|
|
 |
|
 |
|
The Proof Is In The Pudding |
 by Manuel Ulliac (a.k.a. “Gaiaguerrilla”)
This booklet is a brief reasoning on the philosophy of what I call “Syllogistic Autopsy.” This is a fairly simplistic application to Logical Positivism. It'll essentially outline what is “the pudding” when we say the analogy that “proof is in the pudding.”
A summary of this philosophy is to say that you can prove something with physical measurements, and on top of that, you need to present it with a complete detachment to any affiliation of any kind at all.
CHAPTER 1: WHAT IS SYLLOGISTIC AUTOPSY
The choice of wording “syllogistic autopsy” is as follows: Syllogistic, because there is merely an act of piecing together a puzzle only after the puzzle pieces are made. Autopsy, because there are no puzzle pieces if it is not presented in the format of autopsy (the scrutinous, time-scaled, dissection and measurement of a curiousity- literal or metaphorical).
Another way of saying this is to say that all discovery should be separated between a “blue collar job” and a “white collar job.”
The “blue collar” discovery has hardly any interest in what the find actually means. They are there to collect data with pure detachment and disinterest (whether it seems a fascinating find or not). When they are done their job they have the right of any public knowledge to speculate all they like. But their speculation has no merit greater than any member of the public.
The “white collar” discovery doesn't even get to touch the find. They get all the same rights the public does as to access to the evidence (online pictures, measurements, autopsy timeline), but they are there to talk about it and not to “do anything” with it. Their argument is entirely in software.
Another way of presenting this philosophy is to say that scientific instruments and study are not to be regarded like children's toys, no matter how well-handled these “toys” are. They are there to follow rote patterns as decreed by theorists. The ones actually stepping out and making measurements are following rote automaton tasks. They are treated with the liberties of a public worker, and not of a researcher. Autopsy performers get little freedom in how the autopsy is done. Theorists get freedom precisely equal to public access. They can only recommend consensus in public forum as to what “autopsy” should be performed next.
Syllogistic Autopsy would present a new kind of Fallacy to identify in argument. The “unlawful acess” fallacy. Unlawful Access Fallacy: The author of an argument uses first-hand knowledge as a reason for physical evidence. In contrast, being able to claim first-hand knowledge means having more opportunity to secretly tamper with, or misconstrew, evidence.
“Conspiracy Theory” critique-
It can be presumed that this kind of philosophy wedges into “conspiracy theory.” However: All philosophies which aim to seek out fallacies are applicable conspiracy theory. Afterall, fallacious reasoning can be used to produce conspiracy anywhere. It is not as though politick, or humble activities, are devoid of their motive for conspiracy. People often lie, and distort the truth. Plain and simple.
If you subscribe to this reasoning, it could then be said that you think 3 things at minimum . . .
(1)Nobody needs a paper of their credentials in any field in order to claim that they have proof of something. The only credential that would aid them is that they've been briefed on how to perform the specific autopsy desired.
(2)Nobody gets the rational privilege of saying they have proof of anything if it's not under the autopsy format outlined here. They have proof of their measurements, not of any thesis.
(3)Nobody presenting a thesis on the evidence needs to touch the evidence. They get the same public information that everyone else does. The evidence collected can provide proof to their reasoning. But they are only there to reason it out.
The fundamental propositions are thus . . .
Empirical Evidence can be claimed when--
(1)The claim is in the form of autopsy. (A timeline of measurement methods and results.)
(2)Verification is in the manner of (a) uncensored public display, (b) further autopsy of recording methods.
(3)Time capsule methods of recording.
Let me present a few basic tenets that would complement this reasoning. To be simplistic, I haven't attempted any diplomacy on the attitude.
(1) A good skeptic always questions authority.
I don't care whom you are and whom says you're bright and wise in any regard. The fact is all I care about is the research you present and how it fits together.
(2) The presenter can have no motives other than the prize for the find.
The only reason I need to know the person presenting the evidence is to know whom is to be rewarded should the evidence be a significant find. Otherwise, all other motives that could be found to tie one with the evidence will diminish the evidence as an alterior motive. Ie: If you're not in this evidence for some easy money, then you're probably in it to convince people of things. In this sense, “greed” not personal “knowledge” is a good thing for the case. The public is the benefactor of the knowledge.
(3) Thesis debate is only practical by having firm separation from the find of evidence.
Arguments about what various evidence means is also important. But the person trying to make the argument should not be the same person gathering evidence. Evidence stands alone with no thesis attached to it.
