Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    STEVE HOROWITZ’S OBFUSCATORY JUSTIFICATIONISM

    (argumentative weaponry. use it.)

    He’s using the ancient technique of stating a Half Truth for the purpose of “suggesting” a lie.

    Cultural Marxism is taught in nearly all classes. The fact that the Paleos all use Marx and Marxism as a bucket-label for Marxism(social science), Communism(politics), Socialism(economics), Freudianism(psychology), Boazianism(anthropology), cultural marxism(aesthetics), Rothbardian libertinism(normative communism), Straussian neo-Conservatism(Zionism), is just a matter of verbal convenience. Which is obvious once you rattle off all those pseudosciences. We just say Marx and Marxist, and Marxism. What we should say is “Cosmopolitanism”: Jewish Pseudoscientific Enlightenment – the second “Great Lie”. The Counter-Enlightenment against completion of the enlightenment by Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Nietzsche, and Poincare.

    So ask the question differently: show me where they teach natural law? You won’t find it outside of a few Christian universities, and they don’t even understand that “Natural Law= Social Science”. They teach it as philosophy or religion – not science.

    I don’t know why I have to apologize every day for my ancestors failed colonialism, despite dragging humanity out of ignorance, starvation, poverty, superstition, and disease, yet the other tribes don’t need to apologize for the damage done by their reactions to the enlightenment.

    (Please don’t jump on the anti-Semite bus ok? I care about fixing problems. I don’t think jews know what they’re doing any more than we do, women do, or any other group does. It’s all information problems and genetic adaptation problem. Both of which can be solved by institutions that transform us away from deception and closer to truth.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-22 05:56:00 UTC

  • (Excellent S02E01!) Dear Writers: Very old and wise people take time to search t

    (Excellent S02E01!)

    Dear Writers:

    Very old and wise people take time to search their memories before responding. This is missing from the characters and it plays hell with suspension of disbelief.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 14:01:00 UTC

  • Pinker’s Criticism Of Taleb Is Taleb’s Doing But…

    Taleb is right, Pinker is wrong, but Taleb makes his arguments to general principles rather than operational explanations. This is why we must have empiricism AND operationalism in scientific assertions. This is why people like Taleb must work top down (empirically) and others like me must work bottom up (operationally). And why opportunities to do both, like Darwin’s, are the product of novel data collection at much larger (logarithmic?) scale. I suspect that because of our status differences Taleb and I could not work together on this, and no one will see our different missions as the same as that of Hayek (long run law) and Mises (medium run finance), or that Taleb and I are working on the same problem that Poincaré, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman failed to solve: how to we separate science from pseudoscience, once we are talking about stochastic systems at very great scale? What happened when teh industrial revolution hit, and we needed to move from operational accounting to correlative statistics, yet could not bridge the technological gap of testing our statistical statements like we do our theoretical statements. Especially when there is profound incentive to use financialization to accumulate risk and spend down capital precisely because at such scale operations are imperceptible to us. We boil the frog. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Pinker’s Criticism Of Taleb Is Taleb’s Doing But…

    Taleb is right, Pinker is wrong, but Taleb makes his arguments to general principles rather than operational explanations. This is why we must have empiricism AND operationalism in scientific assertions. This is why people like Taleb must work top down (empirically) and others like me must work bottom up (operationally). And why opportunities to do both, like Darwin’s, are the product of novel data collection at much larger (logarithmic?) scale. I suspect that because of our status differences Taleb and I could not work together on this, and no one will see our different missions as the same as that of Hayek (long run law) and Mises (medium run finance), or that Taleb and I are working on the same problem that Poincaré, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman failed to solve: how to we separate science from pseudoscience, once we are talking about stochastic systems at very great scale? What happened when teh industrial revolution hit, and we needed to move from operational accounting to correlative statistics, yet could not bridge the technological gap of testing our statistical statements like we do our theoretical statements. Especially when there is profound incentive to use financialization to accumulate risk and spend down capital precisely because at such scale operations are imperceptible to us. We boil the frog. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • To The Economist on Putin

