ON POPPER’S POSITION VS ACTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (reposted from cr page for archiving) All we can say is x set of recipes have y properties in common, and all known recipes have z properties in common, and therefore we will likely find new recipes that share z properties. Logic is one of the instruments we use to construct recipes. Logic is a technology. Just as are the narrative, numbers, arithmetic, math, physics, and cooperation. These are all instrumental technologies or we would not need them and could perform the same operations without them. Science, as in the ‘method’ of science, is a recipe for employing those instruments ‘technologies’. Science is a technology. It is external to our intuitions, and we must use it like any other technology, in order to extend our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and planning. So I simply view ‘fuzzy language’ as what it is. And statements reducible to operational language as the only representation of scientific discourse. Theory means nothing different from fantasy without recording, instrument, operations, repetition, and falsification. A theory is a fantasy, a bit of imagination, and the recipes that survive are what remains of that fantasy once all human cognitive bias and limitation is laundered by our ‘technologies’. Recipes are unit of commensurability against which we can calculate differences, to further extend and refine our imaginary fantasies. Just as we test each individual action in a recipe against objective reality, we test each new fantasy against the accumulated properties stated in our recipes. From those tests of fantasy against our accumulated recipes, we observe in ourselves changes in our own instruments of logic. Extensions of our perception, memory, calculation – knowledge – is the collection of general instruments that apply in smaller numbers, to increasingly large categories of problems. (This is the reason Flynn suspects, for the Flynn effect as well as our tendency to improve upon tests.) It is these general principles (like the scientific method) that we can state are ‘knowledge’ in the sense of ‘knowledge of what’ versus ‘knowledge of how’ (See Gifts of Athena). Recipes are knowledge of ‘what’. General principles of how the universe functions are knowledge of ‘how’. Popper failed to make the distinction of dividing the problem into classes and instrumentation. And he did so because, as I have stated, he was overly fascinated with words, and under-fascinated with actions. And while I can only hypothesize why he is, like many of his peers, pseudo-scientifically fascinated with words, rather than scientifically fascinated with actions, the fact remains, that he was. And he, like Mises and Hayek and their followers, failed to produce a theory of the social sciences. CR is the best moral prescription for knowledge because it logically forbids the use of science to make claims of certainty sufficient to deprive people of voluntary choice. Popper justified skepticism and prohibited involuntary transfer by way of scientific argument. A necessary idea for his time. In science, he prohibited a return to mysticism by reliance on science equal to faith in god. But that is his achievement. He was the intellectual linebacker of the 20th century. He denied the opposition the field. But prohibition was not in itself an answer. Instrumentalism is necessary. Calculation is necessary. Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience is necessary. Morality consists of the prevention of thefts and discounts. Actions that produce predictable outcomes, not states of imagination. That is the answer.
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
On Popper’s Position, vs Action and Instrumentation
ON POPPER’S POSITION VS ACTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (reposted from cr page for archiving) All we can say is x set of recipes have y properties in common, and all known recipes have z properties in common, and therefore we will likely find new recipes that share z properties. Logic is one of the instruments we use to construct recipes. Logic is a technology. Just as are the narrative, numbers, arithmetic, math, physics, and cooperation. These are all instrumental technologies or we would not need them and could perform the same operations without them. Science, as in the ‘method’ of science, is a recipe for employing those instruments ‘technologies’. Science is a technology. It is external to our intuitions, and we must use it like any other technology, in order to extend our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and planning. So I simply view ‘fuzzy language’ as what it is. And statements reducible to operational language as the only representation of scientific discourse. Theory means nothing different from fantasy without recording, instrument, operations, repetition, and falsification. A theory is a fantasy, a bit of imagination, and the recipes that survive are what remains of that fantasy once all human cognitive bias and limitation is laundered by our ‘technologies’. Recipes are unit of commensurability against which we can calculate differences, to further extend and refine our imaginary fantasies. Just as we test each individual action in a recipe against objective reality, we test each new fantasy against the accumulated properties stated in our recipes. From those tests of fantasy against our accumulated recipes, we observe in ourselves changes in our own instruments of logic. Extensions of our perception, memory, calculation – knowledge – is the collection of general instruments that apply in smaller numbers, to increasingly large categories of problems. (This is the reason Flynn suspects, for the Flynn effect as well as our tendency to improve upon tests.) It is these general principles (like the scientific method) that we can state are ‘knowledge’ in the sense of ‘knowledge of what’ versus ‘knowledge of how’ (See Gifts of Athena). Recipes are knowledge of ‘what’. General principles of how the universe functions are knowledge of ‘how’. Popper failed to make the distinction of dividing the problem into classes and instrumentation. And he did so because, as I have stated, he was overly fascinated with words, and under-fascinated with actions. And while I can only hypothesize why he is, like many of his peers, pseudo-scientifically fascinated with words, rather than scientifically fascinated with actions, the fact remains, that he was. And he, like Mises and Hayek and their followers, failed to produce a theory of the social sciences. CR is the best moral prescription for knowledge because it logically forbids the use of science to make claims of certainty sufficient to deprive people of voluntary choice. Popper justified skepticism and prohibited involuntary transfer by way of scientific argument. A necessary idea for his time. In science, he prohibited a return to mysticism by reliance on science equal to faith in god. But that is his achievement. He was the intellectual linebacker of the 20th century. He denied the opposition the field. But prohibition was not in itself an answer. Instrumentalism is necessary. Calculation is necessary. Reduction of the imperceptible to analogy to experience is necessary. Morality consists of the prevention of thefts and discounts. Actions that produce predictable outcomes, not states of imagination. That is the answer.
-
WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COM
http://shar.es/QBhQ0YES WE NEED A NEW MATHEMATICAL REVOLUTION ON THE SCALE OF CALCULUS : THE UNIT OF COMMENSURABILITY IN THAT MATHEMATICS, IS PROPERTY, AND ITS GRAMMAR IS MORAL
The mathematical order of big data? Property.
1) Humans (life) is acquisitive.
2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things.
3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire.
4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions.
5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer)
6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under.
6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it.
(I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 03:48:00 UTC
-
CORRECTING POSTMODERN ACADEMIC MYSTICISM When some victim of postmodern indoctri
CORRECTING POSTMODERN ACADEMIC MYSTICISM
When some victim of postmodern indoctrination says, such and such people ‘believe’ such and such, they are engaging in deception, no different whatsoever, from those who say ‘god wills it’.
Human “beliefs” are, universally, justifications – excuses. Under all justifications are some form of transfer of property. Or excuse for the failure of the individual to gain access to property because of an immoral social structure.
Look for the cause: property, not the justifications. When you do, all human social interaction consists of acts of voluntary exchange.
Where it doesn’t, it’s merely kin selection.
Help stamp out Postmodern Mysticism in the social sciences.
Refute a postmodern mystic at every opportunity.
Its one of the most moral things you can do.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-10 11:24:00 UTC
-
HOW DO WE USE SCIENCE TO CONSTRUCT OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY? Science is the con
HOW DO WE USE SCIENCE TO CONSTRUCT OUR PERCEPTION OF REALITY?
Science is the construction of calculable analogies to experience by means of instrumentation consisting of tools for correspondence and logics for coherence.
(reposted for archiving purposes)
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-06 10:18:00 UTC
-
STATE OF THE ART (personal fears) I feel really comfortable with jumping off whe
STATE OF THE ART
(personal fears)
I feel really comfortable with jumping off where Penelope Maddy left off with her Second Philosopher’s AREALISM, and transforming her basic arguments into realism via operational language. That’s not hard. That solves the problem of communicating the death of platonism.
As for contemporary philosophy, it looks like there are only two active philosophers worth following. Which is kind of scary if you think about it. The most heralded philosophers are largely the continentals now. A fact which I find terrifying. Because it’s just elaborate christian mysticism trying to justify socialism. (It’s creepy. It’s the mental equivalent of working on weaponizing the bird flu virus into an unstoppable plague. But since we’ve had a number of conceptual plagues – most of them by jewish authors for some reason or other, which I can’t comprehend: zoroaster, abraham, jesus, peter and paul, muhammed, rousseau, kant, marx, freud, cantor, heidegger – I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the effort to formulate a new religion continues unabated. )
There are two good and active philosophers: Searle and Dennett. Otherwise contemporary philosophy is a desert. I am not brave enough to think I”m in that class of minds. I’m not. I just stumbled on the right answers like the poor fellows who discovered Lexan. But I have definitely solved the following problems so far as ethics, politics and political economy are concerned:
1) Mathematical Realism. (I seem to be the only one to do this.)
