unit: a well-defined quantity that has one unique value
validate: demonstrate the truth of a concept within a well-defined and applicable context
verify: demonstrate the truth of
wrong: not true

 

 

2 Arguments for the principles of science

Introduction

It should be noted that the intention with this work has been to provide the fundamental principles of science in a compact but still comprehensive manner. A significant effort has been invested in limiting and cutting the amount of text to an essential minimum, hence the arguments in section 2 are not extensive. All references identified in this work are readily available by a search on the internet at the time this work is published.

Regarding §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

The fundamental form of an argument should be easily recognisable in §1 and the associated definitions. The essential part of §1 is that all parts of a scientific argument should be clearly stated. (Informative reference:  Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments, Sixth Edition T. Edward Damer; Section: A CODE OF INTELLECTUAL CONDUCT FOR EFFECTIVE DISCUSSION; The clarity principle)

The motto of Royal Society is “Nullius in verba” translated to: “Take nobody´s word for it” explained by the following statement “It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.” (Ref. THE ROYAL SOCIETY )

Without a clearly stated argument, other interpretations than the intended interpretation will be possible. It can then be expected that judgement of the argument will be suspended, or that the argument will be questioned or disregarded. If on the other hand the argument is accepted, it will be on the basis of some kind of fallacy – some kind of belief.

Regarding §2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

If a premise can not be verified, the argument can only be accepted on the basis of a belief in the authority of the proponent of the argument. The intention with §2 is to emphasise that a premise can only be verified if it is properly referred to. Both the premise itself and the source containing the premise must be identified and the source must be available for verification. If not, the premise can not be verified and it can only be accepted on the basis of some kind of belief.

Regarding §3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

If the inference is not logically valid it follows from the definition that the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion – it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Hence, the conclusion can then only be accepted as true on the basis of some kind of belief.

Regarding §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axioms, definitions, theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

Any collection of words, numbers and symbols is an abstract construction that may or may not correspond with observations of nature.

In the case of science, this collection of words, numbers and symbols will have to be a non-contradictory construction – a logically valid construction – because knowledge can not both be true and not true at the same time. We simply can not know something to be true if, at the same time, it is both true and not true.

A logically valid construction that ends up in a conclusion have to be based on something. That basis is here identified as axioms, definitions, theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

In the case of abstract constructions like theoretical mathematics, the basis for the construction will be axioms, definitions and theorems.

In the case of constructions intended to provide a correspondence between an abstract construction and observations of nature (like physics), the axioms, definitions and theorems may be about nature or about the correspondence between the abstract construction and nature. In this case, the construction may also be based on measured properties or scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

As an example, it will normally be acceptable to base a scientific conclusion on a measured property like the gravitational acceleration (approximately 9,8 m/s^2 on earth), or a concept like Newton´s laws of motion within their validated context.

The application of a property will dictate how accurate that measured property will have to be – whether 9,8 m/s^2 is sufficiently accurate or if a more accurate value is required.

A scientific conclusion may be applied in an argument for or against a propounded concept, or as part of a scientific concept.

Regarding §5 A scientific concept consists of scientific conclusions. A concept that has not been validated is clearly identified as an hypothesis.

The intention with this principle is to emphasise that the entire concept will have to be a logically valid construction that has a well-defined and true basis. The intention with this work has been to provide principles that can distinguish knowledge from belief. If there are any deficiencies in that construction, the result will be that the concept can only be accepted as true on the basis of some kind of belief.

A concept that is under construction and has not yet been validated should be clearly identified as an hypothesis to avoid premature application.

Regarding §6 A scientific concept about nature is a well-defined concept having a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

Even if a concept complies with §5, there is no guarantee that a concept is a complete construction that also provides a correspondence between the abstract construction and observations of nature.

To facilitate independent judgement, the concept itself will have to be well-defined. If the concept is not well-defined it can not be tested by an independent party. The independent party would not know what to test and how to test it. If it can not be tested by an independent party the concept can only be accepted on basis of a belief in the party propounding a concept.

Many concepts are only valid within a context. For example classical physics: “Beginning at the atomic level and lower, the laws of classical physics break down and generally do not provide a correct description of nature.” (Ref.: Wikipedia; classical physics; at the date of publishing this work). Hence, to facilitate judgement of a concept by an independent party, the context for which the concept is claimed to work well will have to be defined by the party propounding a concept.

