Category: Uncategorized

Thank you so much. 😉

Missed the last bit.
Gravity: Newton improves on Aristotle, Einstein improves on Newton. Shortly someone will improve on Einstein – with MOND looking increasingly close, we just need to know why.
My work improves on Hayek, Popper, and Hoppe in particular, and a bit more so on Chomsky in language, and Wolfram in reducibility.
I don’t know of anyone who has done work on cognitive differences, particularly the sexes, and specifically on sex differences in lying, or group evolutionary differences in first causes.

Reply addressees: @shade_forrest

RT @LukeWeinhagen: @curtdoolittle RE: 10

“The U.S. Constitution [facilitates the body of people cooperating within its limits to be] the s…

Excellent!

Furthermore, hayek’s criticism of scientism includes the near impossibility of running economic tests, rather than observing and explaining economic causality.
You mentioned determinism, and while it is true that human behavior follows generally determinable rules like evolution and language it does not follow deterministic rules as do the physical sciences.

Hydrogen and oxygen don’t get the choice of whether to make water. We have the choice to do what we wish.

Reply addressees: @shade_forrest

I would need to understand how you interpret these terms. The context driving Hayek and Mises is their refutation of marxism, so called ‘scientific socialism’, and Keynesianism. Despite that the revolution in economics was the introduction of the combination of the calculus with darwinian evolution. But at the same time those were introduced, Babbage had already failed to systematize computation, so until Turing (and Chomsky’s application of Turing to language) so that mathmatics was still the gold standard and they tried to ‘fit’ math to behavior despite it’s insufficiency, and they ignored evolutionary selection. So we had a vast collapse of human intellectual progress because of babbage’s failure and marx’s pseudoscience, and the failure of wester philosophers’ analytic projct by treating math and in particular set theory as the gold standard instead of evolutionary computation.

Reply addressees: @shade_forrest

Correct. What is your question? Or what surprised you? 😉

I would pay for it just for long form posts, because, well, I generally write long form posts.
Recently, I would pay for it just for the new Article feature that’s even better.
Lastly, I would pay for it just for the broader reach, and access to support.

I would pay for it just for long form posts, because, well, I generally write long form posts.
Recently, I would pay for it just for the new Article feature that’s even better.
Lastly, I would pay for it just for the broader reach, and access to support.

(I’ve been giving the same advice to tech innovators for decades: A graphic and narrative that explains how the process works with one or more examples will do more to attract attention, develop interest, persuade developers, and clearly communicate the potentials of your…