(Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)
(Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.
-
AMAZING INSIGHT TONIGHT Drifting off to sleep. Woke with a start. Figured out op
AMAZING INSIGHT TONIGHT
Drifting off to sleep. Woke with a start. Figured out operational definition of Karl Popper’s work vs anglo empirical tradition.
Its a difference in ethics. Alex Naraniecki was right. Popper is a Cosmopolitan. Implicit cosmopolitan ethics. Inescapable.
Reverse Russian and operationalists were correct. Popper is correct in the sense that he means ‘try any way to get there you can think of, then harden it’. Whereas the operationalists an intuitionist say ‘try any way to get there that you can think of then construct a proof of it.” The Popperian form of truth is individualistic and utilitarian, and the anglo empirical form of truth is political.
When I tested the argument that production, technical, and scientific methods were the same. That we just valued different outputs from the scientific method, I was right.
I didnt expect the cause of so much difference in philosophy to be one of ethics. But once we discover that the underlying question is the nature of truth, then the differences in philosophical frameworks become obvious expressions of cultural differences in ethics.
We spent a century looking for a logical answer that was in the end an ethical one.
Our metaphysical judgements frame everything we do.
Fuck. I did it.
The world is a different place starting tomorrow.
Damn.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 19:11:00 UTC
-
Operations are not analogies. That’s what’s great about them. No information los
Operations are not analogies. That’s what’s great about them. No information loss, no information ‘gained’ that isn’t there.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 15:50:00 UTC
-
Operations Exist. They Aren’t Analogies.
[O]perations are not analogies, the exist, they are ‘real’. That’s what’s so ‘truthful’ about them. When we perform an operation, there is no information loss, and conversely, no information is ‘gained’, or assumed, that isn’t there.
-
Operations Exist. They Aren't Analogies.
[O]perations are not analogies, the exist, they are ‘real’. That’s what’s so ‘truthful’ about them. When we perform an operation, there is no information loss, and conversely, no information is ‘gained’, or assumed, that isn’t there.
-
Operations Exist. They Aren’t Analogies.
[O]perations are not analogies, the exist, they are ‘real’. That’s what’s so ‘truthful’ about them. When we perform an operation, there is no information loss, and conversely, no information is ‘gained’, or assumed, that isn’t there.
-
Operations Exist. They Aren't Analogies.
[O]perations are not analogies, the exist, they are ‘real’. That’s what’s so ‘truthful’ about them. When we perform an operation, there is no information loss, and conversely, no information is ‘gained’, or assumed, that isn’t there.
-
[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obt
—[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.— Unknown via “Tricky Prickears”
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 03:45:00 UTC
-
SOMETHING MAY BE USEFUL BUT IT MAY NOT BE TRUE Many utilitarian concepts are con
SOMETHING MAY BE USEFUL BUT IT MAY NOT BE TRUE
Many utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 16:35:00 UTC