Honest Abe: Anti-BS Epistemology

A Minimal, Universal, Self-Correcting Theory of Knowledge

cogito ergo sum

This project aims to address the existential threat bullshit poses to epistemology. Bullshit is too cheaply produced while knowledge production is expensive. Honest ABE is epistemic proof-of-work. It identifies bullshit claims on sight with three self-reinforcing filters: Discursivity (logic), World-Aptitude (falsification), and Discovery Yield (verification/learning). It synthesizes Kant, Popper, Hume, and Peirce while sidestepping ontological speculation and metaphysical bloat. It is not an a priori system, nor is it one epistemology among many. It derives the minimal conditions for knowledge acquisition from language itself. Honest ABE demands empirical contact to generate or validate knowledge.

Want to know if something is bullshit? (h/t to the late Harry Frankfurt)

 Use Honest ABE.


Bullshit is not necessarily lying. It is an endeavor wholly unconcerned with truth. Truth tellers and liars are both concerned with truth because they consider it when crafting their speech. Bullshitters belong to a different category. Their aim is to make mouth sounds until they achieve desired results: True, false, or otherwise.

Honest ABE is here to check bullshit at the Gates of Knowledge. It requires all claims to abide by three minimal filters:

If a claim contradicts its own terms, evades its own implications, or yields no discoveries, it is bullshit. If ABE doesn't apply to itself, it fails. Try it on everything you hear.

How does it work?

Framework: Discursivity. Illogical Propositions Fail.

Since you haven't switched back over to TikTok yet, I'm assuming you care about the truth. You want a truth detector? Sorry, I can't give you that. What I can give you is a tool to rule out all the bullshit. A bona fide bullshit detector. That's Honest ABE, and ABE is as good as it gets. The truth is for you to discover; it's not a formula. Bullshit does have a formula, and that's the formula we'll be deconstructing today.

Language contains both truths and bullshit by definition. That means we can analyze the structure of the claims to find bullshit. The first telltale sign is if a claim breaks 'discursivity,’ the thing that makes a language a language.

'Discursivity' derives from the word "discourse," which is what we're engaging in right now. To talk to other human beings, you have to presume you're both talking to each other. Bullshitters take advantage of this pretense by making mouth-sounds without content and hoping you will mistake their sounds for human language. If an expression lacks the traits of discursivity, it fails to qualify as a proposition. Therefore, it is not a claim at all. Here's how you tell bona fide language from gibberish mouth noises.

Language has a shape: “syntax,” or the rules governing symbolic propositions. All language, including mathematics, must abide by rules, or it doesn't mean anything. Without meaning, no propositions; without propositions, no communication of knowledge.

So, syntax governs discourse. In other words, language is “logic-shaped.”

This isn't a stylistic constraint. It's what makes a language a language. Even math can express falsehoods, but we ignore those because they're useless. For example, ‘2+2=5’ is apparently incorrect under math’s basic axioms. We don’t need to investigate further. It's the same with words. So, a claim is 'logic-shaped' or syntax-compliant if it abides by logic. That’s it. As long as your statement doesn’t implode under its own terms, you’re good so far...

This is the minimal structural condition that gives language its shape and coherence. It is not optional. It is, as we say in the bullshit business, "constitutive" of language. Claims such as “I drew a 4-sided triangle” or “I hiked north of the North Pole” are not logic-shaped; they are gibberish. They fail to abide syntax. An equivalent example from math would be trying to divide by zero. We call this the "discursivity criterion."

Consider a baby trying to acquire language. The baby verbalizes, “Bah bah, blllllr, ek” but the baby’s utterances are formless. The baby has not yet conformed to the rules (syntax) that transform babble into communication. Its expressions are non-discursive. (They can convey meaning about the baby’s internal state, but they lack the structure of propositions. No propositions, no communication of knowledge.)

So, anyone who says “... outside of spacetime” is likewise failing to engage in discourse. They haven’t said anything yet because they broke the rules of language. How can something be 'outside' the set that contains all 'outsides?' You're trying to divide by zero again.

That is the meaning of "discursivity."

Definitions: World-Aptitude. Unfalsifiable Claims are not about the World.

“Knowledge” entails discovery.

For a claim to be World-Apt, it must establish an expectation about the world. For example, “the sky is blue” or “the ball is red.” We’re correlating concepts to produce new expectations. Do you learn that “the sky is blue” by hearing someone else say it, or once you look up?

If you never saw the ball, but everyone around you said it was red, would you say you “believe,” or that you “know” the color of the ball?

 That is the distinction I draw between language and gibberish. You can believe gibberish, but it won't hold meaning when you try to impart it to somebody else. Learning (acquiring knowledge) requires discovery. Discovery, in principle, hypothetically requires you to be able to discover something. Otherwise, there’s no proliferation of knowledge.