2) Ethical Realism. (I seem to be the only one to do this)
3) The unification of philosophical disciplines
4) The formal logic of cooperation.
5) The institutions of morally heterogeneous polities. And given that I don’t think I’ve really stated anything terribly novel in the institutional solutions department, all I have done is provide an explanation of why a particular set of solutions are scientific, rational, ethical, moral and just. Rather than some arbitrary moralistic Hail Mary play. (see Rawls.)
I understand Kripke’s innovation pretty clearly I think. But I still think that the solution to internally consistent logic is replaced by the logic of cooperation. I just don’t know if I can really take that line of thought any further into a critique of formal logic. So I don’t know the impact that operational language would have on formal logic. So far as I can tell, the problem is no longer one of language and statements but the reducibility of statements to human action. If you grok that one change alone, then you sort of understand all you need to.
I can sort of reconcile this with Kripke. Although I have to go back and re-read Naming and Necessity again with my current understanding and see if my previous understanding holds up.
BUT THE PROBLEM WILL BE READABILITY
I still think it’s going to be hard without the help of a patient editor to capture these ideas as a coherent whole. I can make a philosophy that you can study once you understand it’s value. But I don’t think I can sell someone on that philosophy through easy of comprehension. I have reduced most of the central arguments to pretty simple concepts. But holding the reader’s hand through the journey is a lot harder than simply stating the definitions and methods. I just don’t think I can do it. I don’t think so because I understand the problem of the limit that one can hold in short term memory. And my crutch to get around that problem is to use the text as the short term memory that I don’t have, but that most great authors do have. So far my only solution has been to just keep trying until I can reduce it. But at this point I’m not sure that I’m making further progress at reduction.
ie: I’m afraid to put finger to keyboard. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot easier to let months pass improving on minor points than it is to tackle the equivalent of Elinor Ostrom’s grammar. I know full well that I’ve completed the ethics, the philosophy, the institutions and the applications. But I’m afraid to confront my inadequacy as a writer. So afraid that it’s hindering me.
Not sure what to do other than power through it in a snowy chalet somewhere… Not afraid of much really. Not afraid of dying even. But I’m afraid to fail at this for sure…..
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 16:39:00 UTC
-
MORAL INTUITIONISM IS A TEST NOT A TRUTH. I agree with moral intuitionalism. How
MORAL INTUITIONISM IS A TEST NOT A TRUTH.
I agree with moral intuitionalism. However, that is a statement about our ability to test moral statements. It is not a test of whether moral statements are NECESSARY and therefore TRUE or not.
You might notice that I don’t rely on NORMATIVE expressions of morality EVER in my arguments.
Introspection is not only insufficient for the solution to the mind body problem, and the problem of consciousness, but it is also insufficient for analysis of morality.
In fact, any philosophical argument that relies upon introspection, is, I am fairly certain, a fallacy. (Although I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can provide an example.)
Truth is a function of correspondence on one hand and internal consistency on the other. Introspection fails both of those tests without the use of instrumentation to test our thoughts.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-05 09:08:00 UTC
-
THE VALUE OF ARGUING WITH THE TINFOIL HAT CROWD It is ABSOLUTELY valuable to arg
THE VALUE OF ARGUING WITH THE TINFOIL HAT CROWD
It is ABSOLUTELY valuable to argue with the Tinfoil Hat crowd, so that you can master the common rhetorical fallacies without relying on normative assumptions for defense. Normative assumptions are just another paradigmatic frame.
As you move into more and more intellectual and academic debate, you realize that the only difference between the Yahoo-news-group idiots, the postmodern social science idiots, the scientistic idiots, and the public intellectual idiots is the density of the tinfoil. The nature of the individuals assumptions simply mature from:
a) schizophrenic bias, to
b) confirmation bias, to
c) nihilistic bias, to
d) pseudoscientific bias, to
e) methodological bias, to
f) paradigmatic bias.
