[I] don’t like to just ‘point’ to my glossary entries every time I use some term. I’d rather defend each term in context – it’s like physical fitness. I get better at my arguments with every ‘set of reps’. In a perfect world, every time a use a term, FB would link to it in my glossary. (Even on my web site I have to do it manually). But my Glossary is 50K words of definitions. I started it in 2009. I don’t really have to add to it all that often any longer. I periodically take a given letter (A-Z) and update it. But you know, it’s turned out to be pretty stable. Some terms are marked “undone” so that I go back and finish them. Some could use some clarification. My original intention was to emphasize those terms that I have modified or which I’ve created. But many many terms have been modified to abandon enlightenment errors and introduce propertarian corrections to those terms. http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Truth Claims Carry The Burden Of Construction
If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration. And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests. This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction. And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism. You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim. Which is unethical.
-
Truth Claims Carry The Burden Of Construction
If one makes truth claims, one carries the burden of demonstration. And, unfortunately, language is a terribly convenient tool for engaging in both deception and self deception. So to prohibit deception as well as self-deception, we must rely on a demonstration of knowledge of construction of terms, not just a knowledge of the use of terms. Just as we must rely upon the demonstration of internal consistency using logic, and external correspondence using tests. This means that if you make a truth claim using platonic language, you are not demonstrating knowledge of construction. And therefore is it is not possible to make truth claims under platonism. You are claiming truth which you cannot demonstrate the knowledge to claim. Which is unethical.
-
Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.
[T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.
-
Unfortunately, Pseudoscientific Language Is Really Useful.
[T]he question is whether “truth” in the context of Critical Rationalism is an analogy or not. I posit that it’s analogistic language just like nearly all uses of ‘truth’. The only action that can exist is attestation. And nothing can be said to be ‘true’ independent of someone’s cognition. I’m trying to eliminate pseudoscientific language. Because pseudoscientific language is unethical and immoral. It may be efficient. It may be useful. It may even in some cases be conceptually necessary. All disciplines rely upon such contrivances for the sake of brevity and ease. These contrivances my be utilitarian, but that is different from saying that they are ‘true’.
-
Argument, Moral Blindness, and Institutions
[I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.
-
Argument, Moral Blindness, and Institutions
[I] can tell your moral code and political preference by the method you use to argue, as much as I can the moral bias of your arguments. And I’m still surprised at myself, despite knowing that (other than conservatives) people are morally blind, I try to reason with people. Now the fact is, that I know when I’m doing it, that it’s impossible. Like anyone else I hope to do a little education – to provide a light into the moral darkness. But, my objective is actually to learn how to state my arguments in a multitude of fashions, such that they explain those different areas of moral blindness. I know I cannot convince others to change their moral bias. It’s genetic. But I can consistently improve my arguments. My arguments are prescriptive. I know that is impossible. What I can do is construct institutions that allow us to cooperate despite these moral biases. But in the end, we are other than gene-machines, using very elaborate language to justify our reproductive strategies.
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
On English As The Language Of Ethics
(cross posted for archival purposes) [E]nglish is a very precise and technical language. Probably the most empirically framed language we have. As such it’s burdensome. The verb “to-be” problem (the problem of ‘is’, and solved with E’) evolved and exists largely as an operational simplifier in an already burdensome language. Secondly it’s an emotionally unloaded language – very german. And so we have to invent all sorts of devices to add emotion to an emotionally unloaded language. We used to do that with artistry – riddle, poetry, rhyme, insinuation, innuendo, and allegory. I think that with the rise of mass education, marketing, military and technical language, as well as cultural diversity those more artistic means of adding emotional content have been replaced by simplistic exaggeration and euphemism as you’ve mentioned above. [N]ow, assuming that we want to eliminate mysticism, platonism, postmodernism, obscurantism, and various forms of loading and framing, so that we can construct a scientific language of ethics, morality, law and politics (a logic of cooperation), in which it is impossible to obscure involuntary transfers (thefts); and assuming that the performative theory of truth is correct and that it requires an individual to possess not only knowledge of use, but knowledge of construction; and assuming that with such knowledge one can, and must, and assuming that the only means by which we can test both transparency of transfers and and knowledge of construction, and therefore the only means of speaking honestly is with E’ in operational language; then the burden on the speaker is quite high. Extraordinarily so. This set of ethical and moral constraints upon language of produces a few very interesting consequences: (a) Because of that high burden, similar to the burden of memorization placed on ‘wise men’ in oral tradition societies, it severely limits the number of people who can participate in public discourse – effectively recreating our druidic ancestors. (b) it makes it possible for anyone to prosecute obscurantists of all kinds for conspiracy to commit fraud, under the common law. Public intellectuals, attempted statists, lawyers, judges, and the common folk included. Actually, I don’t think it’s possible to state a logic of ethical, moral, legal, and political argument in any language OTHER than English or German – and I’m not sure about German. (I only studied it for one year and I can’t speak it at all. I just understand its structure.) Cheers Curt
COMMENTS Jeannine DiPerna, Michael Pattinson and Eric Field like this. Curt Doolittle (hat tip to Paul Bakhmut)
-
Categories of Knowledge: Improving on Mokyr
Wondering…. Hmmm. I don’t like Mokyr’s categories of knowledge. I tend to state them as “knowledge of construction” and “knowledge of use”. Now he’s been trying to talk about the knowledge economy, so only usable knowledge is meaningful to him. But I think this is the correct expanded hierarchy. 0) Knowledge of identity. (we are aware of it) 1) Knowledge of consequence. (what changes in state we can observe) 2) Knowledge of use. (how to put it under out control to change states) 3) Knowledge of construction. (what its made of and how its made) Curt