    (posted as a comment about putin on the economist) You’re largely correct but there is a middle position that would be more correct than the one you mentioned. Putin has done a great deal for his people, and we cannot underestimate, and we must respect and admire him for the change in their quality of life. He had his vision of restoring 1-the scope of the Russian empire, and 2-orthodox civilization. But he is also very afraid, not so much for himself, but for his people, and their future. They have not the economy, nor the population to return to great power status in the 21st century. While he has improved order in the country, and he as improved rule of law – enough – he still has an undiversified resource economy, a secret service that runs the drug and smuggling trade, relies upon Chechens as enforcers, and is surrounded (like a mafia godfather) by those that would replace him with glee. Prior to his invasion of Ukraine he was possibly the most respected and influential politician in the world. When Ukraine was successful in ousting the puppet president who denied them EU membership – contrary to everyone’s wildest imaginings – there were immediate uprisings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and chants everywhere that Russia was next to join the western sphere. But Putin sees American spies and manipulation everywhere, where we Americans see our politicians, state department, intelligence services, and NGO’s as a bunch of largely overpaid incompetent ‘clowns’ that couldn’t do anything right if they tried. And he believed his puppet. The correct answer, however, was that the young militant men in the streets, having lost relatives and friends, if they found him, would certainly kill him. When the ambassadors confirmed the circumstance, Putin sent Russian special forces to fetch him, loaded the presidential jet with money, sent it to Dubai (I followed it) and he snuck off to Russia – I have no idea how, since it did not appear in an obvious way on radar tracking systems. So for Putin, he could lose his only warm water port (Crimea) to NATO (not that I can grasp for a moment how anyone would think closing the Bosphorus to Russia would be a challenge. And worse, he’s been trying to repair and modernize the armed forces, but all the manufacturing was done in the Donbas Basin in Ukraine. So in what I see as a panic, in typical Russian fashion, he did not call up Germany, UK, and USA and say: “Folks it is a strategic problem for us face even the smallest chance of losing that port, and we propose that we acquire it from Ukraine on a 99 year irrevocable lease, after which it returns to Russian sovereignty. Because honestly, otherwise, I am derelict in my duty if I let it pass out of our strategic hands. And I am sorry but I must have tacit approval from you on this phone call, and I ask you to use moral judgment in this matter.” Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone says really, because Putin gets on the air, tells Ukrainians that he’s terribly proud of them, but that this poses a strategic problem for Russia, so we propose 20% discount on market price of gas in exchange for a 99 year lease on Crimea and the Donbas. This will ensure that you are successful, the people in the Donbas can keep their manufacturing and mining jobs, obtain Russian pensions, and the rest of Ukraine will have an easier time financing its modernization program.” And really, he just then sends in the soldiers HONESTLY, and it’s all done, because (a) Ukrainians see the people in the east as ‘degenerates’ that hold onto the dream of communism, (b) they just care that they can go to Crimea for holidays, (c) the price of gas is a serious burden for such a poor country. Now part of the reason we have this problem between west and Russia is the Russian inability to admit vulnerability even in such matters. So just as when Putin approached the USA about nato membership, and the Americans were stupid, he didn’t take his message to the American people and educate them. Just as he didn’t take the Crimean problem to other world leaders and educate them. Just as he didn’t take his message to the Ukrainian people and educate them. I suspect it is almost incomprehensible to a Russian that Americans are actually naive utopian idealists, but they really do believe they do the right thing – despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence. But as the Israelis have demonstrated, taking your case to the American people via the press if you’re trying to exchange something and be reasonable is a guaranteed win. So I view Putin in fairly charitable terms, as a man who saw his world fall apart, his people suffer, and himself as the hero who can restore them and their world, and possibly go down in history as an example for them. He has one problem really: *He doesn’t sell, he only tells.* And he has no one on his staff that ‘sells’ the Russian position. Which is pretty damned rational really. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • To The Economist on Putin

