MORE ON OUR LIMITED PERCEPTION AND NEW NECESSARY SUPPRESSION (important piece) J

MORE ON OUR LIMITED PERCEPTION AND NEW NECESSARY SUPPRESSION

(important piece)

Just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities.

And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. And it is irrational to expect humans to behave otherwise, since doing otherwise would require belief and trust, not understanding and consent.

Ergo the purpose of most (moral) intellectuals is to make trust possible given advances in our knowledge. Likewise, it is the purpose of most immoral intellectuals to create deception, ideology, pseudoscientific belief.

Unfortunately, it is much more expensive to manufacture and distribute uncomfortable truth than comfortable deceit. Hence why we must raise the cost of wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit, just as we have raised the cost of fraud, theft and violence.

Because while in the ancient past nearly all theft was physical and visible, today, most theft invisible by indirection, and perpetuated by wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience and deceit.

While it is true that we have reduced violence and theft, we have just shifted the means of parasitism from the visible and physical to the invisible and monetary.

Ergo we must now concentrate the same efforts that we expended upon suppression of violence, theft and fraud, and now to the to the suppression of wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit.

It is this change from moral consensus on common action to amoral criticism of collective argument that the philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries failed to solve.

We spent most of our history trying to rally kin, but our challenge in modernity is to prevent not only kin but the entire world from parasitism via violence, theft, fraud, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit.

And we must make this transition from the directly perceivable confirmation to indirectly perceivable criticism for the same reason we have transitioned into the use of sciences in all other manner and method of inquiry: because not only is the actionable physical world beyond our direct perception, but beginning in the industrial revolution, the actionable moral (cooperative) world is beyond our perception – and the methods by which we prey upon each other also moved beyond our perception.

And we failed until now to construct institutions that prevented the newly evolved means of parasitism from violating our historical sanctity of natural law once the new technology exceeded our abilities and perceptions, and institutions.

In other words, pseudoscience has reached the status of magic and we must debunk that pseudoscience just as we debunked it’s predecessor scriptural mysticism.

Thankfully, we can now debunk these fraudulent actions by demanding warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, pseudoscience, and deceit.

By demanding the incremental warranties of categorical consistency, internal (logical) consistency, external (empirical ) consistency, existential (operational) consistency, and the tests of boundaries we call full accounting (scope), limits, and parsimony.

And without this warranty one may not make truth claims or advocate property use or transfer in the public commons.

It is this requirement that must be added to our constitutions of natural law, along with the demand for strict construction, that will make prosecution of those who fail to perform due diligence before publication of information into the commons, just as we prosecute those who pollute or poison air, land, sea, crop, production, or any other common asset of man.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

(h/t Andy Curzon )