SUBJECTIVITY VS OBJECTIVITY I’ll try to answer this question as correctly and completely as I can. **Subjectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that we can experience directly with our senses and faculties if we possess necessary experience. Subjectively experienced: – yes, I like vanilla more than chocolate. (demonstrable, not testable) – yes, I can see/feel/hear that change. (testable) – yes, I can feel it is cold in here. (reportable not testable) – yes, I can agree that statement is true. (reportable) – yes, that seems reasonable if I were in that circumstance. (reportable) – no, that’s not believable. (reportable). **Objectivity** refers to any change in state that is reducible to a difference in state that can be directly perceived or instrumentally perceived, and whether those instruments are physical or logical. Objectively experienced: – that volume will hold more or less water than this volume, (despite our perceptions) – I took longer for this than for that (despite our perceptions) – this is moving at the same velocity as that (despite our perceptions) – the car caused the accident (despite our perceptions) – the world is less violent today (despite our perceptions) – that seems what a reasonable person would think (false, despite our perceptions). **Neither** Subjectively or Objectively Experienceable – or knowable: – Just about everything at very great or very small scales of time, space, velocity, size, and number. – Another person’s (or creature’s) experiences and intuitions. – ‘the Good’ (despite everyone’s intuition to the contrary). **SCIENCE AND THE WEST** The purpose of the scientific method is to demand that we perform due diligence against our natural limitations, whether they are biological, emotional, social, or intellectual. And it is the competition between the free association that our minds evolved to do so well, the clarity of our thoughts that we evolved through language and then reason, and the scientific method that we use to constrain our thoughts and observations, and measurements such that they are as free of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit as they possibly can be. The west never engaged in totalitarianism or conflation of other societies and we retained competition in all walks of life including the epistemological, such that only that which survives the best from competition might remain a truth, or a good. This competition is what made the west evolve faster than the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages. But we still wish we could escape that competition in all walks of life – despite it being the reason that we and the rest of the world, have been dragged out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, violence, and disease because of it. What we intuit is often not a good thing. Cheers
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Actually, Bad Ideas Can Crowd Out Good Ideas, and Cause Tragedy, for Centuries.
–“BAD IDEAS, HOWEVER SACRED, CANNOT SURVIVE THE COMPANY OF GOOD ONES FOREVER.”— Sam Harris This statement is demonstrably false, primarily because the market for comforting falsehoods, is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths; and because the market for gossip that justifies one’s priors is greater than the market for uncomfortable truths that contradict one’s priors. Those are two empirically demonstrable statements that have been the subject of not insignificant study and debate. We could, instead say, that in the market for weapons of argument, usable on those subjects of argument – rather than gossip and propaganda – that more truthful (and therefore scientific) arguments defeat the less truthful (rational, reasonable, pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, and supernatural). The problem we face is the difference in the scale and distribution of gossip, propaganda, justification and critical argument. Falsehood is a cheaper product than truth. In other words, as intellectuals we cannot for a moment cast ourselves as ‘average persons’. A third of the electorate (market for political choice) is fully committed to the dysgenic and feminine reproductive strategy (the left) and a third fully committed to the eugenic and masculine reproductive strategy (the right), and the third in the middle is not only uncommitted, but unconcerned, and largely uninformed, and demonstrably persuaded by what they empathize with, obtain information from friends (gossip), are exposed to the media (propaganda), and lack the general knowledge to engage in argument. (See The Myth of the Rational Voter). Imagining that the way you think is somehow average rather than one of a host of possible outliers, is merely demonstration of the various cognitive social biases wherein we attribute to others in general what applies to us in particular. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Four Horsemen of the Reconstruction
Mar 10, 2017 10:17am THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE RECONSTRUCTION 1) Jordan Peterson: Meaning (Opportunity generation) 2) Jonathan Haidt: Causation (Moral division of labor) 3) Curt Doolittle: Decidability (Natural Law) 4) Taleb: Measurement (‘Science’) FYI: Let’s take notice that I have the lousy job of saying ‘no’ – no one is ever going to like me for that. Haidt has the better job of saying ‘why’. Peterson has the best job of saying ‘how’. And Taleb has the hard job of trying to quantify the information necessary to change categorical state when we lack the data that will be produced by AI’s necessary to develop a testable unit of measure.