    (posted as a comment about putin on the economist) You’re largely correct but there is a middle position that would be more correct than the one you mentioned. Putin has done a great deal for his people, and we cannot underestimate, and we must respect and admire him for the change in their quality of life. He had his vision of restoring 1-the scope of the Russian empire, and 2-orthodox civilization. But he is also very afraid, not so much for himself, but for his people, and their future. They have not the economy, nor the population to return to great power status in the 21st century. While he has improved order in the country, and he as improved rule of law – enough – he still has an undiversified resource economy, a secret service that runs the drug and smuggling trade, relies upon Chechens as enforcers, and is surrounded (like a mafia godfather) by those that would replace him with glee. Prior to his invasion of Ukraine he was possibly the most respected and influential politician in the world. When Ukraine was successful in ousting the puppet president who denied them EU membership – contrary to everyone’s wildest imaginings – there were immediate uprisings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and chants everywhere that Russia was next to join the western sphere. But Putin sees American spies and manipulation everywhere, where we Americans see our politicians, state department, intelligence services, and NGO’s as a bunch of largely overpaid incompetent ‘clowns’ that couldn’t do anything right if they tried. And he believed his puppet. The correct answer, however, was that the young militant men in the streets, having lost relatives and friends, if they found him, would certainly kill him. When the ambassadors confirmed the circumstance, Putin sent Russian special forces to fetch him, loaded the presidential jet with money, sent it to Dubai (I followed it) and he snuck off to Russia – I have no idea how, since it did not appear in an obvious way on radar tracking systems. So for Putin, he could lose his only warm water port (Crimea) to NATO (not that I can grasp for a moment how anyone would think closing the Bosphorus to Russia would be a challenge. And worse, he’s been trying to repair and modernize the armed forces, but all the manufacturing was done in the Donbas Basin in Ukraine. So in what I see as a panic, in typical Russian fashion, he did not call up Germany, UK, and USA and say: “Folks it is a strategic problem for us face even the smallest chance of losing that port, and we propose that we acquire it from Ukraine on a 99 year irrevocable lease, after which it returns to Russian sovereignty. Because honestly, otherwise, I am derelict in my duty if I let it pass out of our strategic hands. And I am sorry but I must have tacit approval from you on this phone call, and I ask you to use moral judgment in this matter.” Now it really doesn’t matter what anyone says really, because Putin gets on the air, tells Ukrainians that he’s terribly proud of them, but that this poses a strategic problem for Russia, so we propose 20% discount on market price of gas in exchange for a 99 year lease on Crimea and the Donbas. This will ensure that you are successful, the people in the Donbas can keep their manufacturing and mining jobs, obtain Russian pensions, and the rest of Ukraine will have an easier time financing its modernization program.” And really, he just then sends in the soldiers HONESTLY, and it’s all done, because (a) Ukrainians see the people in the east as ‘degenerates’ that hold onto the dream of communism, (b) they just care that they can go to Crimea for holidays, (c) the price of gas is a serious burden for such a poor country. Now part of the reason we have this problem between west and Russia is the Russian inability to admit vulnerability even in such matters. So just as when Putin approached the USA about nato membership, and the Americans were stupid, he didn’t take his message to the American people and educate them. Just as he didn’t take the Crimean problem to other world leaders and educate them. Just as he didn’t take his message to the Ukrainian people and educate them. I suspect it is almost incomprehensible to a Russian that Americans are actually naive utopian idealists, but they really do believe they do the right thing – despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence. But as the Israelis have demonstrated, taking your case to the American people via the press if you’re trying to exchange something and be reasonable is a guaranteed win. So I view Putin in fairly charitable terms, as a man who saw his world fall apart, his people suffer, and himself as the hero who can restore them and their world, and possibly go down in history as an example for them. He has one problem really: *He doesn’t sell, he only tells.* And he has no one on his staff that ‘sells’ the Russian position. Which is pretty damned rational really. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Coming To The Rescue And Correcting The Libertine Narrative (Fraud) Of History.

