Now I have to write a whole section in my Lying chapter on the use of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘weasel words’ in order to show how people justify whatever they want to.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 16:03:00 UTC
Now I have to write a whole section in my Lying chapter on the use of ‘reasonableness’ and ‘weasel words’ in order to show how people justify whatever they want to.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 16:03:00 UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_wordWHAT ARE “WEASEL WORDS”?
What is the test of ‘Reasonableness”
Walter Block is the champion of using weasel words and reasonableness to construct immoral arguments by presenting a series of examples that appeal to moral intuitions, but do not evoke immoral intuitions that we would use to test them.
Hoppe does not do this. He relies upon justificationary rationalism and the HOPE that there are enough good people in the world to construct a normative contract on top of NAP/IVP.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 16:02:00 UTC
Funny thought.
Teach programming first.
Then logic.
Then grammar.
Then rhetoric.
How would that play?
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 11:55:00 UTC
It is contradictory to write about truth and not use your own name.
It is very costly to write about truth.
Advancements in truth that criticise the status quo invoke persecution.
Socrates.
Aristotle.
Hypatia.
Galileo.
Locke.
And many more.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 07:55:00 UTC
I understand the brainstem-biases. We can search to confirm them. Or we can search for truth independently of them. And overcome them when we choose.
This does not appear to be a common discipline.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 03:33:00 UTC
Q&A: GREAT QUESTION!
—“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? And how differentiate it with critical-rationalism?”—
SIMPLE ANSWER ON DIFFERENCES : SCOPE OF YOUR WARRANTY
1) Rationalism requires we test for internal consistency(logical) and non contradiction(not false), but not that we test for external correspondence (empirically consistent) in order to attempt to falsify our ideas (hypotheses). In other words we don’t have to warranty that our ideas are externallly correspondent. We can claim that we have been forthright (rational) and free of blame for having made rational choices.
2) Critical rationalism requires that we test for internal consistency, and external correspondence, and that we attempt to falsify them because confirming them is meaningless..
3) Testimonialism asks us to test by rationalism, critical rationalism, and moral objectivity.
SIMPLE ANSWER ON RATIONALISM IN ETHICS
In the sequence: pedagogical ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, outcome ethics, and testimonial ethics, each describes the ethical model one must rely upon given one’s knowledge and understanding.
Now if one uses an ethical model lower than one’s understanding, then one can intentionally use that lower ethical criteria to justify unethical behavior.
This is what libertines (libertarians) do, when they refer to the NAP and self determination of morality. They are claiming non-responsibiity for externalities caused by their actions.
So you sort of have to warranty your actions by using an ethical system someone will believe you are not using for theft.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:07:00 UTC
THE SYNTHESIS
I am not going to finish this today but I want to get it out for the wow factor in case I get hit by a bus or something.
IN ORDER TO ACT IN REALITY WE MUST WARRANTY OUR JUDGEMENTS
***I warranty to myself and to others that I performed due diligence prior to my actions – including speech – such that my actions imposed no net cost upon myself, or upon others, and by doing so, harmed both my survivability and the incentive to voluntarily cooperate while being free of the imposition of cost by others.***
THEREFORE
***as the complexity of CONSEQUENCES of ERROR increase, the degree of due diligence I must perform in order to provide myself and others a warranty that my reasoning and actions perform no harm to myself or others***
THE POWER OF THE HUMAN MIND IS ITS SEARCH ENGINE (INTUITION) NOT NECESSARILY ITS REASON.
***Our reason provides us both with search improvement and warranty***
ABILITY BIASES
– Gender
– Intelligence
– Impulsively
– Aggression
– Reproductive Fitness
– Cooperative Fitness
MORAL BIASES
Individual Property Rights:
1. Care/harm (The asset of life and body.)
2. Proportionality/cheating, (The asset of goods.)
3. Liberty/Oppression, (The asset of time, opportunity.)
Community Property Rights
4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.
5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.
6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY
I. SELF-PROPERTY
Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
a) Physical Body
b) Actions and Time
c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)
II. PERSONAL PROPERTY
a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.
