Truth? What is the difference between “Correspondence” and “Reconstruction”? The first is platonic, the second operational. See? It matters
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 09:08:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Because martial epistemology = the ultimate ‘skin in the game’: If we err, we di
Because martial epistemology = the ultimate ‘skin in the game’: If we err, we die. if we ‘color’ we die. if we lie, we die. Truth = Life.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:53:00 UTC
-
Where “reconstruction” = the sympathetic test of correspondence. The unforgiving
Where “reconstruction” = the sympathetic test of correspondence. The unforgiving testimony of martial epistemology. Truth or Die.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:51:00 UTC
-
Every culture uses a different method of ‘decidability’ in its truth proposition
Every culture uses a different method of ‘decidability’ in its truth propositions. Only the west developed the most rigid: “reconstruction”.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:49:00 UTC
-
We Solved Social Science
[A]ristotle and Plato : Natural Law (vision but failure) Augustine and The Church. (incremental improvement – but failure) Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Hume (incremental improvement but bordering on science) Menger (Austrian/Galacian Science – German Rational tradition) 1840 Mises (Jewish/Galacian pseudoscience – jewish legal tradition) 1881 Hayek (German/Anglo Empirical – Adopted Anglo legal tradition) 1899 (failure again, with only hayek discovering that it is law not economics that produces social science) Rothbard (Jewish/Russian Justification -Jewish legal tradition)1926 Hoppe (German Rational – Continental legal tradition), 1949 Doolittle (Anglo Empirical – Anglo Saxon legal tradition). 1959 (success) Rothbard, Doolittle, and Hoppe. We solved social science in three generations. The only social science possible is the common law: the discovery of means of violating the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, limited to positive externalities of the same. Economics is the study of information and incentives to cooperate. The basis of natural law is disproportionate value of cooperation. The language of natural law is economic, not moral. It was the failure of prior generations to rely upon financial and economic language rather than religious and moral language that prevented the solution to the problem of the social sciences. Morality is economic. It must be. Since we are part of the physical universe. This is where Hayek ended up. He was right. But even he could not escape his language. And even he did not know how to solve the problem of truth.
-
We Solved Social Science
[A]ristotle and Plato : Natural Law (vision but failure) Augustine and The Church. (incremental improvement – but failure) Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Hume (incremental improvement but bordering on science) Menger (Austrian/Galacian Science – German Rational tradition) 1840 Mises (Jewish/Galacian pseudoscience – jewish legal tradition) 1881 Hayek (German/Anglo Empirical – Adopted Anglo legal tradition) 1899 (failure again, with only hayek discovering that it is law not economics that produces social science) Rothbard (Jewish/Russian Justification -Jewish legal tradition)1926 Hoppe (German Rational – Continental legal tradition), 1949 Doolittle (Anglo Empirical – Anglo Saxon legal tradition). 1959 (success) Rothbard, Doolittle, and Hoppe. We solved social science in three generations. The only social science possible is the common law: the discovery of means of violating the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, limited to positive externalities of the same. Economics is the study of information and incentives to cooperate. The basis of natural law is disproportionate value of cooperation. The language of natural law is economic, not moral. It was the failure of prior generations to rely upon financial and economic language rather than religious and moral language that prevented the solution to the problem of the social sciences. Morality is economic. It must be. Since we are part of the physical universe. This is where Hayek ended up. He was right. But even he could not escape his language. And even he did not know how to solve the problem of truth.
-
The Public and Specialists
[B]ecause specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft. Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior. The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason. While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists. In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.
-
The Public and Specialists
[B]ecause specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft. Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior. The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason. While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists. In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.
-
Philosophers Must Ply A Trade
( [I]’m a technologist just like Da Vinci was a siege engine designer, Plato administrator of a school, Bacon a Lawyer, Descartes a Soldier, Montaigne a bureaucrat, and Spinoza a lens grinder. A man must have a trade if he is not to become a parasite. Most men practice both vocations and avocations. For some they are the same. For others they are different. For Philosophers, unlike scientists, it remains an open question whether we do more harm or good. If we ply a trade we at least tip the balance in favor of good. )
-
Philosophers Must Ply A Trade
( [I]’m a technologist just like Da Vinci was a siege engine designer, Plato administrator of a school, Bacon a Lawyer, Descartes a Soldier, Montaigne a bureaucrat, and Spinoza a lens grinder. A man must have a trade if he is not to become a parasite. Most men practice both vocations and avocations. For some they are the same. For others they are different. For Philosophers, unlike scientists, it remains an open question whether we do more harm or good. If we ply a trade we at least tip the balance in favor of good. )