The Transmission Argument - Epistemology - Star no. 2 over the 6 Nobel Prizes

Intro: I am happy to present you Star no. 2 of 3 stars over all the 6 Nobel Prizes, including Literature, also as science, and Peace, as Political Science. Economics isn't questioned really for being science, probably mostly referred to with being made up of Mathematics.

The transmission is, of course, that fact p enters your mind and that you are able to justify this notion of fact p entering your mind. Thus, the transmission should be very clear!

The Transmission Argument has been my line of thought ever since I've started to investigate epistemological circumstances and eyeing the possibility to express it in words as I've now done! This is the reason for this writing's title even today when it may just as well be "Epistemological Integrity as Decisive Property"!

Tagline: You need to set the environment right in order to get results and you also need the right investigation on that environment to get results.

This work is meant as an addition to or a critique of the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty.
It is a matter of being in the spin so to speak. Information can be said to be fluctuating from what is perceived to the perceiver, but also from the perceiver to what is being perceived in the way that the logic of the perceiver has an effect on what is seen. This can be recognised as a postulation. The issue is that perception has some integrity connected to it both from the perceived and from the perceiver. In this way the words, the idiom, 'to be in the situation' comes to its full rights as with this 'an undivided being (between us) between the perceived and the perceiver.

The classic, epistemologic resolve:
1 fact p
2 person a believes fact p,
3 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
Concl.: Person a has knowledge

Further comment:
1. Let's say you have a 100% hunch to what you are looking for.
2. Let's say you have a 100% data-material to what you are looking for.
3. Let's say you have a 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit".
Sum: You have the answer to what you are looking for.

Dictionary.com defines integrity as "2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire" which is in this, my, interpretation to be a relationship between yourself as the scientist and your object of knowledge. The relationship between you and the object is whole in some sense, whether to a complex or parts of it.

Collated into:
1 fact p
2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p
3 person a believes fact p
4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for
5 person a has 100% investigation-data integrity or "fit" to what he is looking for
6 person a is justified, objectively, that fact p
(7) Conclusion: person a has knowledge

This certifies knowledge and it is irrefutable.

Various comments:
You only need one of the percentages to be 100% and the other two to be to the least degree to have this certified and irrefutable knowledge! But then again, I've not been wrong in writing 100% on all three of them and claim the same! That I'm writing this now can't be held against me in my opinion.

You should also note that the two sentences or lines, "2 person a has 100% hunch of fact p" and "4 person a has 100% data-material to what he is looking for", are redundant in the strict sense and that they are mostly added for extra sense, explanatory impact, that may enable people to have more use of this information. All this should be obvious!

Thus this kind of Epistemic Integrity is not a virtue in this context. It's a requirement.

While Frederick F. Schmitt writes about integrity as a kind of virtue, I think of it as kind of (natural) property about you and your relationship to your data (and to the end-point of investigation, being a kind of revelation of new data, possibly, a discovery). To formulate a "law" is rather a matter of aptitude to one's own skill in relation to what you have before you and thus not so much a kind of "Integrity" in my sense because the propositions, logics and knowledge base are already in your head. Thus I think it's absurd to speak of Integrity toward what is already in your head and mostly a matter of logics and mathematics to put together. If you however, become well acquainted with your data, have a great "Integrity", then you may generate this "law" more easily. Thus this "law"-making may be a kind of "Integrity"-issue in this sense.

Another remark on Schmitt's Epistemic Integrity which I find is used to tear away credibility from the Perspectivists who most people, I believe, see as unserious people in Epistemology. Therefore Epistemic Integrity destroys Perspectivism. In Schmitt's perception, by my interpretation, a charge is being made against unreasonable or dubious epistemologists claiming the Perspectivism position.

Epistemic Integrity then has to be decided among a larger community for it to be credited to a person or to a proposition that's held by this person. One should remember that Integrity in English most often equals Honesty and telling the truth. Thus from the ethical Integrity to epistemic Integrity, Integrity enters the meaning of honesty and reasonability concerning epistemological views/propositions/claims!

Therefore, as Schmitt's Integrity is designed to remove Perspectivism as a credible position, I design Integrity as a property of your own relation to research data that, in my opinion, leads to certified and irrefutable knowledge! Not that this is important to write, but it seems to me that Schmitt is using Integrity differently than I do, hence I cite Merleau-Ponty differently than he does in that same respect. My description is also significantly different from his and I think it's plausible that these 2 different interpretations can be given Epistemic Integrity. You can think about this for yourself... I leave it at that for now, possibly until the purchase of Kornblith's book (2001).

Educational note. It's implicit that "data" and indeed "fact p" are all data leading up to and including fact p! If you are to acquire fact p, you do indeed need to also know the necessary underlying factors. I think this is pointed out by examinations of Entailment in Epistemology. While Entailment should be logically valid and sound if properly set up in logical structure, it may be alluringly simple to consider Epistemology only as setting up some logical relations. Therefore, it must be clear that I see epistemology as hard work, most of the time, being thorough investigation and invention of right words to right contexts and design of apparatus and approach to closure of examination!

