so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno in not responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or criticisms of something I have actually or effectively done.
I constructed a basic test event, obviously it had to be tied to a very specific argument, involving a specific charge or suspicion, in a situation featuring possible two of us. It isn't a problem to construct a falsifiable prediction that is in keeping with the criteria of step one of the definition. So he chooses one of the Bruno counter points I did not answer, and goes for the knock down hardest one he thinks I'll find. And I will say why that point did not make a case to answer. And why I have dug my heels and stopped showing him the courtesy of answering anyway. This is because I don't he has even now read my definition seriously, because his own objections are clearly illegitimate or misconceived, and his own offers of events of testing or whatever clearly do not meet the critieria of definition. In fact his positions have not changed at all. I cannot reconcile this with a serious reading. And there's actually no point in continuing unless and until Bruno does make the decision to read my definition, which he requested and I supplied for. And absorb it, and be able to distinguish where any position he has does or does meet a criteria. He doesn't have to agree with any of it. But he had to know where the argument is, if he's serious. Because one way that his theory NOW ACTUALLY IS, falsifiable is in terms of the status he claimed for it, of falsifiability. The reason that isn't actually falsifiability is because every theory at a falsifiable status has spent a long time in a pre-falsifiable stage. And may well still be that phase, because to falsifiable the process itself has to not only start but finish, and there are a lot of constraints what a delay has to meet in criteria to be legitimate. Most delays quickly correspond to falsification events, but of the status only. Which never falsifies the theory and can never. Because IT'S DECOUPLED and never knows much what the fuck the theory is !!Anyway, here was example,. "So for example, Bruno has argued that I failed address an he has said saw what he regards as a successful test., He then infers from my silence that I have effectively rejected it, and he concludes I must therefore be in contradiction with myself because I said I didn't have the skills to be doing things like that. " So everything connects and is logical in what he says and his conclusion. But once again he's still on the inside of his theory, and still being driven along by the influence of the same misconception that the dichotomy which seems to regard the interaction between the falsification structure as an end to process - and in this setting the interaction is via me obviously, in that the action I took in not responding amounts to a rejection of some element in his theory. Which on its own its perfectly correct. not responding is a response. But the same problematic misconception remains in his thinking here, which best illustrated here, amounts to believing decoupling between anything to do with the process of falsification, and anything to do with anything in his theory theory is a dichotomy of correct interaction with the interior of his theory, in this case that if I am going to effectively reject something by not addressing it, I am immediately contradicting myh own position thatI do not have skills to be making judgement calls about elements of his theory. So it's clearly perfectly sound reasoning he's got in play there. But falsification doesn't care what is reasoned correct or not, within a theory. It doesn't care and will never care. Because it can never care about one particular theory, when it is process that runs across the entirety of science through the entirety of the history of science. How can anything like that have any dependence on a particular logical reasoning that on its own terms demands a reason why it can't be heard? It's all good though, because the logical that is correct can be clearly stated as the consequence of the definition and my response to Bruno, which proxies for the interaction of the falsification structure to the theory. Bruno is right in act that silence is not an adequate response to the issues that he raising. Because the part of the falsification, if it is to deaf to all theories is also to deliver explicit and simple criteria to that theory. This is only connection possible. It is one way to the interface, the outer surface of the theory, from the structure to the theory. That must be a very simple request for, initially a condition that meets the criteria of the first step of falsification. Now I have asked Bruno for this a few times, and I have explained each time why this is all I ever need to know, which involves nothing about his theory, and will never ever require me to make any kind of judgement about any part of his theory. l What he remembers about the judgement that his logic rightly says amounts to a rejection by me of something for not addressing it, is wrong because that wasn't the event that addesses that thing I didn't address. The silence was because he hadn't in my view made any effort to do the things that if he did them, would likely see him able to answer his own question, but definitely I would gladly answer anything if I saw even a sign of any effort his side. Because I have made an effort and supplied him a definition by his request. Which now he won't read and internalize. OK, so the earlier event that settles everything, is any one of where I explain that I do not need to understand anything about his theory. It is not for me to decide the merits of any test he proposes. Maybe if goes somewhere else there'll be an abstract structure that someone thinks is the true falsificatioin structure that wants to get down and dirty with the innards of his theory. Go there, and be loved! But - remembering that I'm proxying here for the process - By design I cannot respond to anything that does not meet the criteria of the first stage. And I have explained and asked for this a few times. And he has, probably because he doesn't read it, never even tried to align anything he says with the criteria. So dig my heels in. He says I've judged some dubre on the inside of his theory because I don't answer. No! I don't answer because the matter is already settled my end and I have spelled out for you that, if you have a prediction that you can formulate purely in terms of the incumbent knowledge that another team somewhere else that knows nothing about you or your theory, has picked and is active in the end to end stage two process, which can for any amount of time but on strict criteria at every stage. If you your body of work meets these conditions your body of work is now at the falsification status. test That is literally the falsificatioin status. It's not an argument that someone makes from within their theory or from anywhere about some test or some tesbility potential or something that happened in the past that someone did or something that will in the future. It's a real objective physical status of a body of NOW, defined wholly in terms of the end to end structure of stages and conditoons of the falsiciation process. If a theory is at step one it is falsifiable. Because indeed it is..it's in the process and the process now runs by itself independently, and the theory remains falsifiable for as long as the process remains in a legitimate state. If the process falls into a state that is not legitimate, like it emerges when that team looks more closely that they have no clue how your test can be constructed or what you actually mean. Then your theory has just had its falsifiability status revoked. The whole process must complete and must be progressing or in a waiting position that is tightly constrained in terms of what is legitimate and what isn't. A test that cannot be in a process of becoming more and more distinct independently of the theory and theorist is not a viable test. So that's an example of how any objection Bruno is raising isn't amounting a case to answer at present. There's lot of ways you or anyone can go with this. You can challenge the definition. And I willing accept any challenge and make things much stricter on me and easier on you. Everything I have defined so far - although it;'s really a small sort bulltet point of a few things I think core to this matter. It's bigger thing. So look, anything I've defined. If you can give a non-trivial variant that doesn't lead to a series of consequences that snowball eventually to the loss of the viability of the process as a whole, to deliver what it has to consistently deliver. Then we'll call that a falsificaitoin of my definition. Is that fair? But don't bother, please. Don't waste my time any more than yours. By not reading and really spending time absorbing what that definition is, first. And let's have something involving a discussion around it for some period as well. That way the prospects of finding a legitimate and real variant in some way, can actually be at its maximum potential. That way I get to be in a process of discovery as well. >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
