Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THERE ARE STILL POOR MISGUIDED LIBERTINES OUT THERE —I find it interesting tha

    THERE ARE STILL POOR MISGUIDED LIBERTINES OUT THERE

    —I find it interesting that Objectivists claim that all knowledge is empirical (a performative contradiction)—Daniel Rothschild

    This is a common misinterpretation of the word ’empirical’. When someone says all knowledge is empirical, it means everything we remember is constructed from the senses. As far as I know very few philosophers dispute this. So, ’empirical’ in the sciences means observable. And to prevent error, by extension it means only “consistently observable, measurable, and recordable”. Consistent correspondence with reality.

    The question of empiricism has largely been one of whether the apriori holds the same utility as the empirical. And for the purpose of hypothesis generation it seems to. For the purpose of deduction it appears not, since in all but reductio examples, we can construct no unlimited propositions of reality that we can as in, say, mathematics, which must introduce scale (‘the axiom of choice”) and time in order to restore correspondence. But because of the determinism of the universe it’s relatively scale independent for the purposes of human action and cognition.

    So in this sense, neither the empirical nor the aprior allow for deduction of apodeitically certain (axiomatic) answers. Instead, both the empirical and the apriori allow us to construct hypotheses which we can criticize and see if they survive as truth candidates.

    Although, I didn’t know the philosophers of the libertarian era personally (I came into this work a bit late) the last century had a great deal of difficulty with philosophy, and libertarians were not immune to it. Perhaps less immune to it.

    When making such claims as the libertarians do, most of it is not defensible. I won’t go into the history of it here, but they were trying to construct some equivalent to talmudic law – and failed. Law is justificationary, contractual, and deductive – . Truth is critical and evolutionary – it survives criticism, and we warrant its survival of criticism when we make a promise of truth claim.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 10:42:00 UTC

  • But those who cannot conduct meaningful discourse are happy to pollute the infor

    But those who cannot conduct meaningful discourse are happy to pollute the informational commons with exciting lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 15:16:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675333341269368833

    Reply addressees: @andylefko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048

  • Ridicule is likewise not argument, not expression, but disinformation: deceit. R

    Ridicule is likewise not argument, not expression, but disinformation: deceit. Ridicule, shaming, rallying are exciting lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 15:15:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675333047936524288

    Reply addressees: @andylefko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048

  • Rallying and shaming is not argument. It is not self expression. It is pollution

    Rallying and shaming is not argument. It is not self expression. It is pollution: obfuscation – and therefore a deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 15:13:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675332464026460164

    Reply addressees: @andylefko

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674921089437442048

  • Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?” Propertarianism is a Critic

    Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?”

    Propertarianism is a Critical(what-may-not) and therefore scientific system of logic, and not a Justificationary(what-should) and therefore idealistic system of logic. So propertarianism seeks to prevent harm: ‘badness’. Everything that does not prevent harm is a candidate for benefit: ‘goodness’.

    Just as Testimonialism prevents falsehood, leaving only candidates for truth; and just as Propertarian ethics seeks to prevent lying and theft, leaving only candidates for honest voluntary transfer; Propertarian politics seeks to prevent the harm women do, but not what they should do, leaving only candidates for not harming.

    Men pay for their enfranchisement with military and emergency services. In propertarianism women pay for their enfranchisement with child bearing, and care-taking services. These are high costs, but they are necessary costs.

    Rule of law is identical regardless of gender; policy exists to promote the family not the individual; and policy is constructed by contracts between ‘houses’.

    And ‘houses’ are constructed by gender and class. So women have their own house to negotiate with males, just as the upper classes have a house to negotiate with the middle. Membership in houses is by demonstrated accomplishment.

    So, what do women (and men) do under Propertarianism? Anything they want that doesn’t impose costs upon others. Do nothing unto others you would not want done unto you.

    I am trying to prevent the repeat of the damage that women have done to civilization because of their biological biases, just as we have struggled to prevent the damage done by men because of their biological biases.

    Women (with assistance from the enlightenment thinkers) destroyed the west via the voting booth. It is possible to eliminate the means by which they destroyed the west. And finally succeed in enfranchising women as we have enfranchised other men: by facilitating voluntary exchanges between people with different reproductive strategies. The compromise path will prevent extremes.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 04:10:00 UTC

  • Place: Lviv, Ukraine (49.8333, 24)I can sort of start to see a set of axis that

    Place: Lviv, Ukraine (49.8333, 24)I can sort of start to see a set of axis that represent the techniques of truth telling and lying. I’ll figure it out. I can sense it. pretty cool.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-10 08:20:00 UTC

  • CURSING, WE NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH, I CERTAINLY DON’T F__K. Spinoza worked his who

    CURSING, WE NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH, I CERTAINLY DON’T

    F__K. Spinoza worked his whole – albeit short – life on two hundred parsimonious pages that still failed to drag western man from mysticism. Kant spent ten years on just his Critique, and created a rationalist version of christianity, rather than science. Marx worked like a dog his whole life only to figure out in the last year or two of his life that his entire project was a failure. Yet he lives on despite his own abandonment of his work. Popper worked his whole life and was, like most of his tribe, only half right, and tragically half wrong with the remainder. Hayek worked his whole life and while he managed to correctly identify that information was the model with which to study mankind – just like it is in physics.; and he managed to correctly identify the common law as the origin and preservation of liberty, he never did solve the problem of the social sciences.

    I’m almost, but not yet done. And I don’t claim to be right. I claim only that I can find no substantive criticism that the arguments won’t survive; and I can find vast explanatory power informing us why enlightenment modernity failed; and that I can find vast explanatory power in creating institutional solutions to correct the failures of modernity; and I can find vast explanatory power in explaining the rapid rise of the west in both the ancient and modern worlds. I can only do this because the men in the prior generations only made it half way. I can see the same ideas forming around the world in others in my generation. Consilience does its job slowly.

    We never know the truth. We just now we have greater power over the universe than we had with the previous version of it. But whittling away, generation by generation, century by century, we incrementally suppress parasitism, we incrementally pacify mankind, we incrementally pacify the planet, we incrementally eradicate ignorance, and we narrow the distance between our ignorance and truth.

    it’s beautiful really.

    If it weren’t for the numbskulls along way…


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 12:55:00 UTC

  • Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exc

    Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exclusively of lying. #NRx #AltRight #Conservative


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 12:30:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674566691704217604

  • Since when are evidence, logic, and reason examples of hate?

    Since when are evidence, logic, and reason examples of hate?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 11:45:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674555452164866048

    Reply addressees: @bakedinapie @ReactionaryTree @HillaryClinton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674264915415289856


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674264915415289856

  • Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exc

    Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exclusively of lying. #NRx #AltRight #Conservative


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 07:30:00 UTC