Source date (UTC): 2015-11-23 06:04:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
The High Cost of Truthfulness – But Truth Is Enough
[T]here is a high cost to truth telling. I am entirely aware of the burden we must pay for physical defense of the realm, physical defense of life and property, normative defense of civic behavior, and defense of the informational commons. But in each case the costs produce extraordinary returns. If we require truthfulness, invasive religions and ideologies cannot Proselytize any unscientific statements – at least using the commons. And alternative rules of law are violations of natural law and pseudoscientific encouragement of theft and fraud. Truth is Enough. Truth and Violence allowed us to construct commons. Truth and violence are enough to restore us. Truth. Violence. Persistence. Lies and cowardice. Genocide.
-
The High Cost of Truthfulness – But Truth Is Enough
[T]here is a high cost to truth telling. I am entirely aware of the burden we must pay for physical defense of the realm, physical defense of life and property, normative defense of civic behavior, and defense of the informational commons. But in each case the costs produce extraordinary returns. If we require truthfulness, invasive religions and ideologies cannot Proselytize any unscientific statements – at least using the commons. And alternative rules of law are violations of natural law and pseudoscientific encouragement of theft and fraud. Truth is Enough. Truth and Violence allowed us to construct commons. Truth and violence are enough to restore us. Truth. Violence. Persistence. Lies and cowardice. Genocide.
-
True Enough? Imagine A Grammar That Promised Truth Content
(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.*** [L]ets note the difference between the following points of view. 1 existence, 2 experience of the universe, 3 utility in determining one’s action, 4 observation of an action and consequences 5 justification of the results of one’s action, 6 warranty in recommendation of action*, 7 and decidability in conflict*, …describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it. I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language. Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them. We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.
-
True Enough? Imagine A Grammar That Promised Truth Content
(worth repeating) (extension of hierarchy of truth) (interesting for language geeks)***The purpose of science is not to convey the experience but to provide decidability in matters of dispute over existence regardless of experience.*** [L]ets note the difference between the following points of view. 1 existence, 2 experience of the universe, 3 utility in determining one’s action, 4 observation of an action and consequences 5 justification of the results of one’s action, 6 warranty in recommendation of action*, 7 and decidability in conflict*, …describes a spectrum of problems we must understand. Our grammar does not readily address these differences, and our problem of the verb to-be exacerbates the problem since ‘is’ evolved specifically to avoid the problem of articulating this spectrum, thereby allowing the audience to infer it. I work on the last two*. I think humans are pretty good at experience and utility. And some of us are pretty good at justificatoin. Largely, since justification is the language of morality, most people tend to use moral language. Imagine a language that required you address these seven degrees of truth in one’s grammar. Imagine the kind of self awareness one would need to avoid conflation of each of them. We have enough problem with people saying “it’s true for me” when they mean that it is sufficiently useful for me to act”.
-
The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis:
[T]he Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis: 1) For any concept you refer to, construct lines of three or more points demonstrating limits not states. This is the most subtle and difficult part of the method since we tend to think in ideal types that invoke a particular experience and not the range of conditions and set of experiences that are invoked. Think in lines not states. Turn any idea into a spectrum. It’s not hard with practice. 2) Analyze information movement – who possesses it, what it consists of, and when. (programming is great for teaching you how your assumptions of the knowledge of others is tragically flawed). 3) Analyze incentives given the information individuals have at their disposal at any moment. 4) Expect people to seek to acquire at all points in time, and to seize rents whenever possible, and wherever possible means whenever they won’t be caught. 5) Expect Culture, Class, Gender, Race, Tribe, Family, and personal reproductive strategies to provide the dominant influence in decidability: whenever discretion is required these factors will influence the decision because the individual has no other means of decidability without propertarian ethics. 6) When you write, do so operationally not analogically, experientially, or observationally: use the vectors, information, incentives, biases, and decisions of individuals. Never use the word ‘is’ since it means you do not understand what you are saying. 7) Test for identity (non-conflationary identification of properties, methods and relations). Test for internal consistency of your argument. Test for external correspondence of your argument. Test for existential possiblity of each step in your argument (which is what propertarianism asks you to do by its nature). Test for Morality (that no involuntary transfers have occurrred, or if they have articulate them). Test for parsimony: that you have defined limits to all your assumptions and terms. Test for explanatory power. Attempt to falsify it: seek contradictory examples and ensure that your analysis (description) holds up. Propertarian analysis should produce tests of existential possibility: a proof. A proof is not a truth. But it is the most likely means of constructing a truth candidate that we currently know of. Curt Doolittle
-
The Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis:
[T]he Secrets of Propertarian (Scientific) Analysis: 1) For any concept you refer to, construct lines of three or more points demonstrating limits not states. This is the most subtle and difficult part of the method since we tend to think in ideal types that invoke a particular experience and not the range of conditions and set of experiences that are invoked. Think in lines not states. Turn any idea into a spectrum. It’s not hard with practice. 2) Analyze information movement – who possesses it, what it consists of, and when. (programming is great for teaching you how your assumptions of the knowledge of others is tragically flawed). 3) Analyze incentives given the information individuals have at their disposal at any moment. 4) Expect people to seek to acquire at all points in time, and to seize rents whenever possible, and wherever possible means whenever they won’t be caught. 5) Expect Culture, Class, Gender, Race, Tribe, Family, and personal reproductive strategies to provide the dominant influence in decidability: whenever discretion is required these factors will influence the decision because the individual has no other means of decidability without propertarian ethics. 6) When you write, do so operationally not analogically, experientially, or observationally: use the vectors, information, incentives, biases, and decisions of individuals. Never use the word ‘is’ since it means you do not understand what you are saying. 7) Test for identity (non-conflationary identification of properties, methods and relations). Test for internal consistency of your argument. Test for external correspondence of your argument. Test for existential possiblity of each step in your argument (which is what propertarianism asks you to do by its nature). Test for Morality (that no involuntary transfers have occurrred, or if they have articulate them). Test for parsimony: that you have defined limits to all your assumptions and terms. Test for explanatory power. Attempt to falsify it: seek contradictory examples and ensure that your analysis (description) holds up. Propertarian analysis should produce tests of existential possibility: a proof. A proof is not a truth. But it is the most likely means of constructing a truth candidate that we currently know of. Curt Doolittle
-
Why Is Propertarianism’s Explanatory Power So Important?
[W]ell, look at each discipline as a set of criticisms than any theory has to survive scrutiny. A unit of measure, or method of comparison, might be informative inside of a particular discipline, but meaningless across disciplines (happiness for example makes no sense in mathematics, yet at least basic mathematics makes sense in experimental psychology). Propertarianism not only survives criticism in each discipline but renders all disciplines commensurable – sort of how money and prices make the value of all goods commensurable. So one might attempt, falsely, to justify propertarianism and testimonialism as true, or one might say, that given it survives application to all these different fields, and unites these fields, survives as a truth candidate until a superior truth candidate comes along. Unifying Biology, Psychology, Sociology, Morality, Law, Economics and Philosophy is no small thing. It’s a very important thing. And yes, it’s a bit hard to learn critical rationalism, testimonialism, propertarianism, propertarian institutions, and propertarian legal construction. But it’s equally hard to learn many other disciplines. But all investments provide returns or not. The fact that propertarianism and testimonialism provide such broad explanatory power, survives application in all fields, provides commensurability across all fields, is enough, hopefully, for some of us to invest in this discipline versus some different discipline. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.