Many concepts got a capability of prediction of the value of a measurand, but not exactly. A concept may have a capability of prediction with some uncertainty. An example is a resistance temperature element used to predict (measure) the temperature of a body or fluid by measurement of the resistance of that temperature element. That concept will not provide an exact value for the temperature of the measurand. There will be some difference between the exact value and the predicted (estimated or measured) value. To facilitate judgement of the concept, the capability of the concept will have to defined by the party propounding that concept. If not, there is no way to tell if the concept performs as intended (expected) or not, whether it is useful for an intended use or not.

Regarding §7 A scientific concept about nature can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurements. Whenever predictions differ from measurements, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement and the claimed capability of the concept,  there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

A concept may or may not correspond with observations of nature. Within many areas of human expressions, like in politics, religion, love, hate, humour or whatever; it may not matter if an expression corresponds with nature. Within science, on the other hand, an essential characteristic of a useful scientific concept is that of a non-contradictory correspondence between predictions of that concept and observations of nature.

A scientific concept intended to correspond with nature will have to be true in its correspondence with nature. A concept that can be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on true premises can not be true – that follows from the definition of true that is used in this work.

There are many possible errors in a concept. Even if a concept complies with §1 to §6, there is no guarantee that the concept is a complete construction that provides a correspondence between that concept and observations of nature. We can not know that the concept is complete, that there are no errors in it, that the context is correctly constructed or that the concept has the claimed capability of prediction.

The only way to know that a concept actually performs within the claimed capability within a defined context is to deduce predictions from that concept, measure nature at the same context and see if the difference between predictions and measurements is within the claimed capability of the concept.In making this judgement, the uncertainty of the measurement will have to be taken into account. And repeated tests are required to ensure that the results are representative.

In making that judgement, the uncertainty of the measurement will have to be taken into account. And repeated tests are required to ensure that the results are reproducible within the claimed capability.

Regarding §8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

A test is performed within a context. Obviously, the test is only valid for that context. It may be that interpolation or even some extrapolation can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement, but that is not normally the situation. As a principle, the concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating test. However, the party propounding a concept might be able to put forward a scientific argument for the validity of interpolation of extrapolation, and it might be that an opponent is not able to put forward a scientific counter argument.

Regarding §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

Whenever a statement is based on predicted or measured values or a relationship between measurands the data should be readily available for independent verification. If not, the statement can only be accepted on the basis of a belief.

Likewise, errors may have been made in the experiment that produced the data. Such errors may be revealed by an investigation of how the data was obtained or by independent replication of the experiment. Anyhow, the statement can only be verified if precise information about how that data was obtained is readily available. If not, the statement can only be accepted on the basis of a belief in the proponent of the statement.

Finally, it can be incredibly irresistible to disregard or correct data. There may be scientific arguments for doing that, if so that argument should be verifiable. If not, data should not be corrected, discarded or disregarded.

Regarding §10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

Obviously, the measurand will have to be well-defined, how else can anybody know what has actually been measured? The measurement result will also have to be provided with a value and the associated unit.

By using a unit in accordance with the International System of Units, the unit will already well-defined. If the unit is a non-standard unit or even a hitherto unknown unit, the unit will have to be properly defined.

Whenever the measurement is performed by some kind of measurement device, the measurement device should be traceable by an unbroken chain of calibrations to the definition of the unit. Without a traceable measurement device, there is no way to know if the measurement is accurate, there is no way to quantify the uncertainty of the measurement.

Regarding the uncertainty of the measurement, the introduction to the following freely and readily available guideline: “Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement;  JCGM 100:2008 explains why quantification of uncertainty is essential: “When reporting the result of a measurement of a physical quantity, it is obligatory that some quantitative indication of the quality of the result be given so that those who use it can assess its reliability. Without such an indication, measurement results cannot be compared, either among themselves or with reference values given in a specification or standard.”

In the principles provided here, it is regarded sufficient to state that it is essential that the uncertainty of a measurement is provided in a measurement report. Obviously, there are benefits in providing the uncertainty in accordance with an international standard or guideline. By not providing the uncertainty in accordance with a standard or guideline, there is a risk that the measurement report is regarded insufficient.

Finally, it is also essential that the context for the measurement is well-defined. As the things that have an influence on the value of the measurand should be identified.