    (Beware the thief in moral disguise) https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/ 1 – THE COURSE OF HISTORY Domesticating man and woman by the use of organized violence to suppress local parasitism that harms production by increasing transaction costs, to create markets to decrease opportunity costs, and to collect revenues for that suppression of local parasitism, decrease of transaction costs, and decrease in opportunity costs. This suppression of local parasitism which impedes cooperation, and the imposition of law which leaves productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange as the only possible means of survival, can be positioned optimistically as ‘civilizing man’, charitably as ‘domesticating man’, and uncharitably as the martial elite profiting from human husbandry. The net result of domestication is that those regions most successful at human human husbandry, domestication, or civilization – however you choose to cast it – produced the highest trust, highest economic velocity, highest innovation, and the FASTEST evolution of the standard of living in both the ancient and modern worlds. At extremely high cost to those populations who produced that rate of evolutionary innovation. High trust was a very expensive institution to develop using the incremental expansion of the common law for the purpose of preventing retaliation spirals. (feuds). Libertine Libertarians, practicing the non-aggression against material property (intersubjectively verifiable property) expressly prohibit mandatory payment for commons despite making use of markets (free riding) that these commons construct; Furthermore libertine libertarians expressly preserve the rights of blackmail (non productive), fraud (not fully informed), irresponsibility (non-warranty), usury (entrapment), as and even enslavement if it’s voluntarily agreed to, because libertine libertarians claim they are not responsible for the consequences (externalities, and unintended consequences) of their actions. For example, ancient world pagans and new world scientists, using the Non-Parasitism and Non-Retaliation rules of landed warriors innovated at a rate commensurate with the spread of literacy, and their universal ethic of earned -enfranchisement through defense of the commons. Jews by contrast contributed nothing to mankind’s commons in two thousand years, despite their near universal literacy – in no small part because of their voluntarism rather than non retaliationism, their dual ethics, and their specialization in crafts of privatization of commons and socialization of losses. Especially after the Templars, and the west’s first international banking system were destroyed by the Church in order to escape the Pope and his brothers’ debt. Why does a group that pays heavily for a commons 2 – HARMONY VS CONFLICT (THE DECEIT: FRAMING OF HARMONY AND CONFLICT INSTEAD OF UNIVERSALISM VS FAMILISM AND TRIBALISM) It is better if we COOPERATE PRODUCTIVELY than if we engage in conflict that destroys capital and opportunity. It is not better if some of us cooperate productively and contribute to the commons, and some of us pretend to cooperate on one hand and privatize the commons or free ride upon that commons on the other. The purpose of rothbardian libertarianism is to justify parasitism on commons. The purpose of the harmony vs conflict deception is to use suggestion of equal participation in reproductive, productive, and common goods while acting unequally in the participation of reproductive, productive, and common goods. (almost all libertine libertarianism is an attempt to justify parasitic actions of the unequal, while making the moral claim that one is equal in contribution to the civic order we call political government, normative society, and commercial market. Libertine libertarianism is merely another fraud like marxism for the same purpose: theft. This kind of analysis is how westerners must change our high trust framework, so that we are far more analytic, and far more skeptical, about moral pretenses, which are anything but moral – they are appeals to our morality so that we can be defrauded from. ALL GROUPS COMPETE GENETICALLY AND ALL DEMONSTRATE KIN SELECTION. And the less domesticated peoples are always a threat to the more domesticated peoples. PERIOD. 3 – THE DESIGNED VS SELF ORGANIZING DECEPTION Is a false dichotomy. The designed, vs the discover and institutional, vs the normative and adaptive The most successful groups produces three categories of institutions are those we constantly seek to improve: Law(prohibiting), Production(trading), Religion(teaching). That we cannot design law, religion, and production is patently false. We can Limit parasitism, we can advocate cooperation and knowledge, and we can engage in PRODUCTIVE exchange. If we are to say, can we design institutions much more precise than this? Well we certainly have: weights and measures, property rights, legal processes, reason and science rather than mysticism, false moralism, and predatory deceit. We can even industrialize institutions like banking, rule of law, and education. But how precise can we be with them? Well, we cannot design what we should or must do, but we can design what we should not or must not do. That is how we incrementally domesticated mankind into productivity. (We should ask libertine libertarians why they think blackmail – which is voluntary but retaliatory – is moral.) So regarding institutions of cooperation we cannot always say Should and must except preventatively, we can say could and can, and we can say should not and must not. so again, self organization deception is an attempt to preserve the ability to engage in parasitism while under the pretense of moral equality. Again. Libertine libertarians are just parasites. 