Almost no one gets to skeptical empiricism in the Popperian, and certainly not in the Poincaré models. You can end up like Paul Krugman and ignore the fact that what you’re deducing from your measurements about monetary policy is merely noise, when the military expansion of anglo rules of trade is the signal.
You can end up like John Ralws and Sam Harris and confuse analogy with causality, then compounding your confusion by making the error of aggregation.
The best defense I have made against these errors is to focus on defining and reconciling spectrums – the golden mean. You can make an assumptive line between two ideal types pretty easily – the least work path. But it’s much harder to make errors if you define the different spectrums and see how they intersect with one another. It is much harder to reconcile sets of definitions in ordered spectra with each other.
And it is much easier with a rich language than an allegorical language. It is even easier in operational language.
Or at least. As easy as it can be.
WHICH IS WHY I”M ALWAYS WRITING LISTS (ordered sets).
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-04 04:39:00 UTC
-
CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN It is a fundamental statement of logic that
CAN WE DEFINE TERRORISM? SURE WE CAN
It is a fundamental statement of logic that if you cannot describe a term in operational language then one of the following statements is true:
1) You do not understand what you are talking about, and should refrain from talking about what you do not understand, until you do understand it.
2) Something is false with your criteria for satisfying the definition. (There are no paradoxes.)
3) You are trying to make facts suit your theoretical preference rather than modify your theoretical preference to correspond to the facts.
4) You are relying on normative rather than necessary properties.
5) You are trying to justify the use of a morally or politically loaded term to suit your purposes as a means of free-riding on pop-sentiments.
If you cannot reduce your statements to operational language then you are engaging in self deception, justification, the deception of others, or all three.
Academic, Postmodern, pseudo-science relies on all five of these criteria.
Am I left with the only possible conclusion, already, in just one week, that the class is not an honest pursuit of the truth, but a personal marketing campaign for justification of that which is not understood?
Terrorism is, in both common usage, and etymological origin, a pejorative criticism. Rebellion is not a matter for criticism, but a demonstration of the failure of the government. Either because the government fails to answer the needs of some group, fails to publicly invalidate the needs of some group, or seeks dominion over some group by monopoly fiat that should be given right of secession to choose some OTHER order more beneficial to that group’s sentiments.
The use of violence by those under the influence of the monopoly state, against state (political, bureaucratic and military), state-corporate (finance, banking, oil, infrastructure and transportation- the economy is an act of rebellion, and is a necessary and JUST USE of violence because under a monopoly, and equally under majority rule monopoly, one has no choice. If one has no choice, then rebellion is the only possible action one can take. Otherwise we say that majorities can do whatever they wish and that as such all state actions sanctioned by the majority, or even just the majority of their political representatives, no matter how immoral, unethical, or disadvantageous to some group is legitimate.)
Violence is not equivalent to terror. We may be afraid of it. But that we are afraid is a false equivalency. The purpose of Terror is the demonstration of power for the purpose of ‘marketing’. The purpose of Rebellion is the demonstration of power for the purpose of marketing marketing. Given enough marketing, the users of violence, whether terrorists or rebels hope to generate demand for political solutions to their complaints, that the state satisfies BOTH the demands of the users of violence, rebels or terrorists, AND the demands of the public for a solution to the violence.
The international charter of human rights consists almost entirely of enumerated anglo-american private property rights, plus four ambitions that states are chartered with seeking to solve if possible, as a limited nod to the communist movement that was popular at the time. By enacting this charter we state that STATES will hold other states accountable for the treatment of their citizens. However, we also, by ancient practice, hold states accountable for the actions of their citizens. (If your state houses terrorists then you are responsible for the consequences. (Just as the desert housed raiders in the arab conquest of the Byzantine and Sassanid empires.)
Furthermore, the USA participates in terribly confusing rhetoric but it’s policy has been consistent in the postwar era:
(a) The USA always supports the right of self determination wherever strategically and economically possible to do so (Saudis and Israelis the notable exceptions.)
(b) A democratically elected government is de-facto a legitimate government.
(c) A population can elect whatever government that it chooses to.
(d) The USA will hold the government accountable for it’s actions as stewards of the charter of human rights, and the international pattern of finance and trade, where the only tolerable means of competition is in the market for mutually voluntary exchange. This means that USA will punish the government and it’s civilians for violations of this charter until the people select a government that does respect those rights and obligations.
