BLOGWIDE DISCLAIMER IV.: ‘Hypotheticality’.
Dear Reader,
Below is the text of the fourth
of the several standard disclaimers, that we have decided to make explicit,
starting in 2016,
and that apply to all blog-entries in this blog -- past, present, and future --
as well as to all of the activities of the Equitist Advocacy group, and of
their ally, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica.
The disclaimer below addresses the issue of the ‘Hypotheticality’ of all entries to
this blog, unless
they are indicated to be deductive
proofs, derived via explicitly stated axioms, or postulates, and their
text(s) surrounded by ‘Proof-Assertion Brackets’... .
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones
DISCLAIMER IV.: We of F.E.D.,
and the anonymous members of the Equitist Advocacy group, are, indeed, seeking,
advocating, and working for worldwide social revolution -- if only by
non-violent, majoritarian, rule-of-law means -- in the sense of a profound
change/expansion
of human social-relations-of-social-reproduction ontology, including a change
in the root social relation of production [Marx] of
modern society, from the present
[state-]capital/wage-labor/capital-equity-only social relation of production,
to the social relation of production
of ‘generalized equity’ -- the root of ‘Political-ECONOMIC
DEMOCRACY’, or ‘Equitism’,
implemented via the juridical establishment, and enforcement, of the three
newly-discerned, fundamental human rights, of ‘Citizen Externality Equity’, ‘Citizen Birthright Equity’, & ‘Citizen Stewardship Equity’.
The original
content that we generate, and post to this blog, e.g., in pursuit of the
above-stated goals, consists entirely of our hypotheses, which you may regard as merely
our personal opinions, except that we
endeavor to present,
here, only those opinions of ours that we believe to
have scientific,
and/or psychohistorical, utility.
What is the utility of a scientific hypothesis?
In exceptional cases, that utility is to grow from an hypothesis into a full-fledged
scientific theory, e.g., through a progression of
evidence-gathering and/or
experiment which does not
result in the falsification
of the initial
hypothesis.
Generally, however, the utility of an hypothesis is, e.g.,
via its
evidentiary and/or
experimental falsification,
to lead the way to a better
hypothesis,
on the generally long road to theory full-fledged.
There are two
exceptions to this general rule of scientific/psychohistorical ‘hypotheticality’ in this blog.
Exception #1 is the ‘ITINTO’ series, which is intended as “comic
relief”.
Exception #2 is constituted by any
texts that are surrounded/delimited by the Encyclopedia
Dialectica special brackets for proof-assertion, as
displayed and defined under (7) in the JPEG image pasted-in
below, which validly assert a deductive
proof of an explicitly-stated proposition, but only if each step of assertion
is justified by an axiom
and/or
a postulate and/or a definition, and/or by another principle/rule of inference,
of the system of
propositions to
which the ‘assertedly-proven’
proposition
belongs [if proven],
given that all of
the axioms and/or of the postulates and/or of the definitions, and/or of the other principles/rules of inference, invoked in that proof, are explicitly given within the same
blog-entry in which the proof
is asserted.
No comments:
Post a Comment