(FB 1550841555 Timestamp)
—“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma
I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:
- All premises are forever contingent;
- that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;
- that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;
- and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),
But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson:
“Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.”
Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks.
Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition.
The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories?
And then we need a system of measurement to test it.
That system is P’s testimonialism.
And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.