4 – THE DECEPTION OF FREE MOVEMENT AND FREE TRADE What the classical liberals discovered is that all other things being equal, protectionism in the caste of commodities caused more harm than free trade in commodities caused harm. They did not say all free trade is a good, and no group demonstrates unregulated free trade as a good. In fact the major struggle world wide remains, at every level, the problem of preventing asymmetries in negotiating power that cause externalities and indirect consequences – or in case of economic warfare – substantial externalities and indirect consequences. So it is true that we cannot use protection to extract prices increases through regulation, while at the same time we CAN use protection to prevent costs by externality and indirect consequences. And that is precisely what humans around the world do. We must understand that Rothbardian libertine libertarianism advocates parasitic existence imposing costs upon others, and is profoundly immoral in theory and practice. Wherever possible the libertine seeks to benefit from the high cost of a high trust market while externalizing all the costs that he can from his participation in the market. In other words, a rothbardian libertine libertarian advocates for fraud. 5 – THE OPPRESSION FALLACY REVISITED: EMANCIPATION AND PROGRESS What occurred as a consequence of high trust english common law, was that bacon applied the rigor of that law to the sciences and invented empiricism. Upon the invention of the printing press, a thousand year dark age where the church held men in illiterate, was ended, and knowledge spread across the civilized world, leading first to the agrarian and then to the industrial revolution. Now that the industrial revolution was possible, we could afford to educate and employ more people – albeit slowly – until the petrochemical revolution, which provided us the energy equivalent of endless slave labor that we did not need to clothe and feed. So we could attempt to provide opportunity to many members of most classes who had sufficient character to participate in organized employment. Unfortunately, these people were met with a new ideology of socialism that stated that they had been and were oppressed and that they could rule themselves under the same kind of order that they had in their villages. These people used democracy to vote their reproductive strategy of parasitism on the productive classes. Unfortunately women were enfranchised and within a generation began to vote their reproductive strategy and within fifty years had voted to destroy not only rule of law, not only contract, not only the family, but the civilization itself. The ‘alt-right’ constitutes activists fort he New Right just as the green an anarcist and communists function for the progressive movement, and the evangelicals function for the old right. At the top of these orders are intellectuals like any other movement. Our intellectual base has been forming for a decade or more. And what terrifies the old right, the neo-con right, the libertine-libertarians, and the socialists is, that the alt right is BETTER because at ridicule and propaganda than they are for the simple reason that empirical evidence is on their side. moreover they know that conservatives cannot speak the truth: that their strategy is eugenic. Moreover they know that they have empirical evidence now that the Neocon, lIbertine libertarian, and socialist visions are both constructed as deceptions by appealing to a process of suggestion, and that all of them have been repudiated by cognitive, economic, and behavioral sciences. WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT. The alt right are fighting the pseudoscientists and liars among the sjw’s feminists, socialists, libertines, neoconservatives and the failed program of deception of the traditional conservatives. And instead of arguing optimistically, our defense against deception by suggestion is to prosecute any and all moral claims for possibility of fraud before we even begin to assume that a moral claim is what it pretends to be. The rest of us are inventing the next generation of social science, and the next generation of institutions, the next generation of law – for when we force the abandonment of monopoly majoritarian democracy – not by ideological whining – but by the organized application of violence in demand for the restitution of our natural rights. NO MORE LIES, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, PSEUDO-MORALISM. Thanks. 😉

