Germans vs Anglo Americans.
I have no superior to consult, no permission to seek, no hierarchy to follow, no role to play, no duty to perform, and no respect to pay but to the truth itself. Germans are soldiers and anglo americans warriors. We have only peers. We fight our own battles.
This is extremely frustrating for them. We have no idea what they are frustrated about. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 11:17:00 UTC
You know, the first academic who snowed me was Stephen J Gould. I mean, it turns out, that the man was simply a liar.
Krugman is the same creature: a liar. Chomsky is, well, a liar.
These men turn out to be just plain artistic liars. I mean, they’re sophisticated liars. But in the end, they’re liars.
Exasperating.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 10:13:00 UTC
Sometimes I wish I could tell people what they want to hear, but that’s immoral. You get away with that only once. So just tell people the truth.
Love you man. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 08:08:00 UTC
Psychology…
Am I the only person who self-anchors when speaking? I don’t like to say certain things because it anchors my thinking, whereas I don’t anchor if I don’t speak it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 05:21:00 UTC
The critic criticizes, the creator makes.
OMG. That’s it. ENVY AND CONTROL
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 05:16:00 UTC
Are Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us?
interesting…
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 05:15:00 UTC
Ludwig Wittgenstein on Bertrand Russell
(nerd humor)
—“Russell’s books should be bound in two colors, those dealing with mathematical logic in red – and all students of philosophy should read them; those dealing with ethics and politics in blue – and no one should be allowed to read them.”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 03:49:00 UTC
So wait. If a warrior militia tells the truth. And if a warrior militia is all that is available to hunter gatherers under harsh environmental conditions, where others are valued rather than disposable, is civilization simply a means of increasing our ability to lie with increasing impunity? Sure looks like it…..
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 03:01:00 UTC
POINCARÉ ON CANTOR’S MYSTICISM
Poincaré rejected the later foundational work of Cantor, saying that
—“There is no actual infinity, the Cantorians have forgotten that, and they have fallen into contradiction. It is true that Cantorism rendered services, but that was when it was applied to a real problem whose terms were clearly defined, and we could walk safely. Logisticians as Cantorians have forgotten. (Poincaré 1908: 212–213; 1913b: 484)”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 02:00:00 UTC
CONFLATING TRUTH WITH TRUTHFULNESS / AND THEORY AS PSYCHOLOGIZING THE UNIVERSE.
(probably a little difficult for most but possibly profoundly useful)
—“But we can claim that our theory is true and often do so. In fact, the idea that we cannot do so is itself a theory which, if true, cannot be claimed to be true.”—
Of course, I didn’t make that claim. I only claimed that we can test if you speak truthfully, as in honestly and diligently, not whether your theory is true.
Any statement reducible to human actions is open to sympathetic testing, and is no longer subject to the errors of meaning. Processes work or do not, there is no error of meaning in them. That which is demonstrated is true. Theories are the opposite. Very little of what is spoken is other than a word game.
We can state human actions both as actor and observer.They are the same, merely from a different point of view. But, we must anthropomorphize the “actions” of the physical universe if we state the universe’s position (theoretical definitions) — or we can state the observer position (operational definitions). When we state the observer position we need not add imaginary content. When we state the universe’s position we must always add imaginary content – we must hypothesize.We can not read the mind of the universe (at least yet).
This is what mises intuited by imitating the ideas of other thinkers, but he was not able to state it, and fell into pseudoscience instead.
In economics we have a constant problem of this nature between Austrians and mainstream macro. Austrians stress the human position as both actor and observer. However, in the mainstream is common if not universal to state that ‘the curve moves this way” in response to some change. when the cause is human activity.
(Sometimes I wonder if all this talk of theories is just another type of justification, and recipes are the only truth we can or do know. We can categorize our recipes, but that is all. Everything else, is imaginary.)
This is probably more important than is obvious at first blush. Between the problem of (a) anthropomorphizing the physical universe (theoretical definitions), (b) the obscurity provided by functions, (c) the obscurity provided by experiential definitions, (d) the obscurity provided by imaginary definitions (analogies), (e) the obscurity provided by the verb to-be, (f) the variety of cognitive biases that we know of, (g) and pervasive human framing and loading, if not (h) the cosmopolitan techniques of critique as means of overloading (deception), it seems that human beings are desperate to add meaning wherever they can – when the exercise of science is in no small part an effort to remove meaning.
We do not need to psychologize the universe. Which is in no small part what is being done.
(psychologizing the universe: I have to work on this a bit more but it’s pretty close to the criticism I’m looking for.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 01:11:00 UTC