Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM
Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively.
Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical.
Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention.
Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists.
Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim.
We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism.
And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not.
P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.