  • Refuting Some Criticism

    Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.

  • Refuting Some Criticism

    Sep 06, 2016 9:34am CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”— Eric, Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism: Curt’s restatement: —“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”— Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose). So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market. Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders. So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language. So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech). So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech). So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods. And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property. People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand. But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism. So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services. So this is what I hope to communicate. I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own. I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching. If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉 Cheers.

  • DOES DOOLITTLE THINK ABOUT PSEUDOSCIENCE? –“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfbWHAT DOES DOOLITTLE THINK ABOUT PSEUDOSCIENCE?

    –“Brian Gant: I’ve had this internal argument for years. Which is why certain folks we know who argue economic metaphysics is the only way of creating a predictive reality are batshit crazy ;-)”–

    –“Michael DeMond: LOL you mean folks like Curt Doolittle???? I would LOVE to hear his thoughts on this! :D”–

    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/?utm_source=atlfb

    Hi Michael. Be careful when you call the devil, because sometimes he comes. lol 😉

    DR HOFFMAN 1) OVERSTATES THE CASE, 2) CONFUSES THE OBSERVER EFFECT AND THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE AND 3) MAKES A PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT – IN OTHER WORDS, HE’S TALKING MOSTLY NONSENSE

    I call this, ‘new age mysticism’.

    —“Hoffman: We’ve been shaped to have perceptions that keep us alive, so we have to take them seriously. If I see something that I think of as a snake, I don’t pick it up. If I see a train, I don’t step in front of it. I’ve evolved these symbols to keep me alive, so I have to take them seriously. But it’s a logical flaw to think that if we have to take it seriously, we also have to take it literally.

    Gefter: If snakes aren’t snakes and trains aren’t trains, what are they?

    Hoffman: Snakes and trains, like the particles of physics, have no objective, observer-independent features. The snake I see is a description created by my sensory system to inform me of the fitness consequences of my actions. Evolution shapes acceptable solutions, not optimal ones. A snake is an acceptable solution to the problem of telling me how to act in a situation. My snakes and trains are my mental representations; your snakes and trains are your mental representations.”—

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: COST

    1 – the value of memory is in outwitting the current course of events by acting in response to stimuli (information).

    2 – to act in response to stimuli we must process information quickly enough to act to change the course of events. information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.) Information processing takes time, and more information takes more time and less information takes less time – if we remember or sense too much information (more than we can process in sufficient time to act – usually from 100ms to 2kms) then it inhibits our actions.)

    3 – information processing is very expensive – our human brains are very, very, very expensive organs. The more expensive the information processing the more calories required to support information processing. (Humans have sacrificed strength for the ability to run long distances – longer than any other land creature – and to think.)

    4 – we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, what we need to in order to act. We don’t see hear, smell, taste, feel what we do not need to in order to act – because it would be an unnecessary cost.

    5 – Information carried by Electromagnetic Radiation (light) is cheap vs action-distance and energy required. But increases cost of processing. Same is true for hearing and smell (dogs), or vibration (spiders). Of these, light requires the least energy output by the entity that can be acted upon, over the longest actionable distance. Vibration the opposite. opponents and prey can control vibration and sound. sometimes they can control smell. and sometimes they can hide. They can only control light by hiding or darkness. It is hard to control all of them.

    7 – we remember only the minimum information necessary to identify opportunities to act – because more so would be an unnecessary cost, or take unnecessary time.

    ANALOGY:PUZZLES

    Now, imagine you have a series of black and white photos of snakes.Put each of them (a lot of them) on panes of glass. Cut the images (not the glass) into small puzzle pieces. remove all the pieces that are not necessary to define the outline of the snake. We evolved to fear in snakes is their means of movement even more so than the shape. so now imagine that instead of photos we have 1 second animated gifs and we make all the pixels transparent that aren’t necessary to create a vague shape of this snake.

    Next, our eyes have lots of sensors in the very center of our focus and many fewer as we radiate outward. So take a picture of two ‘marker’ features like the pattern on the back, and the head and eyes. Now that’s just the visual component. This will also store a sort of color map of the snake. (There is a huge similarity to how we compress video and how the brain stores information, except there is more information in the video than our memories )

    So when we see a snake we find those very small sets of puzzle pieces in many different memories, and we sort of experience them as a very fast movie, blended together. Then as we watch the snake, every 1000th of a second we add more and more visual detail to those memories. so we start out with a very simple picture, using substitution of memories to fill in what we glimpse, and increasingly we fill in with observations rather than just substitutions from memory. When this happens we start predicting the future by the difference between the substitutions and the vision we experience in real time.