Regarding §11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

This principle is an analogue to the principle about measurement report. That should be no surprise since predictions are supposed to be comparable with measurements. A claimed capability may be expressed in the same way as the uncertainty of a measurement.

This work can only be reproduced on the condition that the original source is identified by a link to: https://rulesofscience.wordpress.com/2017/01/10/the-principles-of-science-v6

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “The principles of science – v6

    • It was not the intention to mess things up. I will try not do do that again.
      These are the definitions I changed:

      V5 context: a set of those things that have an influence on a predicted value
      V6 context: a set of those things that have an influence on a measured or predicted value

      new V6 independent: not under influence of the party propounding a concept

      V5 measurand: well-defined property that can be quantified
      V6 measurand: well-defined property that can be quantified by a measurement

      V5 measurement: a measurand quantified by a value and a unit
      V6 measurement: quantify a measurand by a value and an associated unit
      (Here also meant to cover if a measurand is or is not equal to the definition of the unit)”

      new V6 nature: any thing and any relation between things in the universe

      new V6 non-contradictory: either true or not true

      V5 true: a statement that can not be contradicted, within the defined context, by a logically valid statement
      V6 true: a statement that can not be contradicted by a logically valid statement based on true premises

      I think I will reverse the changes of “measurand” and “measurement”.
      But I have to think carefully again about the changes.

      Like

    • Main changes to principles:

      V5 §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, definitions or axioms.

      V6 §5 A scientific concept consists of scientific conclusions. A concept that has not been validated is clearly identified as an hypothesis.

      I have struggled with §4 and §5 for a while and think that change solved the problem I had with duplication. I also think that it was a natural place to bring in the principle of identifying statements as an hypothesis whenever a statement has not been verified or validated.

      Other than that I merged the following 2 principles:

      V5 §9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification.

      V5 §10 Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

      Other than that I added the term “about nature” to V6 §6,7,8 and 9 – It sounded nice when I did it, but seem to be superfluous when I look at it now. I think I will remove that term again.

      Like

  1. hi.
    i’m not sure at what point i’m interfering rather than contributing and i know the overarching value is full self possession – so i’ll depend on you to tell me when i reach a limit, k? and talk to me as if i’m autistic and need thing to be very literal…lol

    V5 §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, definitions or axioms.
    (i really love that. it’s like looking in the barbershop mirror and seeing an endless chorus line of ‘me’ vanishing into the infinite distance. Please don’t change that one very much. If the words used in that one are also made perfect, it becomes exquisite.)

    ” A concept that has not been validated is clearly identified as an hypothesis”
    if you aren’t completely happy with ‘hypothesis’ in the glossary, but want to emphasize the distinction, then maybe do that in the
    “Regarding §1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.”

    ah- i think i have the key – maybe-
    if you are willing- make a copy of your work and in this copy delete the word ‘Scientific’
    i think that will make some of the redundancies/ambiguities obvious for correction and simplification.
    the justification is that your statements must be valid qua statements too – and the subdivision of ‘scientific’ statements can not contradict those anyway.
    and then you can decide how much you want to partition into the ‘scientific’ special focus

    also- do you have any children?
    any 4 year old should be able to fully understand what you say.
    well, maybe not without decent parents who would know why this is important or somebody else to help him- but nevertheless, it is not and need not be complicated and a young H. sapiens has evolved to do it for fun.

    Like

    • I´m happy with the definition of hypothesis. But that term was only defined and not used in the principles.

      Anyhow, I think I will follow your proposal and put it in the Regarding §1 section. If principles and definitions are detached from section 2. The term hypothesis is still in the definitions and the use of it follows implicitly from §1 and §4.

      Like

      • Aristotle describes the principle of non-contradiction, “It is impossible that the same quality should both belong and not belong to the same thing ”
        (from wiki somewhere…)

        one one side of the limit line it is what it is. on the other side it ain’t what it ain’t.
        according to popeye, the simpler form can be expressed as ‘yam what a yam’ or something…
        and that’s the law of identity which is what definitions explicitly formulate for the value of a linguistic entity.
        popper never got half as far as aristotle did.

        heh- over on wuwt another wannabe guru wears a fresh bootprint on his face…lol – figuratively. i do it cuz it’s so easy and i imagine by showing it to be so easy it might drive these psychoviral vectors into obscurity and reduce the infection rate… that’s the theory, anyhow…lol

        but there is a value in the mere exhibition of virtue: (virtue is the means by which one gains or keeps something of value)
        if you can do something – then it can not be true that ‘it can’t be done’
        if you do something – then it can not be true that nobody did it, so anybody else might do it too.
        if you are rational then it can not be true that everybody is stupid, so stupidity is optional not required.

        one example falsifies.
        being that example, therefore, prevents a categorical denigration or denial of virtue – or worse, the possibility of it.

        unless you redefine species to exclude biological attributes, that one honest man redeems all the rest.

