(Twitter argument with someone from Discord regarding a previous argument.)

Truth is truth is truth, and opinion is opinion. Sorry. I do science and truth.

—“You seem to be struggling to understand my point: I don’t care about accusations against a person’s character. A remorseless Bayesian pursuit is obviously more evolutionarily sustainable. I just was wanting to see some logical consistency out of you.”—-

(NOTE: he’s saying the emotional changes in state (feelings) are equivalent to thefts (imposition of costs on an individual and group’s investments).

(NOTE: His criticisms of me over time have always been effectively that I’m heartless but they mean that my efforts cannot be applied to his interests and I am immune to emotional coercions. )

Again, and ad hom rather than argue the truth or falsehood of the central argument.

(BTW: I’ve made multiple fortunes, and on average, in all of history it takes 10 years to produce a work of this complexity. & I’m just probably three standard deviations in IQ above you. Sorry.)

—“Oh, the king of ad hom wants to now cry about it. Sorry, that’s not how war works, right, Mr. pot-bellied, girly-legged 5’4″ Aristocratic Warrior? No, what you are is an antisocial catastrophe and most in the inner circle have confessed to it. You will continue to be a nobody.”—

—“And yet you have no formal training in science of any kind, let alone advanced as I do, and you get turned into a rag doll by people with actual formal training in mathematics and philosophy. What you do is maintain a tiny FB circle and spend 10 years not publishing a book.”—-

(a) Oh, I missed this one. Do you mean that ridiculous fellow on Chat who tried to equate LOGIC (rules of inference) with TRUTH (consistency, correspondence, and coherence), and outright denied (over and over and over again) that logic consists of tests of constant relations?

(b) and I lost my temper because of his dishonesty? ( yeah. Its possible. I have a thing about dishonest people trolling me. ) I kept trying to circumvent his trolling and force the central argument, and I let him get my goat. For certain.

(c)And that’s before we get to logic’s dependence upon premises (justifications), and science (truth) isn’t but dependent on survival from criticism. So while a logical inference may be not false, it says nothing about the premises.

(d)So I’m stuck in a position with a dishonest if not ignorant opponent, trolling me, denying the constitution of logic itself, conflating states of existence, equating inference with correspondence, and an audience equally ignorant. I just stayed on message: Stop denying.

(d) Deal with it. Either I was right and all any and all the logics consist of deflationary (limited) grammars (rules) by which we reduce the complexity of constant relations between states, where constant relations are limited to relations of analogies to experience – or not.

(e) And that there is a vast difference between consistency correspondence, coherence of premises and conclusions(science), than between premises, deductions, and inferences (logic). Find some adult who can handle that discourse. it CAN’T be false.

f) No matter how pissed dishonest trolls make me. And it is quite possible to piss me off furiously by dishonest trolling. Yes. And I don’t see any reason why it shouldn’t.