III. KINSHIP PROPERTY
a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
b) Children (genetics)
c) Familial Relations (security)
d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)
e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY
a) Organizational ties (work)
b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY
a) Shares: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)
b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)
c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
VI. INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:
a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
VII. FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY
a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
SYSTEMS
– System -1 = Acquisition (objective)
– System 0 = Property (biased)
– System 1 = Intuition (search)
– System 2 = Reason (comparison)
CONCEPTUAL SEQUENCE
1 – Perception
2 – Experience
3 – Comprehension (identity)
4 – Association (imagination) (search)
5 – Criticism (testing) (reason)
6 – Valuation (judgement) (reason)
7 – Decision (reason)
8 – Action (test)
HIERARCHY OF TRUTHS
1 – Understandable: True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
2 – Rationalizable: True enough for me to feel good about myself.
3 – Rational: True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
4 – Moral: True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
5 – Decidable (Justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
6 – Decidable (justice): True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
7 – True: True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
8 – Tatuology: Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
METHODS OF POSSIBLE WARRANTY
1 – Understandable/Recognizable (imaginable, possible to imagine)
2 – Reason (Reasonable, Reason)
3 – Rationalism (internally Consistent, non contradictory)
4 – Critical Rationalism (falsified for physical science)
5 – Testimonialism (falsified for social science)
ETHICAL AND MORAL WARRANTIES
1 – Productive
2 – Fully Informed
3 – Warrantied
4 – Voluntary
5 – Transfer
6 – Free of externalities to the contrary.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
-fact-
1 – Observation
2 – Identification
3 – Hypothesis
4 – Criticism
5 – Fact
-theory-
1 – Observation
2 – Free Association (internal observation)
3 – Identification
4 – Hypothesis
5 – Criticism
6 – Theory
-law-
1 – Publication
2 – Observation
3 – Free Association
4 – Hypothesis
5 – Criticism
6 – Law (survival)
FULL SET OF WARRANTIES OF TRUTHFULNESS
1 – Categorically consistent (non-conflationary)
2 – Internally Consistent (logical and non-contradictory) “justifiable”
3 – Externally correspondent (observably consistent) “demonstrable”
4 – Existentially-Possible (operationally demonstrable and subjectively testable) “possible”
5 – Moral (consisting of productive, fully informed, warr., vol. exch)
6 – Fully Accounted (have we included all externalities?) “free of externalities”
7 – Limited (what are the limits of the statement?) “Falsified”
8 – Parsimonious (where is information lacking?) “internal limits”
ETHICAL SPECTRUM
1 – Pedagogical Ethics – youth
2 – Virtue Ethics – young
3 – Rule Ethics – adult
4 – Outcome Ethics – mature adult
5 – Testimonial Ethics – the wise adult
ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION
1 – Persistence of Existence (life)
2 – Organization of Reproduction (family)
3 – Organization of Production of Consumption
4 – Organization of Production of Commons (investment)
WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE, ORGANIZATION, COERCION
1 – Violence ( Deprivation of Inventory )
2 – Exchange ( Deprivation of opportunity )
3 – Gossip ( Deprivation of cooperation )
APPLICATION OF WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE
The Demand for Production – Using Gossip (shaming)
The Involuntary Organization of Production – Using Force
The Voluntary Organization of Production – Exchange
PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS
Metaphysical
……..Heroism (demonstrated excellence)
……..Science (truth) ……
……..Naturalism (reality)
……. Natural Law (sovereignty)
Political
……..Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons
……..Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury
Moral
……..Christianity (love/trust bias)
Spiritual (Aesthetic)
…….Love of nature (animism/paganism)
Personal
…….Buddhism……….Stoicism
…….Yoga…………..sport
…….Nurturing………Craftsmanship.
…….Spiritual ……..Political (mental?)
…….Experiential……Actionable
…….Feminine …….. Masculine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 11:26:00 UTC
***”Internal consistency is insufficient for truth propositions in non axiomatic systems without external correspondence to replace those axioms with limits.”***
That sentence is extremely powerful.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 03:50:00 UTC
[W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.
[W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.