        Like

        • “Your proposition that ‘there are no facts’ was presented as a fact.
          your proposition states as fact that there are no facts.
          this is a self contradiction, because if there are facts, you have lied and if there are no facts and you simultaneously claim there is one you are also lying.
          qed.”

          Touché

          Like

        • “now, having established the proof that you lie, why don’t you just stop and go learn something about epistemology and logic?”

          Touché again 🙂

          It is amusing that someone who can make a CPU from raw gates can also state as a fact that there are no facts. 🙂

          Like

        • incipient guru syndrome?
          maybe he’s used to being the smartest guy in the room – the unstated implication being that he doesn’t run across people smarter than he who can ‘keep him honest’.

          celebrities, especially, accrete a layer of sycophants who insulate him from critical feedback and they just go off into the ozone, unable to distinguish fact from fiction. the idea that anything they come up with is brilliant is precisely the job of the fluffer – and what we are seeing in the west is the rise of ‘global fluffing’.

          but i’ve seen the best succumb guru syndrome- the very best. perhaps she was unaware of the guru syndrome.
          she was alive in my lifetime but i didn’t muster myself for any attempt at intervention…
          sometimes i wonder if such an attempt might have mattered.

          anyway- the lesson i got from that is:
          if you find that everyone always agrees with you- run away! find ppl smarter than yourself to hang out with!
          sychophants are like zombies howling in their vapid fog for ‘brains’ they can’t survive without parasitizing.

          Liked by 1 person

    • OK – I think I will keep §4 and §5 from Version 5, but I also think I will add theorem to §5.

      §4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by an explicit application of axiom, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have been verified or validated.

      §5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axiom, definitions or theorems.

      Like

    • I consider that it might be wise to use the term construction – to be able to explain this to a kid. What do you think?

      (I have striked through the words I think I can remove without loosing anything, and highlighted what I think should be added. I have not highlighted the words changed from concept to construction.)

      §6A scientific construction consist of one or more concepts or real entities that correspond with scientific concepts

      §7 A scientific construction is well-defined and have a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

      §8 A scientific construction can only be validated by comparison of that construction and predictions deduced from that construction with measurement results . Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement and the claimed capability of the construction,  there must be something wrong with the construction – or the test of it.

      §9 A scientific construction can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

      Like

      • the connotation of ‘construction’ adds emphasis to the notion that the concepts were deliberately fashioned for a purpose. works for me…

        so if you have a kid handy who’s willing to be your test monkey- maybe you can hire him to rewrite everything. from that, you’d have a lot of clues about what’s clear and what isn’t quite clear enough.

        words are much more to a young person who is using them for their intended purpose to make sense of his world.

        imagine the whole family sitting around the dinner table discussing absolutist epistemology….
        and what if those kids then talk to their friends…
        subversive!

        Like

        • I like that idea. I might test it.

          I throw jokes at them all the time. I of the follow your recipe.

          “Joke: an idea that appears self-consistent until enlargement of the context reveals a contradiction”

          I try to let what I say, sound reasonable until the last word or two reveals some contradiction, absurdity or whatever.

          Did you make that definition yourself?

          Like

        • yes, my definition.
          did you ever notice how it’s hard to remember a joke?
          there’s a reason for that.
          the automatic part of concept formation has a falsification process based on the same law of implication that allows to distinguish cause and effect. (note- there is no validation of it- that’s why we use language and logic which recapitulates the pattern but also allows for validation, i.e., critical thinking)

          everybody knows about ‘memory’ but there is also a ‘forgettery’
          there is an explanation how rendering a creature vulnerable for 1/3 of its life confers a survival advantage.
          sleep is not about rest at all. the purpose of sleeping is to dream. the function of dreaming is to reject from preservation in long.term memory those observed implications that contradict previously established memories.

          a professional comedian remembers delivering his lines – not the joke, per se.
          persistence of truth is the gold standard of concept evolution just the same way survival of the fit results in successful phenotypes. and natural rejection of the inadequate is recapitulated by ‘forgetting’.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Believe it or not – as things played out in a conversation with my daughter at 17 today it might be that she will have a look at my work.

