( Exceptional Skype conversation with Moritz Bierling Today. Smart guy. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-26 19:18:00 UTC
Form: Short Note
-
Epistemology: Prediction vs Explanation
(Curt Doolittle December 19 at 11:24am) I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: limits, parsimony, and falsifiability. Technically they are all properties of scope. But to test scope we must test all dimensions of scope. Also, like internal consistency, I use external correspondence rather than ‘predictability’ since ‘prediction’ generally invites the ludic fallacy (probability). We cannot predict much in the economy, because any observation and measurement we make effects it. the physical sciences progress quickly because they are the most simple, because they are the least variant. social sciences advance more slowly because we adapt where the physical world can’t. So science requires that we ‘match the data’ recorded in retrospect, not that we predict. Instead, prediction is a reductio test of simple systems. Ergo, the explanation horizon depends reflects the rate of adaptation. so we must choose more prediction in some cases (physical science) and more explanatory power in other cases (social science) simply because the horizons vary so much between reaction (the physical world) and action (the social world).
-
Epistemology: Prediction vs Explanation
(Curt Doolittle December 19 at 11:24am) I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: limits, parsimony, and falsifiability. Technically they are all properties of scope. But to test scope we must test all dimensions of scope. Also, like internal consistency, I use external correspondence rather than ‘predictability’ since ‘prediction’ generally invites the ludic fallacy (probability). We cannot predict much in the economy, because any observation and measurement we make effects it. the physical sciences progress quickly because they are the most simple, because they are the least variant. social sciences advance more slowly because we adapt where the physical world can’t. So science requires that we ‘match the data’ recorded in retrospect, not that we predict. Instead, prediction is a reductio test of simple systems. Ergo, the explanation horizon depends reflects the rate of adaptation. so we must choose more prediction in some cases (physical science) and more explanatory power in other cases (social science) simply because the horizons vary so much between reaction (the physical world) and action (the social world).
-
Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?
(Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.
-
Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?
(Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.
-
Sequence: Scale and Boundaries
—“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects as scale increases): The tribe is a softening of family boundaries through intermarriage and mutually beneficial collective action. The nation state is a dissolution of tribal boundaries through ideology or forced submission. Globalism is the suppression of nation state boundaries through fraud and deceit.”— #barbarianeconomist
-
Sequence: Scale and Boundaries
—“This scales along a continuum (with increasing fragility and negative effects as scale increases): The tribe is a softening of family boundaries through intermarriage and mutually beneficial collective action. The nation state is a dissolution of tribal boundaries through ideology or forced submission. Globalism is the suppression of nation state boundaries through fraud and deceit.”— #barbarianeconomist
-
Back from a 24hour FB Block for reposting the meme someone created of me and rot
Back from a 24hour FB Block for reposting the meme someone created of me and rothbard. omg.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-26 12:46:00 UTC
-
On book research- NASA. Partial book research – tesla. Off book research – paten
On book research- NASA.
Partial book research – tesla.
Off book research – patents.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-24 13:08:00 UTC
-
Scene: Nebraska. Rain. Cold. Highway. My Porsche at 50mph. Three suv’s at 65 mph
Scene:
Nebraska. Rain. Cold. Highway.
My Porsche at 50mph.
Three suv’s at 65 mph passing me.
Three suv’s in a row spin off into the ditch within one mile of one another.
My Porsche parked in a gas station.
Me drinking coffee.
Them waiting for tow trucks.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-23 11:09:00 UTC