    It is better to think of the brain as a producer of continuous, iterative search results with a two second afterglow(a half-second half-life). So a memory stay’s ‘on’ if it’s continuously activated and dim’s if it’s not.

    If we are lucky, we can create a model(space) from it, and so between shape and model and color and sound, and continuous excitement of the same we can imagine pretty ‘complete’ information about this thing.

    (I started working as a delivery runner for my dad at age 7. it was a small city. within a few years, i could draw a map of the city to scale by hand, and a rough outline of all the houses in it. Just from memory. By the time I was twelve or fourteen I could draw the interior wood frame of a house by looking at it from the outside and drew dozens of houses in perspective showing their interior frames. We are capable of creating complex models. Even today I can generally diagnose what’s wrong with a car from just the sounds I hear. The point being that the map and the diagnosis are ‘accurate enough’ to act upon. Which is the author’s underlying argument.)

    (yet I cannot often read facial expressions which leads to the nest point: sensory differences)

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: SENSORY DIFFERENCES

    So some of us have highly attuned auditory (musical) senses. Some of us have perfect pitch and many of us do not. Some of us see different color densities and certainly the genders do. Some of us are more sensitive to vibrations. Some of us to ‘level’ (i can judge the level of a building and it bothers me terribly if it’s off.) Some of us cannot notice or do not notice at all.

    A FEATURE, NOT A BUG: VALUE JUDGEMENTS

    We know men, younger men, and females value differently. We know some cultures percieve similarities differently.

    THE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR, AND ADVOCACY

    So while any single human possesses only so many cognitive puzzle pieces about any topic, a band, a tribe, a nation, and a civilization possess a phenomenal amount of information about reality.

    By communicating and testing each other’s communications. By cooperating (or not), and by exchanging (or not), or by investing (or not), or by boycotting (or not), or by fighing (or not) we transfer information between individuals, groups, and super-groups.

    The evidence is that over time our actions increasingly corresponde with reality – as long as we use (a) scientific truth (b) rule of law, (c) markets, (d) many small competing polities that produce commons.

    If we do not, use a-d, then we will at some point stagnate if not regress. If we do use a-d, then we will continue to advance. Ergo, the west evolves faster than the rest.

    SUBSET AND SUBSTITUTION AND VALUE IS DIFFERENT FROM FALSE

    So we don’t have an ‘erroneous’ understanding of reality. we have a limited understanding of reality. And together we gain increasingly accurate understanding of reality. So much so that we have near total dominion over everything but each other.

    WHY WE NEED SCIENCE AND TESTIMONIALISM

    In my work I am trying to correct not only pseudoscientific statements by rather silly scientists, but to counter 150 years of pseudoscience of egalitarianism brought about by the cosmopolitan enlightemnent (counter-enlightenment) by Boaz, Freud, Marx, Adorno,Cantor, Rothbard, Strauss, and hundreds of others who have sought to replace utopian christian mysticism with utopian egalitarian pseudoscience. We have incrementally suppressed all forms of crime through expansion of the common natural law. And I am attempting (i think successfully) to demonstrate how we can outlaw pseudoscience by demanding the same due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we do in the production of goods and services for the market for consumption of goods and services. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If we taught grammar, logic, rhetoric and testimony (how to warranty against falsehood), basic accounting, and micro-economics, rather than social-pseudoscience we would have as great a revolution in human achievement as we had under the development of empiricism.

    THE OBSERVER EFFECT (WIKI)

    Now, the good professor does not understand the Observer Effect. It’s not that the universe cares if we’re watching. It’s that we only seem to be able to inspect via the electromagnetic spectrum in one way or another (at present) and anything we do to make an observation (take a measurement) changes the state of the thing we measure. That’s all it means. But it seems that we cannot kill this falsehood any more than we can kill some conspiracy theories.

    Here is wikipedia:

    —“In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

    In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process.

    According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: “Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.”

    Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-18 03:17:00 UTC