—“Also since I got your attention, I have never felt relief from discovering a political theory but propertarianism is genius. You and John mark are doing amazing work, truly modern day founding fathers. So thank you for doing this. It’s restored my faith for a better tomorrow.”—The Cultural Oncologist @CultureKancer
Made my day.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:24:20 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179900019111055360
RT @MartianHoplite: @BrianTakita @JohnMarkSays @curtdoolittle @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @T…
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:01:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179894198276907009
Legit Ad Hom’s Against Doolittle https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/legit-ad-homs-against-doolittle/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:57:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179893242978017280
They Express Their World View https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/they-express-their-world-view/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:51:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891725512445955
by Andy Curzon [I] see Taleb as having had two useful insights – the Black Swan and antifragility (a cat vs a washing machine ‘n’all). Skin in the game was an offshoot (and rather obvious, although he backs it up with data sets), and fooled by randomness was hackneyed old material. It’s a funny journey that of the public intellectual (I’ve found similar with Peterson and Pinker recently) – they express ‘their worldview’, and people lap it up. And then they do it again. And again. And in different ways. And most people figure out they’re repeating themselves in different forms and move on.
by Andy Curzon [I] see Taleb as having had two useful insights – the Black Swan and antifragility (a cat vs a washing machine ‘n’all). Skin in the game was an offshoot (and rather obvious, although he backs it up with data sets), and fooled by randomness was hackneyed old material. It’s a funny journey that of the public intellectual (I’ve found similar with Peterson and Pinker recently) – they express ‘their worldview’, and people lap it up. And then they do it again. And again. And in different ways. And most people figure out they’re repeating themselves in different forms and move on.
Ahmed Reda Says It Best https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/ahmed-reda-says-it-best/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:49:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891347181973504
Mathematicians Can Be Stupid, Too https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/mathematicians-can-be-stupid-too/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:43:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179889621011972098
—“More evidence that mathematicians can be stupid, too”–Claire Lehmann @clairlemon ….”(Renowned Yale Computer Science Prof Leaves Darwinism | The Stream David Gelernter recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining why he no longer believes Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.)”…
Curt Replies: There is a great deal of woo woo in Mathematics – mathematical platonism, mathematical idealism, cantorian multiple infinities, many worlds, proof being positiva rather than negativa, the terms, labels, and symbolism all create nonsense. Mathematics is the most simple of the logics, the logic of positional names. The greeks did everything with geometry. There is a good reason. Measurements (real) vs Language (ideal). And we’re stuck with the consequences of treating math as a language – where nonsense can be said. I write about this subject quite a bit because there are two origins to pervasive sophism in western civilization, regardless of field: mathematical idealism, and scriptural interpretation. Both of which stem from the same error. There is a moronic bit of innumeracy going around ‘intelligent design’ circles right now and he’s bit apparently taken the bait. The answer to their query is: evolutionary progress includes loss of intermediary information: it’s hard to reverse engineer cellular evolution.