One might argue that this definition of "learning" is too narrow, because people also "learn" misinformation. To resolve this tension, I propose the use of a new term: "Mislearning." A person mislearns when they acquire a faulty belief without passing the minimal requirements for Knowledge.

So when someone says 'there’s a dragon in my garage,' (h/t the late Carl Sagan) you may believe there’s a dragon. However, you will not know there’s a dragon in the garage until you look. Once you look, you learned something. You gained knowledge about what's in the garage, or not. If you try to look, and they say “you can’t look because it’s invisible,” they’re denying you knowledge. What does this tell us? Claims that dodge all attempts to test or falsify them don’t describe the world. They describe an epistemic loophole that ABE has now cauterized shut. Unfalsifiable claims may be stories, symbols, or beliefs; but crucially, they are not knowledge.

The claims “the sky is blue” and “there’s an invisible dragon in my garage” are different kinds; they are both discursive, but only one of them describes the world.



Another way to think about this: these claims both carry implications about the world. “There’s a dragon in my garage” might implicate facts of damaged walls, or burn marks from fire breath, or dragon footprints in the concrete. “The sky is blue” implies facts about the lightwave spectrum, and the motion of the Earth. So, if someone makes a claim, and then denies its implications when you try to tease them out, they are lying to you or otherwise lacking knowledge themselves.

"There's a real dragon in my garage" is about the world. "There's an invisible, ethereal, floating dragon that breathes harmless fire in my garage" is not. If it has no implications, it's not about the world.

This principle, famously articulated by a man named Karl, is known as "falsifiability;" we require claims to be hypothetically disprovable to be meaningful. If you can't possibly be wrong, how could you possibly be right?

Contention: Truth Yield. All Knowledge must be Testable and Provisional.

Note: 'Truthy' is a term coined by Stephen Colbert. It means a claim that has the superficial appearance of truth, but isn't true. ABE eats this kind of claim for breakfast. That said, I love the word 'truthy' because it implies something nuanced about a claim: That it contains or implies a kernel of truth we can tease out. This aspect of 'truthy' is enough to make ABE functional. Colbert was being ironic. I am using it as a constructive epistemic tool.

Once we’ve established that a claim is both 'logic-shaped' and implies a possible discovery, then and only then may we go and make a discovery from the claim AKA ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE. This process is continuous: it’s always possible for new knowledge to supersede old knowledge. For example, humans used to believe that the Earth was flat. “The Earth is flat” is a logical proposition which does imply facts about the world.

 It is sound and potentially disprovable!

Thinkers had to investigate the meanings of the words "flat" and "Earth" before they could disprove (or falsify) the statement. We first needed to discover something about the Earth before we revised our definition of it to exclude flatness. That transition disqualified the old claim from being knowledge anymore.

In other words: We acquired new knowledge from the faulty claim; its failure was its greatest epistemic success! It yielded a discovery to us! ‘Yield’ ain’t just plain utility. It’s a kind of epistemic return: What does this claim let us learn that we couldn’t before?

The claim "The Earth is flat" was truthy. It contained some means by which we could learn about the world. When it stopped yielding discoveries, we stopped using it. If a claim stops confirming its own implications, we throw it away. So, 'truthy' claims earn provisional Knowledge status as long as they enable discovery. They function as the bridge between ignorance and knowledge. This continuous revision process is the core of knowing anything. Without these minimal standards, knowledge is impossible and meaningless.

Syllogisms, Summary & Q&A:

D: “Logos.” All propositions are bound by logic.

P1. Humans communicate knowledge through propositions expressed via syntax, either linguistic or mathematical.

P2. The definition of “syntax” is a set of rules governing logical propositions.

C. Therefore, all human communication of knowledge depends on logical integrity.

A: “Physis.” Semantic contact.

P1: Every proposition either contains itself or refers beyond itself.

P2: Only self-contained propositions can be wholly evaluated by logic alone.

C: Therefore, for “knowledge” to be distinct from falsehood, propositions that refer beyond themselves require a minimal evaluation standard.

T: “Praxis.” Discovery yield.

P1. To count as knowledge, a proposition must be distinguishable from falsehood.

P2. Without tests of a claim’s implications or consequences, it is indistinguishable from delusion, solipsism, and bias.

C. Therefore, to acquire knowledge (discovery) from a claim, a claim must be falsified.

Synthesis: All non-self-containing propositions must submit to semantic AND empirical analysis, or they fail to qualify as knowledge. The only viable world-knowledge claims are logically sound, semantically precise, and practically applicable. Claims of this nature are provisional because of the continuous supersession of superior knowledge. Any other claim about the world fails to qualify as knowledge by definition.

