And”The purpose of taking extreme points of view is hyperbole: it illustrates rather than obscures differences that cause conflict.”
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 06:56:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763630158968397824
Reply addressees: @mfckr_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763628475286564864
IN REPLY TO:
@mfckr_
@curtdoolittle Nice.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763628475286564864
If you spread hate that is very different from spreading solutions to conflict. I try to explain falsehoods and ask for exchanges.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 06:44:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763627177363537920
Reply addressees: @mfckr_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626838509752320
IN REPLY TO:
@mfckr_
@curtdoolittle I’ve no way of knowing in advance how some statist’s demented brain might later construe something I say as ‘hate speech’.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626838509752320
It’s just as hard to school the best economists in the complete scientific method as it is the average person.Don’t kid yourself. It’s hard.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 06:41:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763626485127208960
(a) speak the truth, (b) make strong arguments (c) say what you mean, (d) mean what you say.(A high bar but it prevents retribution)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 06:31:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763623905395351552
Reply addressees: @mfckr_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763623445292691457
IN REPLY TO:
@mfckr_
@curtdoolittle Maybe, but lack of anonymity on the net can be dangerous these days IMO.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763623445292691457
It’s just as hard to school the best economists in the complete scientific method as it is the average person.Don’t kid yourself. It’s hard.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 02:41:00 UTC
(from elsewhere)
Facebook is a good vehicle for testing out certain kinds of arguments.
When I was working through testimonial Truth, no one thought it was very interesting although today I get a lot of credit for my use of truthfulness to defeat the left’s arguments.
Last year I worked on religion quite a bit, and because that’s an accessible topic, it generated a lot more activity – albeit, most of it drivel.
I’m very conscious of my experiment: do the work of constructing a philosophical system rationally articulating the western aristocratic model, and do it in public like a traditional craftsman, where people see the good and bad attempts. And directly engaging people from all walks of life.
Now, you have no way really to judge what you don’t understand, and no reason that you’re aware of why you would invest so heavily in learning a formal argumentative grammar (terms and operations). Especially one that’s so burdensome to construct.
But then the point of these constructions (proofs), is to eliminate hasty generalizations, obscurantism, loading, framing and overloading, pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, suggestion and deceit.
Just as it’s somewhat challenging to write and publish research papers in the physical sciences, it is equally difficult to do so in law and social science – if we rely on strict operational construction using an analysis of voluntary and involuntary transfers of various forms of capital.
So if you are not finding worthy argument on FB, it’s because perhaps worthy argument does not often exist, and if it does, it’s costly to access, and it’s costly to access because proofs in social science (demonstrations of existential possibility free of deceit) are, like proofs in logic or mathematics, or arguments strictly constructed in law – tedious.
But without that tedium we make tragic catastrophe’s like the rothbardian program that has nearly destroyed the philosophy of liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-10 03:36:00 UTC
Don’t be ridiculous. I’m wrong al the time. How else would I find the truth without being wrong.
The beauty of strict construction is that it’s very hard to be wrong without knowing it.
Most people try to make operational arguments and discover how difficult it is.
It’s difficult for me too. It usually takes me ten tries over a couple of months.
So in that sense it’s a lot more like writing a proof or poetry.
It takes a while. But after you do it it sticks in your head forever.
So don’t try to get it right so to speak. Put it on your wall and just incrementally improve it.
It’s hard. But it works.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-07 23:15:00 UTC
The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in measurement; the law, that branch of economics we call incentives; and that discipline we call programming on existential possibility from a sequence of possible operations, and the logical and rational disciplines higher emphasis on internal consistency and non-contradictions.
But physical science cannot use rationalism and non contradiction nor direct experience in its quest for knowledge beyond that which we can ourselves perceive and experience. Even in what we can perceive and experience, our perception and experience are ‘dirty’ or perhaps ‘noisy’ signals that we can trust if and only if we launder them through observations that compensate for our ‘dirty’ and ‘noisy’ perceptions.
So science is not synonymous with empiricism. Positive Science refers to that discipline in which we construct methods by which we can extend our perception and launder our experiences of ‘dirt’ and ‘noise’: error, bias, and wishful thinking.
Negative Science refers to that discipline with which we construct methods by which we can launder the statements of others, such that we remove suggestion, loading (framing and overloading), pseudoscience, and deceit in its many forms.
Science consists of a toolbox of methods for ensuring that we speak truthfully. It does not consist of a toolbox of methods by which we explore the universe. we construct all the tools and methods that we need to extend our perception and to reduce what we cannot observe to an analogy to experience that we can, so that we can make comparisons and judgments.
But we reason and measure what we imagine, and then we launder the results of our imaginations.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-07 04:07:00 UTC
—“Two thousand years of “development” since Socrates and we are still arguing with “meaning”. — Liam Eddy
Exasperating. It’s how common people are fed lies.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 05:15:00 UTC
Q&A: “CURT, WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM?”
—“How far can empiricism go? Can it only go so far, telling us how we can construct our government so that it will work? Can it only be mostly right at best?”—
You’re thinking like a justificationist. Empiricism is a method of testing the survival of an idea. Same with identity, logic, and operational description. It’s not that empiricism or logic is superior, its that if anything survives all those tests of identity, logical consistency, empirical consistency, operational possibility, it just has a pretty good chance of being true. Conversely, if it doesn’t survive all those tests, it’s got a good chance of being error or deception.
We can construct government with the people we have, and eliminate the people that harm our ability form a government that allows us to successfully compete against alternative tribes and governments.
But we cannot construct a government that consists of (a) people we do not have, and (b) assumptions of what men can know that they demonstrably cant, and (c) assumptions of shared interest, and (b) assumptions of beliefs counter to the evidence produced by our investigations.
In this sense TRUTH can take us a very great distance. If we understand science is merely the craft of discovering truthfulness, by the process of eliminating falseness, then science can take us a very great distance. As for empiricism, it has been more successful than reason and rationalism in assisting us in practicing the craft of science in the pursuit of truth.
Why? Because the universe does not err or lie. We are part of it and must act within it. We can change it by bending it to our will. But to do so we must understand it. And to eliminate error and deceit, we must understand man. For error and deceit are properties of man not the universe.
And it is these properties of man we must eradicate if we wish to transform into the gods we seek.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 04:20:00 UTC