Again. Tweets are for propaganda. Posts are for arguments. The minimum post size to make an argument consisting of a chain of causality is in the vicinity of 750 words.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 16:06:21 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/5088278110614639
by Bill Joslin
—“That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse).”— Curt
(Gunna tattoo this on the inside of the eyelids for the next little while.)
1 – SUPERNATURAL – undecidable
2 – ARGUMENT – imaginable, possible (under ideal circumstances)
3 – MODEL- possible within necessary conditions (operational, constant relationship).
If the conditions are observable (without necessary interpretation) the model is extant.
If not, can possible changes to relations with the condition be made. If so, then existentially possible.
— Curt Responds—
1 – Fictionalism [Supernatural] – limited by free association
2 – Argument [Ideal] – limited by internal consistency
3 – Model [ Real] -limited by sequential existential possibility.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 10:00:00 UTC
MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS.
That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse).
Operationalism requires you to create a model.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:34:00 UTC
INSIGHT INTO HOPPE’S FALLACY
(updated for accessibility)
—“All truth-claims – all claims that a given proposition is true, false, indeterminate or un-decidable or that an argument is valid and complete or not – are raised, justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe
This is a variation on Marx’s Dialectical Materialism (social competition).
– It presumes that the choices in all discourse are cooperation vs non, where they are violence/predation, cooperation, or non-cooperation.
– It presumes the existence of a contract for cooperation when none exists.
– It presumes that the parties seek agreement to cooperate on truth rather than deception.
– It assumes parties in dispute seek agreement rather than truth or falsehood and blame.
– It presumes parties debate in a court that does not operate by the same terms as the parties who are debating each other.
Courts do not seek consensus. They do not seek truth. They seek cases of falsehood, cases of deception, and cases of malincentives, and total internal and external changes in capital (property in toto). Your excuses don’t mean anything.
CONVERSELY
Notice that what Hoppe’s quote is NOT a statement of:
– Personal responsibility for the truth content of one’s words.
– Due Diligence of Testimony under law.
– Due Diligence in Science.
OR
– Due Diligence in argument
– Due Diligence in the Pursuit of Truth.
OR
– Modeling what people *demonstrate by their actions*.
What is the difference? In western ethics, the consequences of deceit might mean your death. In other words: warranty of your words, because one of the outcomes may be violence.
In other words *western ethics*.
Whereas, Hoppe is following jewish ethics, and jewish pilpul and following the marxists, and the postmodernists into social construction by stating that we haggle our way to agreement. We do not defend our way out of violence, parasitism, and deceit.
—-“The truth of this proposition cannot be disputed without falling into contradiction, as any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument. Hence, the“Apriori” of argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe
Well as far as I know I just defeated it, because the premises are false.
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE
Why am I arguing against hoppe other than to prevent harm to my people who out of their high trust nature are suggestible by overloading with his nonsense prose? I am dependent upon my fellows for competitive advantage. so damage to the informational commons is an aggression against the high investment i and mine have made in the normative, informational, and institutional commons. and why do the courts not allow me and mine to seek restitution for those aggressions? They should. Because no marxist or postmodernist propaganda would survive.
CLOSING
In other words, Hoppe is another user of conflation, non-operationalism (which exposes these errors), and non-western european ethics.
This is why deflationary truth, including operationalism, are so important: because there is a very big difference between the {verbal and ideal} and the {operational and real}.
MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS.
That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse). Operationalism = Real, possible, and fully accounted.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:31:00 UTC
—“Once virtue signaling ceases to pay, they give up.”— Michael Churchill
Truth ends Virtue Signaling.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 12:32:00 UTC
ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES
DEFINITION
A conspiracy theory is defined by four characteristics: (1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, avoid blame, obscure truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good.
COMMON
At least 50 percent of the population believe in at least one conspiracy theory. The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories. The more highly educated a participant, the less likely they are to believe conspiracy theories.
Debunking conspiracy theories leads to a “backfire effect.” Efforts to debunk inaccurate political information leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have otherwise.
CAUSES
They feel a lack of control over their lives. If people feel they don’t have control over a situation, they’ll try to make sense of it and find out what happened. Ostracism increases superstition and belief in conspiracies. And it’s not because the isolation is making them insane—it’s really just a search for more meaning in life. The effort of sense-making leads them to connect dots that aren’t necessarily connected in reality. Conversely, feeling a sense of control protects against believing conspiracy theories. If you give people a feeling of control, then they are less inclined to believe those conspiracy theories.
CONFIRMATION BIAS – SEARCH FOR CONTROL
Human beings have a very natural tendency to take in information that fits their own perspective of the world. And we tend to reject information or reject evidence that we disagree with. And we do that for a very simple reason. We don’t like it when we feel wrong. We don’t like it when people tell us we’re wrong because that damages our psychological well-being. We don’t like thinking that our view of the world, our perspective of the world is incorrect.
So what tends to happen is that we look for information; we look for evidence that fits what we already know or what we already believe, and we try to avoid information or evidence that we either disagree with or that we know doesn’t fit with our perspective.