So, there are only two kinds of claims:

1. Bullshit of varying grades or degrees of severity:

A. Nonsense, which violates discursivity (not a ‘kind’ of claim at all), and

B. Unfalsifiable claims, which fail to describe anything

and

2. Truthy claims, which hold some potential for us to learn something until we revise/replace them. Any claim which resists or fails this step is demoted to ‘BS.’ Truthy claims are truth mines. We can tap earnest propositions and lies for truth harvest. Pretty cool, right?

Note: "Objective knowledge" in the strong metaphysical sense presumes access to a view from nowhere, which is a discursive impossibility. By definition, nobody is nowhere, so that knowledge also belongs to nobody. No human can claim objective knowledge under ABE.

Language holds meaning. Meaning yields discovery potential. Discovery builds knowledge. Everything else is BS.

This framework universally eliminates nonsense, inert claims, and stagnant ideas. Please test this idea on every claim you hear. No self-respecting illogical, non-implicative, discovery-barren claim could call itself knowledge.

Knowledge is the set of provisional claims which are logical, world-apt, and discovered.

Formal Transcendental Argument:

Undeniable Premise

Language (propositional syntax) is the human mode of communicating knowledge. Knowledge, by definition, contains truth. However, language also contains untruths.

Modal Question

What must be true for humans to distinguish truth from untruth while communicating knowledge?

Derivation:

In order for language to yield knowledge, it must satisfy three minimal preconditions:

• Coherent Syntax (Logos): All propositional syntax (Language) which violates logic ceases to be. Propositions either describe themselves, or something else. Self-containing propositions stop here. Evaluation of syntax alone is enough to yield a true/false verdict.

• Semantic Contact (Physis): If a proposition is not self-containing, it must project an expectation that can be discovered (e.g. F=ma), or else it fails to describe anything.

• Discovery Yield (Praxis): Knowledge requires belief revision to avoid solipsism and bias. Propositions must provide actionable insights and applications to negate those pitfalls. If language fails to yield discoveries or insights about the world, it’s indistinguishable from delusion, and fails to fulfil the role of Knowledge.

Absent even one of these constraints, it is impossible to distinguish truth. Logos untethered by Physis or Praxis produces coherent fictions alongside truth. Physis undisciplined by Logos and Praxis leads to incoherent reality descriptions/inert propositions. Praxis absent any Logos or Physis leads to superstitious/erratic behavior.

Genuine knowledge is only possible with all three.

Conclusion:

Communication of knowledge is only possible in worlds where claims are subject to logical, semantic, and empirical analysis. Any claim that breaks those minimal criteria fail to qualify as knowledge.

Q&A

• q. What about mathematics, ethics, or aesthetics? Don’t those disciplines constitute a different kind of knowledge?

• A. No. Mathematics is not knowledge per se. It’s syntax, remember? So mathematical propositions are still subject to ABE. If they’re self-containing, they stay as ‘analytic truths.’ If the proposition describes something else, like e=mc², ABE is in full force. Ethics and aesthetics are equally normative. ABE applies in full force as soon as any knowledge claim is made, for example “jaywalking is wrong.”

• q. But art and poetry has meaning!

• A. First of all, not a question. Yes, art and poetry hold meaning, but no propositions about the world. They’re not world-apt. Art and poetry are subjective expressions, not propositions of knowledge. ABE doesn’t care about that kind of stuff. Disciplines of all kinds still apply knowledge about the world, but a discipline does not itself constitute a kind of knowledge. Knowledge is its own discipline. ABE tells us how to sift it within any domain.

• q. What about pure mathematics? Doesn't that discover stuff?

• A. Pure mathematics is a self-contained analytic discipline. It is pure Logos, nothing more, which means it complies with ABE. You can evaluate all self-contained logical propositions with logic alone. Once your proposition fails to contain itself, you need some other method to rule out falsehoods. Scientists use ABE on the applied math you find in physics and chemistry. Math is a language we can use to describe the world or itself, the same as your own language.

• q. The Mary’s Room thought experiment undermines your entire project.

• A. Is that a question? Mary’s Room commits a category eror by confusing transcendental aspects of human experience (i.e. qualia) with empirical data (i.e. knowledge). Also, we grant Mary “perfect knowledge” in the premise, so asking whether Mary acquired more knowledge is non-discursive. Another thing: Mary would totally be able to triangulate the color “red” from her starting light frequencies of black and white, given her perfect knowledge of light’s behavior. Give me a break.

• q. ABE rules out metaphysical assertions/Platonism? Doesn’t that undermine centuries of philosophical tradition?

