Category: Epistemology and Method

  • (Hayek’s The Philosopher. It’s more that I’m the Logician for him.)

    Apr 29, 2020, 9:18 AM It’s more that Hayek is the philosopher and I’m the logician – but I”m only the logician because my generation included Gary Becker’s application of economics to all social science, Hoppe’s near analytic reduction of property to a system of measurement, the popperian-falsificationary and scientific method debate was still in progress, the revolutions of algorithmic programming, the genetic revolution and the cognitive science revolution. Great insights are the result of being born in a time where the generations before have distilled various streams into a river of knowledge for one to bathe in.

  • (Hayek’s The Philosopher. It’s more that I’m the Logician for him.)

    Apr 29, 2020, 9:18 AM It’s more that Hayek is the philosopher and I’m the logician – but I”m only the logician because my generation included Gary Becker’s application of economics to all social science, Hoppe’s near analytic reduction of property to a system of measurement, the popperian-falsificationary and scientific method debate was still in progress, the revolutions of algorithmic programming, the genetic revolution and the cognitive science revolution. Great insights are the result of being born in a time where the generations before have distilled various streams into a river of knowledge for one to bathe in.

  • The Three Faculties and their Falsifications

    Apr 30, 2020, 1:07 PM I mean, humans have three sets of faculties:

    1. The physical(existential),
    2. the ‘rational-reciprocal'(value), and;
    3. the logical(possible).

    So of course we need to perform falsification in all those dimensions: LOGICAL Categorical consistency (identity) Internal Consistency (logical) RATIONAL Rational Choice Reciprocal Rational Choice PHYSICAL Operationally possible Empirically consistent SCOPE (COMPLETNESS) Limits (have I stated the limits) Fully accounting (have i fully accounted for all) LIABILITY (OTHERS) Warranty (is it warrantable) Liability (is it within the limits of possible restitution)

  • The Three Faculties and their Falsifications

    Apr 30, 2020, 1:07 PM I mean, humans have three sets of faculties:

    1. The physical(existential),
    2. the ‘rational-reciprocal'(value), and;
    3. the logical(possible).

    So of course we need to perform falsification in all those dimensions: LOGICAL Categorical consistency (identity) Internal Consistency (logical) RATIONAL Rational Choice Reciprocal Rational Choice PHYSICAL Operationally possible Empirically consistent SCOPE (COMPLETNESS) Limits (have I stated the limits) Fully accounting (have i fully accounted for all) LIABILITY (OTHERS) Warranty (is it warrantable) Liability (is it within the limits of possible restitution)

  • How to demonstrate you know what you’re talking about

    How to demonstrate you know what you’re talking about. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/how-to-demonstrate-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:08:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259153207042945026

  • How to demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.

    May 2, 2020, 8:25 AM

    1. If you can write a definition like you can demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.
    2. If you CAN’T write a definition like this you CAN’T demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.

    3. Trying to write a definition like this is how you learn what you don’t yet know.

    4. So you discover what you don’t know, then learn, and then write definitions like this until you ‘complete the proof’ that you know what you’re talking about. 😉

     

  • How to demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.

    May 2, 2020, 8:25 AM

    1. If you can write a definition like you can demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.
    2. If you CAN’T write a definition like this you CAN’T demonstrate you know what you’re talking about.

    3. Trying to write a definition like this is how you learn what you don’t yet know.

    4. So you discover what you don’t know, then learn, and then write definitions like this until you ‘complete the proof’ that you know what you’re talking about. 😉

     

  • The Errors of Our Thinking at Both Bottom and Top

    May 2, 2020, 10:19 AM Dunning-Kruger overconfidence expresses a lack of ability. However, educational overconfidence expresses a lack of skepticism. Half truths whether theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, or formal, are sources of ignorance by providing us with overconfidence. Mathiness has been the source of formal, philosophical, and scientific (physical and social) ignorance. Philosophical sophistry has been the source of most of the rest of pseudo intellectual ignorance. And of course theological – a monopoly conflating all the falsehoods plus false promise – is the most ignorance inducing of all. It appears that there are a very small number of fundamental laws that can be taught to everyone at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the suppression of the parasitism of the elite classes. Paragraph one – low end of the spectrum Paragraph two – high end of the spectrum Paragraph three – curing the problems of the high AND low ends of the spectrum

  • The Errors of Our Thinking at Both Bottom and Top

    May 2, 2020, 10:19 AM Dunning-Kruger overconfidence expresses a lack of ability. However, educational overconfidence expresses a lack of skepticism. Half truths whether theological, philosophical, historical, scientific, or formal, are sources of ignorance by providing us with overconfidence. Mathiness has been the source of formal, philosophical, and scientific (physical and social) ignorance. Philosophical sophistry has been the source of most of the rest of pseudo intellectual ignorance. And of course theological – a monopoly conflating all the falsehoods plus false promise – is the most ignorance inducing of all. It appears that there are a very small number of fundamental laws that can be taught to everyone at the cost of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses, and the suppression of the parasitism of the elite classes. Paragraph one – low end of the spectrum Paragraph two – high end of the spectrum Paragraph three – curing the problems of the high AND low ends of the spectrum

  • When We Perceive Something Wrong – We’re Right

    May 2, 2020, 11:07 AM (The Economics of Communication) To profit we must exchange. To trade (communication) requires we discover a medium of exchange. To exchange we must discover coincidences of wants using the available medium of exchange. All language consists of measurements. Measurements within paradigms. Paradigms that serve interests. Interests that are achievable with abilities. And values that measure the degree of interests. So we are trying to achieve commensurability so that we can measure the value of the exchange. When we are frustrated it means we are seeking cooperation (exchange, trade, returns) where the transaction costs are higher than the rewards. When we are not frustrated it means we have divided the labor of discovering coincidences of wants, commensurable mediums of exchanges, given abilities, values, and paradigms. Are we frustrated that they don’t think like us or that the cost of thinking like them, or reducing our thoughts to their level of precision is too costly? Are we frustrated by those cost or are we frustrated that that we no longer function in an aristocratic hierarchy because under democracy our words despite our differences in ability are mispriced? If we were still ruled by Nindsors, Nevilles, Fitzroys, Marlboroughs, Curzons rather than the parliament of fools would we have this problem? If the anglo-dutch aristocracy and the german labor majority were not undermined by underclass immigration? If our society was organized multi dimensionally so that the martial hierarchy, the commercial hierarchy, and the informational hierarchy were mediated by the law preventing ‘putting fingers on the scale’, would this be the case? So my view is the over-commercialization of society, and the over-politicization of society that were the result of the windfalls of the industrial revolution, and the (((world wars))) we tolerated by not nationalizing banking, and redistributing the windfalls of interests on state credit, as we all sought to seek commercial success where the balance of military-aristocratic, comercial-noble, and intellectual-arts and knowledge, and priestly-service could compete on their own terms rather than universal commercialization (privatization). We are at the end of the windfall. And we must learn, that like the athenian discovery of the silver mine, the roman conquest of the celts, the spanish conquest of the mezzo americas, that the industrial revolution created the ability to devote our energies increasingly away from food production to innovation. And that we followed the folly of the athenians, romans, the spanish, into the false promise of endless growth and the abandonment of aristocratic martial discipline, in favor of commercial overconsumption. If something is’t computing without substantial friction than the computation system is ‘programmed’ with the incorrect incentives and resulting division of labor.