          She was reading physics and wondered what happens if she comes up with an idea – if anybody can steal it. I guess she has never reflected much about patents, copyrights and intellectual proprietary rights. And then she wondered if I had ever invented anything. Actually, I have invented a few things – just minor inventions – nothing to mention. But that is not the point. The point is that I got a setting to mention that I am actually making something new right now – this work. I asked her if she would like to see it and go through it – I mentioned your idea that I should test it on a child. After having emphasised that she was not a child any more. She said that she might be willing to have a look – but not today. Time will show if that happens. 🙂

          Like

        • After some considerations, I have concluded that I´m happy with the set of definitions and the principles in Version 5. I am content with the definitions and the principles from version 5 with just a handful of words added or removed. That means that construction is out – for now. It also means that I will keep §4 and §5 from version 5.

          I will have to do a little bit of work with the arguments for §5 and go through the introduction and section 2 until I´m content with it.

          Like

        • it would be the greatest gift she ever received.
          one must learn to use reason and rehearse it until it’s a habit. then integrity can be maintained easily because habits are hard to break.
          i’d have gone for the 10 yr old who can surely do just as well as a teenager if not better…lol
          younger children want to achieve adult mental powers. teenagers got hormones and peers…

          we evolved a seriously expensive energy burning organ just to do thinking. children of any age love to do it.
          until that child dies and mummifies into a ‘groan-up’…lol

          Like

  2. siri: activate rant mode

    i already named a few of the classic psychoviral concepts that have been collected and used as weapons by gurus against the distinguishing characteristic of H. sapiens, his reason.
    what gives this matter significance is the consequences for human survival.

    there are a few behaviors that obviously contradict human survival. just to name a couple non-controversial ones: suicide and cannibalism. there will not ever be a genotype that enshrines such a behavior because it defines a negative sum game that must inevitably go extinct.
    the only way there can be a population of such creatures is via recruitment.

    stupidity (belief in falsehood) is not a virtue, it is a vice (a means by which values are negated) for any human being.
    stupidity, as defined, is a matter of degree computed by enumeration of the specific falsehoods that were incorporated into a person’s metaphysical representation of the world.
    even so, there is some threshold of incompetence that separates the marginal adequacy that nature will allow to persist and the submarginal individuals whose existence is impossible without somebody else to supply the missing virtue that permits survival. that’s just a long.play version of a negative sum function, in the larger context
    natural rejection pretty much ensures there can be no population of mortally stupid people – without recruitment.

    while it is a monstrosity that seeks to deny its own nature, the owner of an animal may certainly train his animal to do things that result in the animal’s death and not be called a monster. most people who do it are called farmers or fishers or hunters.
    the farmer has no trouble distinguishing between his own identity and that of his prey. he doesn’t think he’s a cow or a pig or a chicken…

    before the farmer could breed animals, of course, he had to catch some.
    in the beginning the flock had to be recruited. once recruited, they could be raised for food and selectively bred for desirable traits (desirable for the predator whose sustenance depends on consuming them)

    the psychoviruses i named are employed as a tool of recruitment.
    stupidity is a man made disease.
    the spreading of them is the moral equivalent of pedophile grooming children.
    it’s not grooming children just to bugger them, though – the abuse far exceeds that.
    and, as was learned with the slaves, you train the mother and she’ll train the kids.
    (fathers were not part of a slave family, is my understanding)

    and after a few thousand years, you have the rhetoric down to glib parables and a short list of rules & you have a breeding population that you call your flock.
    and you shear them routinely.
    and you call yourself ‘the man’ – but you mean ‘the really smart, successful man’
    and the ones in your flock, you call your sheep.
    and you feast on them at holiday celebrations.

    there’s only one way to eradicate those gurus. (slave or master- heads or tails – is evil for humans.) (evil is that which contradicts the values a living thing, by its nature, requires to survive as the thing it is)

    every one of those sheep has to be immune to the psychoviruses.

    every one of those sheep has to be vaccinated with a properly functioning epistemology so each one knows how to reason and also knows he does.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s