Source: Facebook

(from elsewhere)

Facebook is a good vehicle for testing out certain kinds of arguments.

When I was working through testimonial Truth, no one thought it was very interesting although today I get a lot of credit for my use of truthfulness to defeat the left’s arguments.

Last year I worked on religion quite a bit, and because that’s an accessible topic, it generated a lot more activity – albeit, most of it drivel.

I’m very conscious of my experiment: do the work of constructing a philosophical system rationally articulating the western aristocratic model, and do it in public like a traditional craftsman, where people see the good and bad attempts. And directly engaging people from all walks of life.

Now, you have no way really to judge what you don’t understand, and no reason that you’re aware of why you would invest so heavily in learning a formal argumentative grammar (terms and operations). Especially one that’s so burdensome to construct.

But then the point of these constructions (proofs), is to eliminate hasty generalizations, obscurantism, loading, framing and overloading, pseudorationalism and pseudoscience, suggestion and deceit.

Just as it’s somewhat challenging to write and publish research papers in the physical sciences, it is equally difficult to do so in law and social science – if we rely on strict operational construction using an analysis of voluntary and involuntary transfers of various forms of capital.

So if you are not finding worthy argument on FB, it’s because perhaps worthy argument does not often exist, and if it does, it’s costly to access, and it’s costly to access because proofs in social science (demonstrations of existential possibility free of deceit) are, like proofs in logic or mathematics, or arguments strictly constructed in law – tedious.

But without that tedium we make tragic catastrophe’s like the rothbardian program that has nearly destroyed the philosophy of liberty.