PEOPLE DON’T DESIRE TRUTH
People desire personal utility, interpersonal justification, and political persuasion so that they can obtain a discount on acquiring one thing or another. But they rarely want the truth, which all too often inhibits all three.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-05 13:28:00 UTC
QUESTION OF THE DAY. READY?
What is the difference between “preferable”, “rational”, “logical”, and “decidable”?
Have fun. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-05 07:59:00 UTC
AUSTRALIAN BANKS CUT BITCOIN
Bitcoin. Told ya. Not money. Divisible shares of stock.
Example of why operational names not analogies matter. Behaviour is demonstrated not conveyed by meaning.
My position was that it wasn’t money. And that it was fraudulent to call it money. Even if in error.
Great technology – except for its not insured by anyone. If insured by a government, or by banks or as means of transfer, it’s innovative.
But basically it cuts out any value if insuring the transaction to the insurer. So it produces negative incentives.
I said the state would break it. And that’s what I see happening.
In retrospect it was caused by t technological failure to create interfaces and applications usable enough for common people to adopt.
Payment by phone is the future and the only store of value is a commodity. Preferably money. Real money. Commodity money.
Shares only retain value as long as owners have faith in the persistence of the company they hold shares in.
I’ve been writing a piece on money to correct mises’ categories.
Guess I should finish it.
Source date (UTC): 2015-10-01 13:33:00 UTC
ACTUALLY I DONT READ PHILOSOPHY.
Marco just reminded me of something I take for granted: I write philosophy but I read science.
Philosophical tradition provides us with an established framework for conveying a complete framework of ideas. I use that framework. But I don’t read many philosophers. They’re largely horrible mixtures of theology, pseudoscience, justification of priors and empty verbalises obscuring the absence of relations.
I view a philosopher’s function as integrating new knowledge into our frames of reference with the ambition of increasing correspondence with reality, because there is advantage in correspondence and disadvantage without.
And as a consequence a philosopher restructures relations, values, and institutions to make use of that new knowledge.
Hence in Propertarianism I follow epistemology with psychology, and I follow ethics with sociology, thereby uniting philosophy psychology and social science.
I view the law as western philosophy and religion. And the judiciary as our priesthood. I view religion and theology, and philosophy largely as propaganda.
And hence my criticism of continentals who seek to construct a new religion. We already have one – and it’s bad: Progressivism. (Liberalism). Or more precisely “democratic secular redistributive(equalitarian), consumer capitalist, humanism”.
I usually argue that the mythos of the church was destructive but the church as an institution was amazingly beneficial.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-30 12:15:00 UTC
[C]RITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION 1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm ) 2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law) 3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness) 4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory) Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious). Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ). Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology. As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kyiv, Ukraine.
[C]RITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION 1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm ) 2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law) 3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness) 4 – We criticize truth propositions (theory) Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are informationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious). Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ). Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology. As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kyiv, Ukraine.
[T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle
[T]he terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion. First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”. An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms? We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise. Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our ethical evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics). Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues. Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe. One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists. So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience. Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences. Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine Source: Curt Doolittle
THE RETURN OF WISDOM
The terms “Wise” and “Wisdom” have largely gone out of fashion.
First, because they mix the observation that one is knowledgeable with the compliment for it, and we have grown to favor more sterile, scientific, terms when giving intellectual compliments. So we say “that was smart” not “that was wise”.
An old adage claims that education makes one cunning but not moral, and a life of experience, study and age makes one both wise and moral, when we wish education to make our next generation wise. But what do we refer to with these terms?
We use the trio: cunning, smart, and wise as a spectrum; using cunning to describe one who takes a shortcut, saves effort, or outwits others; smart to describe one who does the skilled or insightful thing; and wise to one who does that which reaches beyond general rules into nuance of particular cases, and in doing so produces extra benefits in addition to skilled and knowledgeable response. So we call a young thief cunning, a talented engineer smart, and old judge wise.
Second, we discuss three kinds of ethics: Virtue, Rule, and Outcome, often as if they were very different things. But instead, they describe our evolution through life, from someone who has little knowledge but seeks to be the best person that he or she can be(virtue ethics), to someone who has accumulated knowledge of general rules(rule ethics), to someone who has achieved wisdom(outcome ethics).
Wisdom is the product of experience having learned virtues, having learned rules, and having learned nuance to rules if not to virtues.
Third, since the 1920’s, we have passed through a century-long phase of pseudoscience in public discourse not seen since the closure of the stoic schools and forcible institution of christianity, whereby wisdom has been systematically attacked by pseudoscientists in the social sciences, literature, and the fine arts. It spread from Columbia University, to nearly all faculties, first in America, and then in Europe.
One of the central arguments used by the pseudo-scientists was that accumulated wisdom was not from observation – and therefore empirical – but from bias and design. An ironic position since this was the strategy used by the pseudoscientists.
So over the course of the second half of the twentieth century we saw generations taught this pseudoscience emerge and actively and constantly criticize accumulated wisdom – knowledge, to be replaced by the new pseudoscience.
Starting in 1999, with Stephen Pinker, helped by a generation of new technology in cognitive science and in genetics, we have slowly seen the daily constant reversal of the pseudoscientists, and the return of wisdom – exhaustive observation – in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, social, economic and political sciences.
Wisdom slowly returns to us thanks to science. So one day soon, some of us will again be called “wise”.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-26 03:20:00 UTC
WHY THE SKEPTICS WERE MOSTLY RIGHT
CRITICISM AS JUSTIFICATION
1 – We justify moral action ( dependence upon norm )
2 – We justify legal contract ( explicit reference to law)
3- We are skeptical of perception and cognition. (Honesty of witness)
4 – We criticise truth propositions (theory)
Because in each case we test for different properties all of which we blanket under an analogy to the term “true”, but none of which are infirmationally complete enough to in fact be true (ultimately parsimonious).
Instead, when we use the term true, we mean that we have adhered to moral norms in each case, when we give our testimony ( speak ).
Truth then is a moral warranty of due diligence against falsehood. It is not and cannot ever exist outside of tautology.
As far as I know that is the final analysis available to us.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.
Kyiv, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-25 08:27:00 UTC