So Terrorism must satisfy these three criteria:
(a) violence against civilians or cultural symbols and icons
(b) that disrupts the predictable assumption of safety.
(c) for the purpose of generating demand for political policy.
(d) by non state actors.
One of the ways we reduced product tampering was to stop reporting on it. If we didn’t report on terrorism the impact would not be as dramatic but would follow that trend. (A.C. Nielsen was influential in demonstrating that the problem was providing a venue.)
Rebellion must satisfy the following criteria:
(a) violence against military, political, economic and symbolic targets.
(b) that disrupts the assumption of sufficient legitimacy of the government
(c) for the purpose of generating demand for policy
(d) by citizens under the control of a monopoly government
Warfare constitutes the remaining state actions.
Crime constitutes the remaining actions by the citizenry.
A normal 2×2 grid is sufficient for determining whether an action constitutes crime, rebellion, terrorism and war – in that order.
This classification prevents the false attribution of legitimacy to the state by classifying crime and rebellion as terrorism.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-02 09:41:00 UTC
-
THANK YOU -ALL- FOR LETTING ME TEST MY RECENT IDEAS ON YOU AND YOUR PATIENCE 🙂
THANK YOU -ALL- FOR LETTING ME TEST MY RECENT IDEAS ON YOU AND YOUR PATIENCE 🙂
It was necessary. It’s the only way to test ideas that I know of. I just construct arguments. They’re like little robot gladiators. If they succeed we learn, if they fail we learn. But the only way to test your own understanding is to argue your points, and see if they survive.
UNITING FACTIONS
I should, at this point, be able to achieve my goals, and unite the Conservative (normative and moral), Dark Enlightenment (scientific and political) and Anarcho Capitalist (economic and philosophical) movements in a common rational, political and moral language.
Each group is ‘right’ about something and ‘wrong’ about other things. This is because each group gives greater weight to some social properties and less to others.
POLITICAL IDENTITIES
The rough strategy involves giving each group an identity or specialization, and using propertarian language as a means of working together, so that each group does not have to master, or even value, the biases of the other.
Although the work of doing all that ought to be a bit daunting. Mostly because intellect is not evenly distributed across these groups. It’s hard enough to have a challenging talk with libertarians, but …. you know, having that talk with conservatives, and some DE folks, is an exercise in futility.
But reality is created by chanting. Repetition allows us to gradually connect the networks of neurons needed to understand associations.
The grammar of this language is pretty simple. It takes some getting used to. Because we’re linguistically lazy, and formal logic is linguistically burdensome, in exchange for argumentative clarity, and praxeological testability.
I HAD TO TEST MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS TO REPLACE THEM WITH PROPERTARIAN ETHICS.
I’m sure that I frustrated some libertarians. No one likes the slaughter of their sacred cows. Even though, it’s pretty clear that I’ve forever dispatched Rothbardian ethics from rational consideration.
I put a bullet in the NAP/PrivateProperty that it cannot recover from. The wound is mortal. It just depends on how long it will take for the idea to die.
I’ve demonstrated that either the NAP is the wrong test of violation of property, OR that the definition of property is insufficient in scope for rational use in a polity.
In propertarianism I have taken the approach of extending the definition of property and maintaining the principle of aggression against it because I have based, correctly, the source of property rights on the organized use of violence, and aggression is consistent with that argumentative logic.
I HAD TO TEST OPERATIONALISM AS AN ATTACK ON PLATONISM IN ORDER TO CREATE UNIVERSAL ETHICS, AND CONVERT PRAXEOLOGY INTO THE MISSING BRANCH OF LOGIC.
It was actually fascinating to see people in math and science DESPERATELY cling to their platonic arealism with the same fervor that mystics justify their defense of a supernatural god.
I’m still …. really… awed, that anyone presented with constructive(intuitionist,realist,operational) arguments would even for a MOMENT question that platonism was merely a crutch for the weak mind.
But operationalism and the logic of cooperation (praxeology) form the missing logic with which we begin to see all philosophy as a theory of action.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE
I guess I have to get serious now about (a) contributing to the other political dialogs, (b) introducing them to these ideas, and (c) producing the grammar and (d) finishing the first book (at least).
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-31 03:54:00 UTC