TESTING FOR MENTAL ILLNESS
As far as I know, if you use the serial-definition method rather than cold surveys, give the above definition, give examples of those that were true and false, and categorize a selection of conspiracy theories by the following list, you would find most people are less crazy than they appear.
0) Unlikely or simply false.
1) Misunderstanding of events to obtain ‘sensible world’
2) Intentional misrepresentation of events for attention and ‘sensible world’.
3) external consequences of common interest
4) conspiracy of common interest (following natural incentives without intention of doing bad)
5) conspiracy of common interest in self protection.
6) conspiracy to commit harm in excuse for creating some greater good (military nonsense).
7) conspiracy to commit harm to achieve personal or group ends.
8) conspiracy to achieve power for a group.
—“Incentives drive interest which creates intent. Conspiracies look at the end result and call foul play as opposed to using full accounting and stripping back the effect from the cause.”—Nick Zito
Curt
(compiled from various mainstream sources)
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 10:17:00 UTC
Going through the top ten conspiracy theories with a relative and after you get through the expression of emotional frustration the end result is ‘unintended consequences of common interest’, ‘conspiracy of common interests’, not in fact ‘conspiracies of intent’, and Which is what I want to explore. I think it’s possible to separate loonies from skeptics by asking the questions rationally.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 10:01:00 UTC
My current view is that the scientific method is now complete; and that the discipline of truthful speech is now within the domain of science; and that philosophy has been relegated to the choice of common goods and personal preferences.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 18:07:00 UTC
(to boettke)
An unwanted voice of dissention from the analytic philosophy of science.
Not that the philosophy of science (testimony) is other than a bit of hand waving in economics, and not that a rare few might understand this but here is the correct restatement of ‘validity and justification et al’:
(a) Economics(cooperation in production of good services and information for markets both private and common) is no different from any other science (science meaning application of the scientific method – and yes, there exists a method though poorly understood.)
(b) “Science” refers to the use of logical and physical instruments to eliminate the full range of falsehoods: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, partial accounting, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit – from our free associations. In other words, science is a moral and legal discipline just as are weights and measures, in the market for goods, services, information, and theories (ideas).
(c) The means by which we arrive at or justify a theory (premises) conveys no truth content (warranty of truthfulness) to scientific propositions (See Critical Rationalism and Critical Preference).
(d) The only truth content (warranty of truthfulness) is provided by the incremental increases in the survival of the theory within the limits proposed by as premises (pre) and scope(post). (Extensive Falsification).
(e) The function of whichever synonym you choose: praxeology, intuitionism, operationalism, or strict construction – which in economics is performed by the subjective testing of a sequence of rational(voluntary) and reciprocal(moral) choices – is to falsify that an economic proposition is operationally possible, voluntary, and reciprocal (ie: possible and moral).
(f) To deny this warranty of due diligence (as does the mainstream) is to abandon rule of law in economics, and to abandon the notion of voluntary cooperation, and to abandon moral limits in economics – thereby converting economics from a moral(truthful) to an immoral(deceptive) discipline – ergo, converting from the (austrian) attempt to improve institutions by the compensation for informational asymmetry(truthfulness and trust), to the mainstream attempt to maximize the disinformation necessary to cause the overextension of both consumption and sustainable patterns of specialization and trade, such that booms and busts continue to accumulate in duration and scope.
(f) To test the truthfulness of a proposition (provide a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, selective accounting, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) whether in economics or any other discipline requires that we test each dimension of actionable reality available to man – which we reduce to the common terms of consistency, correspondence, possibility, morality, full accounting including limits, and coherence (comprehensibility of the narrative),
(g) But which more precisely refers to tests of each dimension: 1) categorical: consistency of identity, 2) logical: internal consistency, 3) empirical: externally correspondent, 4) existentially possible: operationally stated, 5) rational consistency: voluntary, 5) moral consistency: reciprocal 6) scope consistency: fully accounted including limits , and 7) coherent: narrated in coherence with all such dimensions.
(h) if all these steps are performed we can claim we have performed due diligence against the full range of falsehoods in the full range of actionable dimensions regardless of the subject we speak of.
The problem is, that since economics is reducible to the measurement of cooperation, even if biased toward to the production of goods and services, it is either an extension of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity, (which is what the Austrian school attempts to confine it to, and the chicago school extends to insurance against shocks), or it is, as is the mainstream, an exercise in deception for the purpose of burning down civilizational capital by means of monetary disinformation (deception) for the purpose of purchasing virtue signals and premiums by the political, financial, and academic classes.
My opinion, as someone who specializes in this question, is that it is the latter, and the austrians are a lone voice of morality in the cacophony of an immoral and pseudoscientific polity.
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 15:38:00 UTC
So, the question is, *Who and what institutions, disciplines, and professions are perpetuating justificationism?*
Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 14:47:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895295429276991489
Reply addressees: @bryan_caplan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/863077790605877250
IN REPLY TO:
@bryan_caplan
Overfitting explains everything.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/863077790605877250