(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1545149832 Timestamp) RATIONAL SELF-MEDICATION Michael E. Darden, Nicholas W. Papageorge NBER Working Paper No. 25371 Issued in December 2018 NBER Program(s):Health Economics We develop a theory of rational self-medication. The idea is that forward-looking individuals, lacking access to better treatment options, attempt to manage the symptoms of mental and physical pain outside of formal medical care. They use substances that relieve symptoms in the short run but that may be harmful in the long run. For example, heavy drinking could alleviate current symptoms of depression but could also exacerbate future depression or lead to alcoholism. Rational self-medication suggests that, when presented with a safer, more effective treatment, individuals will substitute towards it. To investigate, we use forty years of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study and leverage the exogenous introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We demonstrate an economically meaningful reduction in heavy alcohol consumption for men when SSRIs became available. Additionally, we show that addiction to alcohol inhibits substitution. Our results suggest a role for rational self-medication in understanding the origin of substance abuse. Furthermore, our work suggests that punitive policies targeting substance abuse may backfire, leading to substitution towards even more harmful substances to self-medicate. In contrast, policies promoting medical innovation that provide safer treatment options could obviate the need to self-medicate with dangerous or addictive substances. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25371
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545088319 Timestamp) A GEM BY BILL —“That’s what “Law” means “Decidable” in scientific language, and which means “Absolute” in archaic moral language. … That’s what Laws of Nature (unconscious, deterministic) and Natural Law (conscious, volitionary) mean: they are DESCRIPTIVE. You cannot violate the laws of nature but you can manipulate them. You can violate the natural laws, and pay the consequences. The natural world already calculates its optimum, and we ‘cheat’ it. The natural law is something else men cheat. However, the optimum method of human evolution is the elimination of cheating (parasitism). If you eliminate all parasitism you end up with natural law. If you do not then you don’t.”—Curt Doolittle —“Don’t you still need a justification that’s more than “it’s natural” to avoid justifying your law on a naturalistic fallacy? The justification for propertarianism seems to be a utilitarian argument.”—Hue Whitman Answer by Bill Joslin: The Naturalistic fallacy relates to equating a positive moral standing for an action due to it being natural (“if it happens in nature it’s therefore good”) not a utilitarian stance which provides an operational description of how the action results in immoral consequences (“under these conditions and incentives, human conflict rises”). Two different domains of argumentation, the former justificatory, the later warranty.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545266743 Timestamp) —“Western civilization is Greek philosophy, Roman law and statecraft, British science,and German engineering”—AH edited a bit… lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545266743 Timestamp) —“Western civilization is Greek philosophy, Roman law and statecraft, British science,and German engineering”—AH edited a bit… lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545407885 Timestamp) “GETTING IT- IT’S MOSTLY THE GRAMMARS” by A Friend. Hey! I thought about what made it ‘click’ for me. Here’s the result: “Let me try to identify things that would have made it faster: 1) Vocabulary. That would have been the biggest barrier to entry for me. What is fictionalism? What is operationalism? Largely graspable. Once this is clear I donât see anything blocking the understand of the grammars. 2) I should have focused less on your facebook posts (until I got the grammars). I think I should have went straight to the website and find the Core of propertarianism. I avoided the core too much. Iâm high on openness so the posts are pretty cool because there is so much to unpack and to learn from, and I could just dive inside. Itâs nice to have something to grapple my mind with that can last longer that a few weeks. 3) Writing about it and isolating the core earlier (I think going to the overview that Eli Harman put out helped). So I started to say âI need to identify the Core and write about the definitions of the concepts in the core to really appropriate them as my ownâ. To do that I isolated mainly testimonialism and the tests of consistency. 4) I saw a post on the website about natural law and stating basically how you should talk and the vocabulary to use. That subject was didn’t take me very long by comparison. To summarize, it would have been way faster for me to say: Here are the key concepts (fictionalism, operationalism, testimonialism, the tests of consistency). Here are the definitions of this terms. Here is what you can do with it. Here is how you can do it (the grammars). Go in the world and use it. I couldnât understand it when you said, “it is taking so long to look through everything again”. Now, Iâm like âOoooooh shit. Okay. I get it. I get how big this project is if you need to look at everything. Damn. Good job man.â Now I also understand that you use this Grammar and Vocabulary, and then you test what results they produce on facebook. You experiment with them on facebook. BIG LESSON I think if I would have understand how important are the grammars, I would have gone straight for it until I got it. Then it is a matter of investing the time to apply it.” (CD: edited for clarity)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545320605 Timestamp) “Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.” – Nietzsche
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545407885 Timestamp) “GETTING IT- IT’S MOSTLY THE GRAMMARS” by A Friend. Hey! I thought about what made it ‘click’ for me. Here’s the result: “Let me try to identify things that would have made it faster: 1) Vocabulary. That would have been the biggest barrier to entry for me. What is fictionalism? What is operationalism? Largely graspable. Once this is clear I donât see anything blocking the understand of the grammars. 2) I should have focused less on your facebook posts (until I got the grammars). I think I should have went straight to the website and find the Core of propertarianism. I avoided the core too much. Iâm high on openness so the posts are pretty cool because there is so much to unpack and to learn from, and I could just dive inside. Itâs nice to have something to grapple my mind with that can last longer that a few weeks. 3) Writing about it and isolating the core earlier (I think going to the overview that Eli Harman put out helped). So I started to say âI need to identify the Core and write about the definitions of the concepts in the core to really appropriate them as my ownâ. To do that I isolated mainly testimonialism and the tests of consistency. 4) I saw a post on the website about natural law and stating basically how you should talk and the vocabulary to use. That subject was didn’t take me very long by comparison. To summarize, it would have been way faster for me to say: Here are the key concepts (fictionalism, operationalism, testimonialism, the tests of consistency). Here are the definitions of this terms. Here is what you can do with it. Here is how you can do it (the grammars). Go in the world and use it. I couldnât understand it when you said, “it is taking so long to look through everything again”. Now, Iâm like âOoooooh shit. Okay. I get it. I get how big this project is if you need to look at everything. Damn. Good job man.â Now I also understand that you use this Grammar and Vocabulary, and then you test what results they produce on facebook. You experiment with them on facebook. BIG LESSON I think if I would have understand how important are the grammars, I would have gone straight for it until I got it. Then it is a matter of investing the time to apply it.” (CD: edited for clarity)
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545320605 Timestamp) “Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.” – Nietzsche
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1545485322 Timestamp) —“Virtually no human action occurs in a vacuum – what they really mean is that “we do not agree, but you are wrong because I am complaining”— Micah Pezdirtz