The Closure Principle, loosely, by example of Sir Alexander Fleming and his discovery of the Penicillin:

1. Rubble takes place with various accidents such that fact of Penicillin obtains

2. By his competence, Sir Alexander Fleming detects some anomaly to be further described

3. Sir Alexander Fleming determines this to be Penicillin

4. Sir Alexander Fleming has made the Penicillin knowledge to the world (and as I see it, it will stand as knowledge forever!!!)

So how do you want it? I think all knowledge can be expressed through such a chain of entailing descriptions by this Closure Principle. My Integrity stands thus as a kind of working approach, one that determines the relationship between the fact P and researcher, person, A for knowledge to irrefutably obtain. I think we are facing the Utopia for Epistemology in this decade to come!

By false belief status the model splits like this:

Model 1
person A has belief in fact P falsely
fact P (non-existing)
person A is not justified in belief of fact P
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a false belief)

Model 2
person A has belief in fact F (non-existing)
fact F
person A is not justified in belief of fact F
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a belief isn't there, that is, far more obvious than model 1)

By mere illusion of belief (possibly not necessary) the model splits like this:

Model 1
person A has belief in fact P by mere illusion (also falsely, thus)
fact P (non-existing)
person A is not justified in belief of fact P
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a false belief)

Model 2
person A has belief in fact F (non-existing)
fact F of how the illusion arises
person A is not justified in belief of fact F
(simply because one can NEVER truly justify a belief isn't there, that is, far more obvious than model 1 I'd like to add here that even if the illusion isn't detected by person A, there is most certainly explanatory force in adding this explanation, epistemologically speaking, as above)

The argument doesn't include the Integrity stuff because it's simplified! Besides, Integrity can also be seen as a part of Justification.

You may think that this argument undermines the Gettier argument and I think so too!

The Closure Principle for JTB, all cases.
JTB for sodium carbonnitrate:
B: I have the belief that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
T: There is a fact such that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
J: Given the scientific justification of this substance's existence and therefore the plausibility to say that it exists, I am justified in believing that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).

Clearly then:
I have the belief that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)) and therefore set up a scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts.
The scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts proves scientifically, also by testing/confirmation later, that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).
Given the fact that the scientific chemistry arrangement of the necessary parts proves scientifically, also by testing/confirmation later, that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)), I am justified in believing that sodium carbonnitrate exists (NaCO(3)(s)).

Symbolisation, constituted by the above, w/o UoD:
B
B → C
C → S
S → J (JTB)
J
Conclusion: J (JTB) by Closure Principle procedure.

This logical deduction proves that JTB is entailed by the Closure Principle by plain logics, "the hypothetical syllogism" or "many-parts Modus Ponens deduction".

Note: there is a special historical reason for the examples of chemistry to enter here. We'll come back to this.
Extra: By this, and most exemplary, it is clear that the history of chemical reactions, as this precipitation reaction above, is covered by the Closure Principle.

BTW, the usual two for the Nobel Prizes have been references, plain number and recognition/weighted grade.

The epistemology of "Improved Closure Principle", 
we simply use the definition of Plato and say this:
Belief
Fact
Justified True Belief with HDM, also a modified HDM for discoveries. That is, HDM enters the JTB of Plato as standard part! The Closure Principle has been about the _deductive_ part earlier, but now it's been improved with the whole H-D-M.

So we simply use the definition of Plato and say this:
Belief
Fact
Justified True Belief with HDM, also a modified HDM for discoveries.


The fact that the JTB part always contains HDM (hypothetico-deductive method) makes this an "improved" Closure Principle. Justified true belief (JTB) closes the belief and fact together, plausibly!

In the future, I may consider to add examples to this The Transmission Argument. We'll see!

By L. F. Olsnes-Lea (formerly Terje Lea)

Note: The guilt of not having finished this lies totally on Norway for obstructing the normal ways to academic performance in my life, rather choosing a despicable, lunatic strategy for seeking influence in suppressing my person, thus making very awful psychological impressions to people and without bothering that this takes place too!

You may want to take note of the word "stratagem", but please add a big deal of idiocy!

Note2: That this makes me look a bit like a fool must be clear, but Norway has chosen "dumb" as virtue for itself and it has forced me to detours and greater delays. File your complaints to Idiot-Norway, please!

----

Additional "technical" information, non-philosophical:
Terje Lea © November, 2004, Terje Lea © March, 2006, Terje Lea © July, 2010, Terje Lea © January, 2011 and Terje Lea © February, 2011.
A comment on integrity is added 05.11.2009.
Note: the last comment has by and large first been published on the Philosophy Now forum 11.02.2011.
Note2: The following paragraph has been made 09.11.2004 (2004-11-09) and it is: It is a matter of being in the spin so to speak. Information can be said to be fluctuating from what is perceived to the perceiver, but also from the perceiver to what is being perceived in the way that the logic of the perceiver has an effect on what is seen. This can be recognised as a postulation. The issue is that perception has some integrity connected to it both from the perceived and from the perceiver. In this way the words, the idiom, 'to be in the situation' comes to its full rights as with this 'an undivided being (between us) between the perceived and the perceiver.
Note3: Some of this text is "secured" by RSS data since 2010.