—“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”— Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons. That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability). The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance). The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions. Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption. When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector. We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector. So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption. The problem is: 1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem. 2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons. 3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending. So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.) Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces. In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with: 1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates. 2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives. 3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption. 4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers). The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities). I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes. The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Form: Dialogue
-
Q&A: What’s Wrong With Capitalism?
—“What is wrong with capitalism? Can it be solved by economic theories alone, or is it a leadership problem as well?”— Well, let’s take a ‘meaningful’ name: “capitalism”, and restated it operationally, using a ‘true’ name: What problems arise from the voluntary organization of production distribution and trade(capitalism) with individual distribution of property rights providing individual discretion using information provided by the pricing system, compared to the involuntary organization of production, distribution, and trade (socialism) with the discretionary distribution of property rights, in the absence of a pricing system, and compared to a mixed economy, where we use the voluntary organization of production, distribution, and trade, with the individual allocation of property rights, and with individual discretion provided by the pricing system, yet representative decision over the amount and use of the proceeds from the voluntary organization of production? And why has no one really succeded at producing a mixed property economy (other than the fascists), whereby the majority of consumption goods are produced by the voluntary market, and the commons are produced by the involuntary organization of production? In other words, we use armies for building defense, why don’t we use the industrial equivalent of armies to build and maintain infrastructure, and maintain the beauty, and civility of the commons. That’s a very long way of describing the problem, but it still obscures the next layer of complexity: discretion (decidability). The market provides superior decidability for those things that will benefit from competition. In many cases, competition for ideas(architecture and engineering) is beneficial but competition for labor is not (construction and maintenance). The answer is that we cannot choose pure capitalism because too many people are of too little value in many markets, because of immigration, asymmetric class reproduction, or simply overpopulation in relation to the trustworthiness of the people and their institutions. Likewise we cannot choose pure socialism, because there are too few incentives for people to engage in value-creating production, and too many incentives for people to engage in corruption. When we try a mixed appropriation economy (what we call a mixed economy today), we seem to produce rapidly decreasing birth rates in our productive people, and extraordinary rents in the public sector. We considered trying a mixed production economy, but the problem is the statists and rent seekers in the productive sector compete using the government to deprive the private sector. So the problem is not capitalism or socialism. The problem is demographic mix, the mixture of voluntary and involuntary organiztaion of production to suit the demographics and institutions available, and the elimination of discretion from the people in what we call government so that even if they exist they cannot (easily) engage in corruption. The problem is: 1) That we lack rule of law rather rule of legislation. Majority rule, representative democracy, is perhaps the worst government everyone ever produced. If we could vote to oust the entire government every 90 days, and rescind all acts of that government upon successful ouster, then that might be helpful. If we could sue government participants if they tried to construct or did construct immoral contracts, then that would be an a solutoin. And if we were still required to pay a progressive income tax, but we chould choose how it was allocated, right down to the paperclip, I think that would solve the problem. 2) But then we get to the answer: That we lack a market for the production of commons (like we had under english houses of parliament). We rely on assent (majority rule) creating opportunity for corruption, instead of relying on dissent (violation of natural, judge discovered, common law) to prevent immoral and illegal contracts for the production of commons. We could allocate funds evenly and let areas negotiate exchanges. And that would produce a moral and naturally legal market for the production of commons. 3) We rely on fiat money (which is an advantage) but we distribute liquidity and dividends through the financial system rather than directly to consumers. In other words, we cause consumers and businesses to fight for credit, rather than businesses and finance to fight for consumer spending. So as humans we tend to like to break ideas down into too simple a set of comparisons, becuase really, it’s hard to work with anything other than ideal types. Humans… well, we just aren’t that smart. (Try algebraic geometry, which in principle should’nt be too complicated, but our minds are just not often made for it.) Instead we must often thing in supply demand curves, becuase whether the thing we are discussing is persona, social, international, or physical concept, we deal with equilibrial forces. In this case we have a series of problems we must deal with: 1) demographic distributions: the differnce between races is largely one of sexual maturity and asymmetric sexual dimorphism producing differences in abilities. This is magnified by geography that cuases various selection pressures. As such poor places just were worse at killing off the lower classes and suppressing their reproduction, and the wealthier places better at upward redistribution of resources and constant culling of the underclasses through sanction (killing), war, starvation, and the difficulty of surviving in cold climates. 