-
No, EPrime isn’t Enough. It’s Just a Good Start
Mar 10, 2017 5:54pm NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs
-
No, EPrime isn’t Enough. It’s Just a Good Start
Mar 10, 2017 5:54pm NO, EPRIME ISN’T ENOUGH. BUT IT’S A GOOD START –“Is E prime *really* that great? I’ve spent a lot of time messing around with shorthand, concept maps, and a bunch of other tools in an effort to improve the quality of my thinking. Is it really as simple as eliminating certain verbs from the way I present ideas?”— A Friend Eprime provides us with an explanation of WHY we can lie so easily using the verb to be, and by doing so pretend we speak with authority about that which we know little or nothing – or worse, engage in the suggestion, false dichotomies, and obcurantism which constitute the majority of sophomoric philosophical questions. The grammar (which I posted last week or the week before) plus abandoning the use of the verb to be, plus operational language, plus property in toto, plus limits and full accounting just make it very, very, very difficult to carry on a pretense of knowledge when you don’t possess it. So no, EPrime isn’t enough, but it’s a whole lot. There is a difference between writing well, and writing proofs. We are working at writing proofs
-
Series: Models of Decidability … And explanation of the importance of Series
SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY (very important)(advanced) Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why? Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions. And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective. Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality. SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION) ========================== IMAGINARY (we should do ) Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify) Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason) Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism) Literature (Allegory)(envision) DESCRIPTIVE (we have done) History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature) Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise) Law (Record)(evidence of conflict) Natural Law (Logic)(decide) Science (Truth )(learn) JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify ) Ratio-empirical-operational Ratio-Empirical Rational Reasonable Moral Normative EXPERIENTIAL (we feel) Sentimental Expressive
-
Series: Models of Decidability … And explanation of the importance of Series
SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY (very important)(advanced) Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why? Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision. Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions. And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective. Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does). Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’). And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality. SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION) ========================== IMAGINARY (we should do ) Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify) Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason) Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism) Literature (Allegory)(envision) DESCRIPTIVE (we have done) History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature) Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise) Law (Record)(evidence of conflict) Natural Law (Logic)(decide) Science (Truth )(learn) JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify ) Ratio-empirical-operational Ratio-Empirical Rational Reasonable Moral Normative EXPERIENTIAL (we feel) Sentimental Expressive
-
The Importance of Parentheticals, Series, and Axes
WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from malattribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.
-
The Importance of Parentheticals, Series, and Axes
WRITING IN PARENTHETICALS, SERIES, AND AXES (grammar) I learned the technique of writing with series(sequences) and parenthetic parallels(like this) from Karl Popper (Critical Rationalism). And it was his adoption and use of of series rather than sets that distinguished Popper from the Analytic school. I did not understand originally what was superior about his approach to analytic philosophy, but I understood he had improved upon it. I only understood that he had identified that science was critical not justificationary (like morality and law), and that along with Hayek they were the first to grasp that social science like physical science, must be modeled as a problem of information, not an analogistic model from of prior generations(electricity, steam, water, mechanicals) – just as I understand our problem today is an artifact of industrialization and the attempt to manufacture identical units rather than ‘grow’ a portfolio of the best humans. Later I came to understand that both parenthetic parallels, series, and relations between axis (think supply demand curves), provided tests of the NECESSITY of meaning, rather than NORMATIVE or COLLOQUIAL meaning. In other words, they limit the reader (and the author) from malattribution of properties that occur in normative and colloquial, and particular, and ‘ignorant’ speech.