Form: Reply

[Y]ou know, normally I wouldn’t respond, but you’re a moral person and you’re trying, so I’m going to restate what you say scientifically. Watch what happens. —“The first truth that needs to be asserted is that nature is a product of an action, not an action in and of itself. The second truth, is that nature has a tendency to move from order to chaos, not chaos to order.”— Translates to: Man creates his personal, intellectual, social, political and economic method of cooperation, which we observe in the form of patterns of behavior, reproduction, norms, production, laws, institutions by the cumulative influence of his actions. We will call set of patterns this that produce cooperation a ‘social order’. Social orders have a tendency to evolve through experimentation, rent-seeking, and shocks until the patterns fail to assist in cooperation, and instead hinder cooperation, resulting in desires and therefore demand for restructuring these patterns of behavior using different principles, technologies, and institutions of cooperation. Comment: You are mixing religious, moral, and semi-scientific terminology and phrasing. Thankfully I”m able to disassemble it.

—“We can make the same conclusions regarding morality and ethics.”—

Those institutions of cooperation that we name “ethics” for interpersonal actions, and “morality” for the external consequences of our actions, also follow the same pattern of evolution until they no longer assist in cooperation, but hinder cooperation.

—“Modern science has affirmed the counter,”—

(I am afraid I cannot translate this except as ‘modern science has asserted otherwise’?)

—“[science] has lead to fallacious conclusions about nearly every other subject that it touches.”—

Unfortunately, due to the introduction of pseudoscience in the social sciences by Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand and Rothbard, as well as all the european and american postmodernists including feminists, and its subsequent adoption in the media, in advertising, in academy, and in the state bureaucracy, and in the primary and secondary school system, and in the collective bargaining groups, pseudoscientific conclusions spread through propaganda have indoctrinated large portions of the electorate, particularly women and the lower classes, into this false pseudoscientific set of ethical and moral conclusions.

—“Our core philosophical assumptions shape the way we view the world.”—

The value judgements that we use to decide between and act upon a multitude of possible actions are constructed from instinctual bias, experience with others, observation, norms, traditions, rituals, myths, legends, education, and formal institutions.

—“I believe these first two truths to be instinctually known rather than empirically proven.”—

I testify that these statements can be known by intuition and experience, not by pseudoscientific argumentation. In matters of social science, we can only determine what works successfully or unsuccessfully, we cannot know that any hypothesis will be successful or unsuccessful by ratio-scientific analysis. (Note: one does not ‘prove’ anything empirically. One only eliminates alternative hypothesis and imaginary and biased, and false content from one’s statements and theories. When one constructs a proof in logic or mathematics or operationalism, one states only that this construction is possible, not that it is true. It is only true that one may claim it is possible. )

–“It then becomes a matter of intellectual honesty by affirming what we already know to be true.’—

(Note: This is total nonsense, sorry. Just because pseudoscience cannot tell us what is true, and just because science can only tell us in the social sciences what is false, that does not mean our intuitions tell us what is true, because we cannot easily separate immoral and unethical norms traditions and teachings from moral and ethical norms and teachings. Otherwise people world wide would intuit ethical and moral action differently. While it is true that our senses tell us what is ethical – we evolved them over time – they can almost never tell us what is moral, and rarely tell us of externalities. Or it would have been possible to develop social science to defeat social pseudoscience before the 21st century.) The rest of the post continues to elaborate on this fallacy, so there is nothing else to comment upon. Science has told us what constitutes ethics and morality. Science has told us what our intutions failed to. All of ethics and morality is composed of an accounting of cooperative assistance and cooperative costs, and that is all it is. All else is just ritualistic language.

[Y]ou know, normally I wouldn’t respond, but you’re a moral person and you’re trying, so I’m going to restate what you say scientifically. Watch what happens. —“The first truth that needs to be asserted is that nature is a product of an action, not an action in and of itself. The second truth, is that nature has a tendency to move from order to chaos, not chaos to order.”— Translates to: Man creates his personal, intellectual, social, political and economic method of cooperation, which we observe in the form of patterns of behavior, reproduction, norms, production, laws, institutions by the cumulative influence of his actions. We will call set of patterns this that produce cooperation a ‘social order’. Social orders have a tendency to evolve through experimentation, rent-seeking, and shocks until the patterns fail to assist in cooperation, and instead hinder cooperation, resulting in desires and therefore demand for restructuring these patterns of behavior using different principles, technologies, and institutions of cooperation. Comment: You are mixing religious, moral, and semi-scientific terminology and phrasing. Thankfully I”m able to disassemble it.

—“We can make the same conclusions regarding morality and ethics.”—

Those institutions of cooperation that we name “ethics” for interpersonal actions, and “morality” for the external consequences of our actions, also follow the same pattern of evolution until they no longer assist in cooperation, but hinder cooperation.

—“Modern science has affirmed the counter,”—

(I am afraid I cannot translate this except as ‘modern science has asserted otherwise’?)

—“[science] has lead to fallacious conclusions about nearly every other subject that it touches.”—

Unfortunately, due to the introduction of pseudoscience in the social sciences by Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Keynes, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand and Rothbard, as well as all the european and american postmodernists including feminists, and its subsequent adoption in the media, in advertising, in academy, and in the state bureaucracy, and in the primary and secondary school system, and in the collective bargaining groups, pseudoscientific conclusions spread through propaganda have indoctrinated large portions of the electorate, particularly women and the lower classes, into this false pseudoscientific set of ethical and moral conclusions.

—“Our core philosophical assumptions shape the way we view the world.”—

The value judgements that we use to decide between and act upon a multitude of possible actions are constructed from instinctual bias, experience with others, observation, norms, traditions, rituals, myths, legends, education, and formal institutions.

—“I believe these first two truths to be instinctually known rather than empirically proven.”—

I testify that these statements can be known by intuition and experience, not by pseudoscientific argumentation. In matters of social science, we can only determine what works successfully or unsuccessfully, we cannot know that any hypothesis will be successful or unsuccessful by ratio-scientific analysis. (Note: one does not ‘prove’ anything empirically. One only eliminates alternative hypothesis and imaginary and biased, and false content from one’s statements and theories. When one constructs a proof in logic or mathematics or operationalism, one states only that this construction is possible, not that it is true. It is only true that one may claim it is possible. )

–“It then becomes a matter of intellectual honesty by affirming what we already know to be true.’—

(Note: This is total nonsense, sorry. Just because pseudoscience cannot tell us what is true, and just because science can only tell us in the social sciences what is false, that does not mean our intuitions tell us what is true, because we cannot easily separate immoral and unethical norms traditions and teachings from moral and ethical norms and teachings. Otherwise people world wide would intuit ethical and moral action differently. While it is true that our senses tell us what is ethical – we evolved them over time – they can almost never tell us what is moral, and rarely tell us of externalities. Or it would have been possible to develop social science to defeat social pseudoscience before the 21st century.) The rest of the post continues to elaborate on this fallacy, so there is nothing else to comment upon. Science has told us what constitutes ethics and morality. Science has told us what our intutions failed to. All of ethics and morality is composed of an accounting of cooperative assistance and cooperative costs, and that is all it is. All else is just ritualistic language.