2) Information and incentives: the pricing system provides opportunity to FORM both information and incentives. 3) Discretion versus rule of law: Discretion and corruption versus rule of law and non-corruption. 4) The distribution of the organizaiton of production from authoritarian (originating in the fertile crescent and other flood plains) raider ethics (originating in steppe and desert), and libertarian (originating in the forest and sea peoples), and equalitarian, (preserved among hunter-gatherers). The solution is to solve all these problems with (a) rule of law (non discretion) (b) market production of commons limited by legal dissent. (c) extension of involuntary production for the construction and maintenance of commons, and reduction of the voluntary organization of production to those capable of surviving within it. (d) the restoration of the family as the central object of policy (e) the restoration of the process of intergenrational lending to preserve knowldge and calculability. (f) the direct and equal distribution of liquidity under fiat money (shares in the commons) to consumers in the case of the necessity to reorder the sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (the market) when it incurrs shocks or exhaustions (of opportunities). I could go on but I think you get the general idea. We got it wrong when we tried to steal the commons from the aristocracy by imposing majoritarianism, rather than constructing additional houses and continuing the tradition of using government as a market for the production of commons by negotiation between the classes. The middle class was nowhere near as good at governing as the aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Information Is A Form Of Production No Different From Any Other
–“You’ve said that you see information as a commodity and therefore lies should be punishable fraud. Could you expand on what you mean as a commodity and how you would determine what forms of “lies” (you usually say leftist pseudo-science) should be punished?”— I said I see information as a kind of production that is dumped into the commons, just as pollutants are dumped into the air, land, and water. We don’t care much if you dump clean water into the commons, or clean air into the commons, or even oxygen, and to some degree heat or cold. But why should you be able to pollute the informational commons any more than you can pollute air, land, water, or damage parks, infrastructure, buildings, and monuments? It was one when we all have equal voices in the Thang, Square, Church, or Parliament. But it becomes quite different when you can make use of Altar, Pulpit, Throne, Press, media, and entertainment. It’s very different to tell a white lie, a gray lie, a black lie, and a white, gray, or black propaganda lie. And it’s far worse if you force a legislative lie. Our civilization has been nearly conquered by the Jewish pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, and outright falsehood movements, by the academy, media, and state, just as the ancients were conquered as much by the lies of Jewish monotheism and it’s distribution by pulpit and state. Likely with equally dark ages to follow. So how do we prevent correct it now, and prevent it in the future? Well, we make it as illegal to lie in politics as it is to commit any other kind of fraud, by removing the right to free speech and replacing it with the right to truthful speech. But why is the problem of truth and falsehood so challenging? The answer is that until approximately now, we didn’t know what ‘truth’ was any more than we knew what ‘justice’ was. What I’ve tried to do is provide a set of warranties of due diligence (which is what scientists do) that if performed means that a proposition may not be true, but it is very difficult for it knowingly to be false. IF we then simply create universal standing for matters of the commons and remove the ability of the state to intervene in matters of the commons, then people will regulate speech in the commons as rigorously as they regulate fraud in the commons. Advertisers are highly regulated, but most of us would suggest we regulate them far further. Some speech is regulated, but we could regulate it further. We used to teach grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and adding warranties of truthfulness is certainly not harder than teaching logic or geometry. And if you cannot state logic or geometry or truthfulness we have a question whether you can say anything other than what you desire, versus what is true. In my grandmother’s generation, it wasn’t uncommon for people to say “I don’t know about such things” because that was a truthful statement. Yet in pursuit of socialism, we have told generations to express opinions as if they were a truth that they understood. This attack on truth in favor of self-expression, in order to empower the incompetent classes, has been central to the anti-aristocratic strategy we incorrectly call ‘socialism’. So in brief there is absolutely no reason we cannot state in comprehensible and observable legal language the requirements for due diligence in truthfulness when speaking of matters in the commons. We do it with creating a hazard (‘fire in a theater’), and we do it with inciting a riot (‘taking advantage of mob instinct’), and we do it with libel and slander, and prior to the outlawing of judicial duels we did it even for insults. It is not clear at all that the world is a better place for our tolerance of insult, libel, slander, advertising representation, political representation, teaching of pseudosciences, and other conflationary public speech. It’s just the opposite. We’ve just endured a century of pseudoscience.
