He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, thousands of employees and he certainly doesn’t know, anyone who does. Profitability is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain. Customers are difficult to obtain and maintain. Shareholders are difficult to obtain and maintain. Employees are difficult to obtain and maintain. Credit capacity is difficult to obtain and maintain – at least until you obtain access to the stock market. In every generation there is a google, facebook, apple, microsoft, and within three generations they are gone. Workers have the same power in a company shareholders do: departure (starve the business). The problem is that employee contribution to the business’ survival are distributed by a power law. The CEO almost always being the most important of them. Google is an outlier that won’t survive the first company that invents a recursive search that provides the person with what he wants – because the opportunity to advertise decreases with getting the answer you want. Microsoft was an outlier that lost its position because the government forced out its CEO. Apple survived only by hiring back the CEO it had fired. In every company, someone or some group, knows the answer to any problem the business faces. But it might be financially, politically, memetically, impossible to reorganize – because it means all those people entrenched in jobs. Mondragon is a dishonest (false) example: they produce niche products in small volume, in a remote, poor, location. Many employees are not franchise holders. Only a minority of employees are involved in management. The workers do not collectively decide. They bubble information upward. (I’m calling the speaker a liar by the way.) All successful companies take in employee feedback. Marx caused 100M dead seeking stability. The Abrahamic revolution in the ancient world created judaism, christianity, islam and a thousand year dark age. Stability is a bad thing. Look at the developmental history of China and India. Look what intellectual and cultural stability did to Islamic civilization: five great civilizations of the ancient world were reduced to genetic, cultural, artistic, technological, and social, ashes. Marx (pseudoscience), Freud (pseudoscience), Boas (pseudoscience), Adorno (pseudoscience), Friedan (pseudoscience), Derrida (sophism), Rand/Rothbard (sophism). We don’t study marx not because we are afraid, but because it has failed in every single instance – and yes we know why. So the First Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 1Billion dead, five great civilizations, a thousand year dark age. And this second Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 100M dead so far, and is in no small part responsible for the collapse of european civilization and it’s attempt at dragging the world out of ignorance and poverty. Europe only stagnated during the dark age of christian (lying) stability. Western Contractualism, rule of law, sovereignty, and reciprocity, made possible Western Capitalism, which dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. In the ancient world, greek reason, roman administration and in the modern world, germanic empiricism and administration. There is no failure of a capitalist system. It’s what dragged humanity – all of it now – out of poverty. Period. Now, it’s not false that we should pursue nationalist policies so that consumption does not so exclusively drive economic behavior. It’s not true that worker opinion about governance is worth anything. There isn’t much evidence of it. I mean, it’s kind of surprising we don’t make advocacy of this kind of nonsense illegal – or any other religion, sophism, or pseudoscience. Every downturn is a GOOD thing, just as europe’s, india’s and china’s wars were a good thing. It’s called evolution. Evolve or die.
Source: Original Site Post
-
He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, tho
He’s never run a company, had a board of directors, a horde of shareholders, thousands of employees and he certainly doesn’t know, anyone who does. Profitability is extremely difficult to achieve and maintain. Customers are difficult to obtain and maintain. Shareholders are difficult to obtain and maintain. Employees are difficult to obtain and maintain. Credit capacity is difficult to obtain and maintain – at least until you obtain access to the stock market. In every generation there is a google, facebook, apple, microsoft, and within three generations they are gone. Workers have the same power in a company shareholders do: departure (starve the business). The problem is that employee contribution to the business’ survival are distributed by a power law. The CEO almost always being the most important of them. Google is an outlier that won’t survive the first company that invents a recursive search that provides the person with what he wants – because the opportunity to advertise decreases with getting the answer you want. Microsoft was an outlier that lost its position because the government forced out its CEO. Apple survived only by hiring back the CEO it had fired. In every company, someone or some group, knows the answer to any problem the business faces. But it might be financially, politically, memetically, impossible to reorganize – because it means all those people entrenched in jobs. Mondragon is a dishonest (false) example: they produce niche products in small volume, in a remote, poor, location. Many employees are not franchise holders. Only a minority of employees are involved in management. The workers do not collectively decide. They bubble information upward. (I’m calling the speaker a liar by the way.) All successful companies take in employee feedback. Marx caused 100M dead seeking stability. The Abrahamic revolution in the ancient world created judaism, christianity, islam and a thousand year dark age. Stability is a bad thing. Look at the developmental history of China and India. Look what intellectual and cultural stability did to Islamic civilization: five great civilizations of the ancient world were reduced to genetic, cultural, artistic, technological, and social, ashes. Marx (pseudoscience), Freud (pseudoscience), Boas (pseudoscience), Adorno (pseudoscience), Friedan (pseudoscience), Derrida (sophism), Rand/Rothbard (sophism). We don’t study marx not because we are afraid, but because it has failed in every single instance – and yes we know why. So the First Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 1Billion dead, five great civilizations, a thousand year dark age. And this second Generation of Jewish Abrahamic Thought caused 100M dead so far, and is in no small part responsible for the collapse of european civilization and it’s attempt at dragging the world out of ignorance and poverty. Europe only stagnated during the dark age of christian (lying) stability. Western Contractualism, rule of law, sovereignty, and reciprocity, made possible Western Capitalism, which dragged humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. In the ancient world, greek reason, roman administration and in the modern world, germanic empiricism and administration. There is no failure of a capitalist system. It’s what dragged humanity – all of it now – out of poverty. Period. Now, it’s not false that we should pursue nationalist policies so that consumption does not so exclusively drive economic behavior. It’s not true that worker opinion about governance is worth anything. There isn’t much evidence of it. I mean, it’s kind of surprising we don’t make advocacy of this kind of nonsense illegal – or any other religion, sophism, or pseudoscience. Every downturn is a GOOD thing, just as europe’s, india’s and china’s wars were a good thing. It’s called evolution. Evolve or die.