• A. Good question! Yes, it does rule out metaphysical speculation. No, it doesn’t contradict the traditions of philosophy. Socrates was called the wisest because he knew nothing. His student Plato, on the other hand, seemed to know much about all those things-in-themselves Kant correctly identified as unspeakable. ABE is here to enforce that unspeakability.

• q. Aren't you just bootstrapping empiricism again? The verification princip-

• A. Nope. I'm defining the word "knowledge." ABE does not privilege observation, while empiricism does. ABE derives the minimal necessary conditions for knowledge production. Either you agree with my definition of knowledge, or you must produce an epistemology wholly unique from this one. In case you weren't following, that means you can't use a logical argument. Using logical argumentation concedes ABE. Good luck!

• q. What if I come up with a better epistemology?

• A. What if someone came up with a better definition of 'triangle' that includes 4 sides? I'm telling you what has to happen for us to be able to do epistemology. This is what epistemology looks like, or there's no such thing as knowledge. ABE applies to itself because it's meta-epistemic. All 'other' epistemologies are either deficient or covertly using ABE.

• q. No fair, you're just defining "knowledge" to mean "not metaphysics."

• A. If you want to redefine 'knowledge' to mean something like pure intuition, that's your prerogative. We're no longer disagreeing on facts, we're disagreeing on what you mean when you say "I know." You can define your own private knowledge however you want. ABE only cares about what you say about the world. Start talking about the world, and you're already using ABE. See how that works? To be crystal clear: Private experience only becomes knowledge when it yields claims that pass the Three Gates of Knowledge.

• q. But atomic theory-

• A. That’s a Gettier problem, which is a lucky guess, not knowledge. You can’t skip the gates. 'Metaphysics' claims that we can falsify are just... Physics. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. Gettier problems are epistemic lottery tickets, but you can’t even cash in without the proof of work ABE provides anyway. How long did it take for us to circle back around to atomic theory, again?

• q. What about "embodied" knowledge? Does an athlete "know" how to do a triple backflip?

• A. "I can do a triple backflip" is an Honest ABE-approved claim, provided you can actually do the triple-backflip. ABE doesn't deny coordination or competence. ABE only says steps are required to filter bullshit from discourse. If you think those athletes didn't engage in discourse with a coach to reach their performance level, can I have some of what you're smoking?

• q. Trick question! It's called "tacit knowledge" and it's a kind of knowledge ABE doesn't account for. ABE self-destructs!

• A. Very good try! How’s this? 'Monkey see, monkey do' is not epistemology. Coordination, intuition, and skill acquisition are undeniable. Thankfully, ABE doesn’t deny experiences exist. Behavior isn’t a kind of knowledge; knowledge is a kind of behavior. ‘Tacit knowledge’ is a misnomer, not an epistemic counterexample. It either yields propositions; in which case, ABE applies; or doesn’t, and it isn’t really a kind of knowledge.

Final Conclusion: Honest ABE’S Epistemic Orbital Nuke

Any non-self-containing proposition that evades logical coherence, semantic specificity, or empirical testability fails the minimal criteria for knowledge. Such claims undermine themselves through their own terms or performance.

If it survives all attempts to destroy it, it’s knowledge. If it doesn’t, it’s bullshit.

The only defensible ‘objective knowledge’ is that all knowledge is provisional — including this very statement.

That’s it. That’s the only viable knowledge standard ever put forth in human history: Logos + Physis + Praxis.

Everything else is BS.

Not a single claim is exempt from Honest ABE, not even Honest ABE. If it's bullshit — scientific, religious, or otherwise — now you will Know. No more sacred cows. Use this on everything you hear and awe at how much misinformation falls away.

ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat

You're still here? You wanna know about the latin?

The above quote is about Socrates, the father of modern philosophy. It means "Let him know this one thing: He knows nothing." The other quote is Descartes' "cogito ergo sum," which means "I want a ham sandwich."

Socrates asked everyone the same 4 questions, so let's ask those questions of ABE now.

Filter 0: Episteme. Socrates asks: "What do you know?"

Honest ABE is the bare minimum for ruling out bullshit.

Filter 1: Logos. Socrates asks: "What exactly do you mean by that? What does that entail?"

Honest ABE interrogates claims for Logos, Physis, and Praxis to determine if they're truth-oriented or truth-indifferent. It impartially filters truth-indifferent claims, cleansing discourse.

Filter 2: Physis. Socrates asks: "For what reason?"

Without those filters, there's no such thing as epistemology.

Filter 3: Praxis. Socrates asks: "Is that a good reason?"

It abides logic, so it's discursive. It abides semantics, so it's world-apt. It generates discoveries about epistemology itself, such as "ABE is the only minimally derived epistemology." Anything else is deficient or ABE in disguise. Good enough?

Now go, find and destroy bullshit.