-
Demarcation between Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Male Insurance) and Pathological Altruism (Female Insurance)
Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty. David Mondrus “aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference. Curt Doolittle Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes? Damn. Yes. David Mondrus The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy. Curt Doolittle Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice. David Mondrus But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
-
Demarcation between Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Male Insurance) and Pathological Altruism (Female Insurance)
Curt Doolittle I tend to view western aristocratic egalitarianism as demanding respect for property in exchange for the franchise of Liberty. David Mondrus “aristocratic egalitarianism” vs “pathological altruism”. The demand of respect for property in exchange for liberty is the difference. Curt Doolittle Let me think about that because it is insightful. Hmmm. Is that the origin? Yes? Damn. Yes. David Mondrus The altruism demands nothing in return. It supplicates to the needy saying in essence “love us, we’ll give you whatever you want”. The ultimate female strategy. Curt Doolittle Yes. And now you’ve synthesized the female by free-riding upon the male. Nice. David Mondrus But that is in essence female. Free riding males is their survival strategy. After all, rape is better than death, esp if it’s couched in socially acceptable terms like “stealing the bride” (the “-stans” now), or dowry (selling the bride) India.
-
Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?
–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling
[G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?
–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling
[G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TALEB AND DOOLITTLE? Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Ta
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN TALEB AND DOOLITTLE?
Rob De Geer
I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment.
Curt Doolittle
We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing.
So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century.
Rob De Geer
OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements.
Curt Doolittle
I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls.
Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit)
Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically.
This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental.
Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools.
I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans.
I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 05:20:00 UTC
-
ancap_venetaz@curtdoolittle i hope rothbard comes back from the grave to volunta
ancap_venetaz@curtdoolittle
i hope rothbard comes back from the grave to voluntarily slice your neck off
curtdoolittle@ancap_venetaz,
Then I’d make him my bitch in person as well. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 22:01:00 UTC
-
THE INEFFABLE? QUESTION:—“So the ineffable has no place?”— I find ineffabili
THE INEFFABLE?
QUESTION:—“So the ineffable has no place?”—
I find ineffability to be an exceptional excuse fo preserving obscurantism and deceit. There is nothing inexplicable. There are things we merely are too ignorant to explain.
As far as I know any human experience is conveyable by one means or another. The causal explanation of that experience is NOT THE SAME as the experience itself. But that does not mean that the causal explanation is not necessary and sufficient for the explanation of the experience. A recipe is necessary for a cake, but eating a cake is necessary for the experience of eating it. We may eat a cake without knowing how to make it by the recipe. But we cannot claim that the recipe for creating the experience of the cake is unknowable.
Man is part of the universe and subject to the same constructions. There is nothing mysterious about it.
The most serious problem we face is that the search system (system 1) and the action system (moving body parts) is insulated from our introspection. But that does not mean that we cannot use other tools and technology to perceive what occurs in our minds and bodies just as we use tools to observe what occurs in micro, and macro space outside of human scale.
Our emotions are reactions to change in state of inventory (Property) thus informing us to act to acquire and defend inventory (property). There is nothing more to know I think. Or rather, psychology seems to be telling us only that we possess a lot of cognitive biasses to compel us to act optimistically in a hostile world where in we are largely ignorant.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 05:49:00 UTC