Form: Critique

  • CRITICISM FROM ERIC —“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presu

    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. 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.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-06 02:34:00 UTC

  • FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS Most western philosophers are fiddling while rome burn

    FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS

    Most western philosophers are fiddling while rome burns. I’m slow as hell but at least I’m trying to solve the real problem.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-02 03:22:00 UTC

  • THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR —“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more aca

    THE CLASS DIVISIONS OF ACADEMIC LABOR

    —“Stanford and Chicago GSB have more academic publications that these universities’ economics departments. Two things i don’t like in this trend. 1) Academia persuaded university authorities that to business PhD and MBA math-economics is indispensable. Applied programs people hate this “rigorous” nonsense 2) Too many graduates from mainstream go to teach in business schools.”— Arteom Korotchenya

    Procedural Application (private business and public govt) vs Application(repeatability) vs Basic Research(discovery).

    Three different things. Very few basic research papers of merit in any given year. Many, many applications tested each year, each expanding or reducing empirical content and thereby increasing or decreasing candidacy in law.

    All organizations, intellectual included, operate by class structures, roughly segmented by every ten points of IQ +/- 1/2 St.Dev. And it is the cooperation between these classes that produces the difference between imagination, hypothesis, theory, and law. Those at the bottom test theories tested by application to data and hypothesized by basic research.

    Together we take a restructuring of human understanding, through various tests, until habituated by use, and assumed metaphysically as a natural property of existence.

    So think of the hierarchy as a production cycle, and work within your class, and don’t worry about what other classes do. They CAN only work with the conceptual tools that we give them. And very few of us struggle amidst ridiculous odds to find some innovation that can work its way through that production cycle and end up in our unconscious assumptions about the nature of reality and how we can act to benefit from it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-29 05:11:00 UTC

  • COURSE, I HAVE TO COME TO THE RESCUE AND CORRECT THE LIBERTINE NARRATIVE (FRAUD)

    https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/OF COURSE, I HAVE TO COME TO THE RESCUE AND CORRECT 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. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-27 09:19:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD WASN”T EQUIPPED FOR THE TASK HE CHOSE Rothbard was just not equipped fo

    ROTHBARD WASN”T EQUIPPED FOR THE TASK HE CHOSE

    Rothbard was just not equipped for the task he chose. As an analyst and historian he was wonderful. As a theorist he was ill equipped.

    We have the unfortunate luxury of many terrible philosophical thinkers.

    We have a far worse problem of a populace and academy lacking the ability to judge ethical, moral, economic, political, and group evolutionary strategies as the group competitions they are.

    Had Rothbard not so seriously damaged Mises contribution – as far off as it was – mises could be a hero. As it is he made mises’ obsessive recalcitrance into a pseudoscience, in turn industrially manufactured and distributed by the Mises institute using the new medium of the web.

    If not for their persistent heaping of unworthy praise on a laughable pseudoscience, we could rescue Mises and Rothbard from their errors and instead we could demonstrate how in a century the anarchic research program, Hayek and popper’s information program. Mises in operationalism, Rothbard and Hoppe in strict construction, solved the unsolved problem of social science begun by Aristotle and Bacon.

    But we must damn the authors as long as the lunatic fringe maintain their propagandism: destroying the potential their heroes possess in pursuit of undue praise they have not earned except as pseudoscientists.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 04:30:00 UTC

  • DEAR FANTASY MILITARY CLOWNS Dear Clowns. Soldiers and warriors are athletes. Fi

    DEAR FANTASY MILITARY CLOWNS

    Dear Clowns.

    Soldiers and warriors are athletes. Fitness is perhaps the most important asset other than basic weaponry. No matter how fit you are weight matters.

    It doesn’t get better than a spear, a sword, a saxon axe (Tomohawk), a knife, a shield and armor until we’re talking about bullets. At the point we’re talking about bullets it doesn’t get better than concealment, cover, movement, distance, RPG’s, RPM’s, and accuracy – until we’re talking about darkness. The point we’re talking about darkness it doesn’t get better than night vision, silenced .45 smg, and a carbine – until we’re talking about distance. And at the point we’re talking about distance it doesn’t get better than artillery, cruise missiles, and missiles, until we’re talking about science fiction. And at the point we’re talking about science fiction in the future or about fantasy in the past – its no longer worth talking to you. Japanese martial art is all about compensation for.. well, physical inadequacy that isn’t necessary in Scandinavian and germanic martial art. And germanic martial art is all about emotional expression that isn’t necessary in technological martial art. And technological martial art is all about anthropomorhpization – so that we can maintain the emotional expression of physical size and invulnerability that isn’t necessary in technological reality. Because in technical reality we are not in any way trying to impress the enemy with our chest thumping – it merely makes one a targte. We are trying to be as small, as light, as fast, and as invisible as possible so that we can destroy those things that are big, and strong, and threatening, and inspiring because people are making the mistake of chest thumping rather than smallness, lightness, fastness, and the concentration of increasing amounts of energy in smaller and larger places.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-26 04:24:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjectiv

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY

    I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology.

    Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened.

    So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete.

    Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is:

    1 – categorically consistent (identity)

    2 – internally consistent (logically consistent)

    3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent)

    4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated)

    A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining:

    5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony)

    And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining:

    6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality)

    So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights.

    However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language.

    Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration.

    So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit.

    And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:37:00 UTC

  • You speak the truth. The symbols you’ve written are a tautology, not even a proo

    You speak the truth. The symbols you’ve written are a tautology, not even a proof. You just conflate terms w/o understanding.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 12:17:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768059581658521600

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768055481336160257


    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/768055481336160257

  • And the irony is that you’re criticizing Mises who did the same thing, and not s

    And the irony is that you’re criticizing Mises who did the same thing, and not seeing the fallacies of Keynes who inverted it.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 12:05:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768056539831758848

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768055481336160257


    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/768055481336160257

  • So see, you THINK you know something about truth, but you have just managed to h

    So see, you THINK you know something about truth, but you have just managed to habituate erroneous convention.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 12:04:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768056317747527680

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768055481336160257


    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/768055481336160257