Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WORTH REPEATING. IMPORTANT PIECE. Aristocracy is Negative: Critical and Scientif

    WORTH REPEATING. IMPORTANT PIECE.

    Aristocracy is Negative: Critical and Scientific, a Republic is Positive: Justificationary and Rational.

    See how critical rationalism plays here?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 10:11:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE A CHOICE (revised) Truth, Trade and Liberty (propertarianism) –vs– Lie

    WE HAVE A CHOICE (revised)

    Truth, Trade and Liberty (propertarianism)

    –vs–

    Lies, Takings, and Authority (socialism)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 09:56:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/07/19/eli-apologizes-for-american-yankees/FYI

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 09:34:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS CRITICAL RATIONALISM? Critical Rationalism is an epistemology developed

    WHAT IS CRITICAL RATIONALISM?

    Critical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism.

    ASSERTIONS:

    1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.)

    2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate.

    3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false.

    4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”).

    5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

    SUMMARY

    One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon:

    ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth;

    –or–

    ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

    Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine (London)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 08:35:00 UTC

  • HOW CAN I REFORM CRITICAL RATIONALISTS? (important question) Or is it hopeless?

    HOW CAN I REFORM CRITICAL RATIONALISTS?

    (important question)

    Or is it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.

    1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (conceptual darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards?

    2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies?

    3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery.

    I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not.

    Thanks

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 06:43:00 UTC

  • COOPERATION IS EITHER MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL OR VIOLENCE IS PREFERABLE COOPERATION

    COOPERATION IS EITHER MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL OR VIOLENCE IS PREFERABLE

    COOPERATION MATTERS. Not just between members of the PRODUCTIVE economy, but between members of the REPRODUCTIVE economy. We have to cooperate. Not parasite. OTHERWISE COOPERATION IS NOT PREFERABLE TO PREDATION.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 06:16:00 UTC

  • PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS (run with this meme) Paul; It’s not

    PAUL KRUGMAN”S SLOW ROASTING KEYNESIAN OVENS

    (run with this meme)

    Paul; It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading and framing and overloading them with moral falsehoods. You advocate institutional lying: the Keynesian economics of distorting the information system we use to cooperate so that we consume rather than accumulate capital; and you advocate theft on an epic scale: redistribution in lieu of voluntary exchanges between classes so that we accumulate normative capital rather than government scale. So I’m not saying you’re wrong – you do manage to state half truths. I’m saying you’re a lying, immoral, fraud, a racist and a genocidalist. Putting people in ovens instead of showers is immoral and dishonest. Putting people in economic and political ovens instead is just doing the same by slower means. I mean, you’re just a better liar, but you’re doing the same thing. Genocide by lying.

    Curt Doolittle

    (No way outta that box Paul. You’re done.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 06:08:00 UTC

  • ROMAN ON THE GENETIC USE OF PHILOSOPHY FOR STATUS SEEKING —If I understand cor

    ROMAN ON THE GENETIC USE OF PHILOSOPHY FOR STATUS SEEKING

    —If I understand correctly, your novelty is arguing that ideas are the structure and genes are man’s accommodation of them.

    You can say ideas (civilization) and genes inform each other. Perhaps the influence of ideas is underestimated. I don’t think it’s correct to say that one completely determines the other.

    Different civilizations (ideas, norms, institutions), create different reproductive incentives which lead to genetic differentiation of groups and, after a very long time (many millennia) may cause species to diverge.

    My hunch is that people’s genetics (moral intuition) will cause them to look at a philosophy and ask “how can I seek status within this system?”

    Genetics may determine what strategy individuals adopt: Express it. Protect it. Enforce it. Pretend to express it while cheating. Openly Flout it. Ignore it. Undermine it.— Roman Skaskiw

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 05:44:00 UTC

  • PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS (reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy) L

    PERSPECTIVE ON PROGRESS

    (reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy)

    Look at the past two years of posts by Eli Harman and Michael Philip, and look at the change in their sentence structure, length, and chain of causal relations. I’m very conscious of these things. So I see it. Johannes is a bit of a character, but at least offline, he is loosely stringing very long chains of causal explanation together and is perhaps best at constructing analysis by a chain of unloaded incentives. Look at the change in the confidence of argument of Haille Mariam-Lemar. Roman usually conducts his arguments elsewhere but he is the best at enfranchising the other side. Look at what we’ve seen from Jesse Bjorn and Mike Enoch in understanding and applying testimonial truth and propertarianism.

    It’s beautiful. But what is most beautiful, is the confidence that’s emerging. One of the things I wanted to do was increase the aggressiveness of the debate so that we spoke with confidence and conviction. I wanted to create a moral high ground that we weren’t afraid to argue without guilt, and with conviction. Truth is that moral high ground. And if we create a moral high ground to demand, we can stop complaining about the status quo, and work toward institutional change. We can demand institutional change. Revolt for institutional change.

    While it’s a phenomenal amount of work, I can see a future where we can train people to speak truthfully the same way we trained people to speak scientifically-morally instead of ratio-morally, and instead of religio-morally. Where we conduct exchanges rather than impose majority rule. Where we treat tribes like younger and older families rather than people to defeat or resist.

    But I’m still failing in some of my ambitions. I want to change the debate from criticism of multiculturalism and racism to advocacy of familialism and aristocracy. From genetic differences to differences in distributions. From equality and inequality to aristocratic success and failure. From corporate nation-states to private tribal families. From ratio-moral argument to scientific-truthful argument. Wherein each of us helping parent our tribes into a positive future for mankind. Each of us working to suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit and outright lying. Each of us building not just the truthful society, but a truthful mankind.

    And with that we future we create the aristocracy of everybody we intuit that is possible, dream that is possible, but can only be achieved by diligent pursuit.

    We discovered truth. We discovered testimony. We discovered the jury and the common law and rule of law. We discovered high trust. And with them we discovered science, medicine and technology and with it and them, built the civil commons as a competitive evolutionary strategy, and by consequence the civic society and the economic velocity that comes with it.

    But while it may take a particular people at a particular time in a particular place to invent a technology – it is also truth that all people at later times and in various places, can adopt that technology and gain the benefits of it.

    But truth and trust are hard and expensive. They are however, the most important capital for the production of innovation and prosperity for all.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    July 19, 2015

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:55:00 UTC

  • do we know about population and technological progress? A paper by Ashraf and Ga

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdfWhat do we know about population and technological progress?

    A paper by Ashraf and Galorm http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdf concludes: “…population density in pre-industrial times was on average higher at latitudinal bands closer to the equator.”

    Yet the countries closer to the equator did not end up being the drivers of industrial progress, even though they sometimes had higher rates of progress in agricultural times. Northern Europe, with the exception of the Dutch Republic, was never the star for population density. This paper also indicates that technology drives population growth — more than vice versa — and that “time elapsed since a region’s neolithic breakthrough” predicts later technological progress fairly well.

    If you add an extra baby to most societies, ceteris paribus, the rate of expected idea generation does indeed go up in theory. But how important a factor is that, compared to other influences on ideas generation?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:15:00 UTC