The purpose of this book is to complement Logical Positivism by adding further rigour onto its method.
CHAPTER 2: WHAT PROBLEMS DO SYLLOGISTIC AUTOPSY AIM TO SOLVE?
The problem we are identifying with modern empirical evidence is that this “evidence” gradually grounds itself in authority. “Evidence” is associated with a professor, a university, a scientist of a kind. It is true that a presenter of evidence is a scientist. But the courses one has taken pertaining to the evidence are irrelevant in presentation. Being in a certain field or of a certain university only diminishes one's credibility to the evidence collected. This is because the more affiliation is added onto the evidence, the more there can exist alterior motive to convince people of a thing rather than just a significant find.
A simpler way of saying is to exemplify this story.
Bob and Sarah go out to the stream to look at rocks. Bob exclaims: “Look I see lots of lava rocks.” Sarah says: “How do you know those are lava rocks.” Bob says: “Because my dad says that lava rocks are grey and hollow and he knows about that stuff.” Sarah says: “My mom never said anything like that. I don't think there was any lava here.” Bob says: “Well look. I'll take the rock to my dad, and if he says yes, then I proved that these are lava rocks. Okay?”
There is not necessarily any serious flaw with Bob's reasoning. But, given the philosophy of Syllogistic Autopsy, then there would be a fallacy with the above reasoning. Maybe Bob's dad is a geologist. And the fact that these are children playing by a stream allows them the liberty of reasoning without scrutiny. But if Bob were really in a position to prove his point as a presenter of evidence, he would be able to do nothing other than describe a timeline in which he enters the stream, collects the rock, brings the rock, creates examinations (photographs, measurements, etc). When this is finished, Bob doesn't have the convenience of explaining what he found. That's all you get. A timeline of collection and data.
Once this timeline is collected, maybe Sarah's mom can verify as a skeptical witness that Bob did everything exactly as stated, and she is willing to risk liability of lawsuit if she was wrong about what she witnessed, (as well as gain some part of any prize money as a witness). But she takes no liability about it being a lava rock or not.
Afterward, Bob can make his findings available to the general public.
Bob's dad being a member of the general public gets access to this information. Bob's dad, who also happens to be a geologist, could create a thesis about why this is a lava rock. But notice that the responsibility of arguing that this is a lava rock has absolutely no bearing on Bob. All Bob is responsible for is making sure he did exactly as he said he did. Likewise, Bob's dad never got to even touch the rock. Bob's Dad's thesis has no bearing on how the rock was collected. Bob's dad can have neither the privilege nor the responsibility of taking measurements himself. But it is likely that Bob's Dad's thesis will have merit. He is, afterall, a geologist.
Introducing this philosophy into modern politick would indeed create crucial changes on a large scale . . . some examples as follows.
NASA and the Vatican-
The Vatican owns many NASA satellites. NASA is also burdened with collecting the evidence and presenting the meaning behind it. That's an interesting affiliation to have so much power! Syllogistic Autopsy would provide NASA neither the privilege nor the responsibility of theorizing their information. All they get to do is record their findings and publish it right off the camera. They don't get to script their information in any manner whatsoever. The Vatican could own some of these satellites all they like. But they cannot decide on the actions of their devices in any way other than mechanistic obedience to requests of theorists.
Astronomers, Cosmologists, and Astrophysicists . . . on the other hand . . . can take all the images off the NASA studies and speculate or theorize all they want. But they don't get any physical power over the apparatuses making the recordings. All they get to do is prescribe what NASA should do (perhaps offer money), or tell people what they think.
Archeology and Anthropology-
Archeologists dig up fossils and mysterious objects . . . well that's great. But oddly enough, they also seem responsible for explaining anthropological theories like where we're from and what humans have done in the past . . . pardon me?
Archeologists should be neither burdened nor privileged with anything other than digging up and recording their finds. They can't produce any theories about it.
Anthropologists, on the other hand, can talk all about the Archeological finds and hold them in museums, as well as pictures and measurements. But the anthropologists don't touch these any more than the public have a right to touch them. In fact, they're recommended to see no need to do so. They should develop their theories based on what's already published.
DISCLAIMER: I give this publication the “free use license,” as a rough draft. Any subsequent drafts not published in a forum will be my responsibility alone.
Discuss in the Forums
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| The Proof Is In The Pudding | Login/Create an Account | 0 comments | | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Resources
Audio/Visual
Discussion & Chat
Information
Keep Up To Date
Fun & Games
Submitting
Spread The Word
Rules & Help
Personal