-
The Bad War
This is copy pasta- Not our work
Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples: 1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”) 2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR) 3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war) 4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory) 5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh) 6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot) 7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war) 8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?) 9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist) 10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today) 11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School) 12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith) 13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood) 14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”) 15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) 16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism) 17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians 18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland) Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps. Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened? It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation. As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won. Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.
-
The Bad War
This is copy pasta- Not our work
Had Hitler won World War II, what would be different in the post-war world? Here are a few examples: 1 – No USSR (the Soviet government murdered millions of its own people during its 70 year reign — to study this topic read the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; Hitler would have liberated the USSR, though taking large parts of its Western region for lebensraum, “living space”) 2 – No cold war (because there would be no USSR) 3 – No Communist Eastern Europe/Iron Curtain (when WWII ended, Eastern Europe fell to Communism — this was part of Stalin’s spoils of war) 4 – No Red China and Mao’s subsequent killing of 40 – 60 million Chinese (the USSR created favorable conditions for Mao’s Communists which ultimately led to Mao’s victory over Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists in 1949, thus if no USSR, no Mao victory) 5 – No Communist North Vietnam (both the Soviet Union and Red China aided Ho Chi Minh) 6 – No Communist Cambodia and Pol Pot’s slaughter of 2 million Cambodians (Red China aided Pol Pot) 7 – No dividing Korea into North Korea and South Korea (the Allies split Korea after WWII ended, with North Korea becoming Communist… another of Stalin’s spoils of war) 8 – No Communist Cuba (given the previous, what support would Castro have had in the 1950’s?) 9 – No Communism anywhere (Hitler was the world’s most fervent anti-Communist) 10 – Liberalism and multiculturalism wouldn’t dominate Western ethos (both are Jewish creations and both have always been heavily promoted/advanced by Jews; thus if no Jewish influence, then no liberalism and no multiculturalism… at least certainly nowhere near the degree we see today) 11 – No Cultural Marxism and no political correctness (these are social engineering “tools” which came out of the Jewish think tank known as the Frankfurt School) 12 – No third world immigration into Western nations (Jews wouldn’t be in power positions to craft and force through liberal immigration laws; Jews are responsible for each and every Western nation’s liberal immigration policy/laws, as all were orchestrated by a consortium consisting of the World Jewish Congress, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and B’nai B’rith) 13 – No depraved filth on TV, in movies, etc. (because Jews wouldn’t run Hollywood) 14 – No widespread pornography (Jewish lawyers and Jewish activists were the main challengers of anti-obscenity laws, under the guise of “Freedom of Speech”) 15 – There would still be prayer in public schools (Jewish lawyers were instrumental in banning prayer in public schools under the guise of so-called “separation of church and state,” something that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) 16 – No man-hating radical feminist movement (Jews such as Betty Friedan, Sonia Pressman, and Gloria Steinem, among others, were the key drivers of radical feminism) 17 – No Israel and all the problems it has brought the USA and the immeasurable misery it has wrought on the Palestinians 18 – Jews would be living in Madagascar (perhaps) and would be carefully monitored (Madagascar was one place Hitler considered as a Jewish homeland) Many reading this will ask, “But what about the Holocaust?” The Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated by organized Jewry in order to create sympathy for Jews worldwide and thus help advance the Jewish agenda (i.e., people seen as victims tend to get their way). It is also used as a political weapon to justify Israeli militarism against the Palestinians. Hitler’s Final Solution (rebranded in the early 1970’s as the “Holocaust”) was a plan to remove Jews from Europe, not to kill them. During WWII, just as the U.S. couldn’t trust Japanese Americans, thus causing FDR to round many of them up and place them in concentration camps, Hitler couldn’t trust Jews since many were partisans sympathetic to the USSR and hence they aided the USSR in various subversive, anti-German activities. Therefore the National Socialists rounded up Jews and placed them in concentration camps. Somewhere around one million Jews died during WWII (not six million) mostly due to disease and starvation in the final months of the war. Heavy Allied bombing of Germany and parts of German occupied Europe destroyed many roads, rail lines, and bridges making it impossible for Germany to adequately supply the camps with food and medicine. The result is that many Jews died of starvation and disease; and of course many non-Jews also died of starvation and disease (again, due to a massive Allied bombing campaign and its destruction of German transportation infrastructure). Lastly, there were no “gas chambers.” Much has been written about this. To study the “gas chamber” subject, read the research papers published by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno (there are many others as well). To get a broad overview of the Holocaust, read my article, What Was The Holocaust… What Actually Happened? It should also be noted that Hitler never wanted to “conquer the world.” He simply wanted to safeguard Europe and the greater Western World from all manner of nefarious Jewish influence and, more broadly, safeguard the world-at-large specifically from, 1) usurious Jewish banking and, 2) Jewish-driven cultural degradation. As previously stated, the Allied heads-of-State (Roosevelt, Churchill, et al) were puppets of International Jewry; each sold his soul for power and prestige. Again, as earlier stated, World War II was a war between two competing ideologies: Nationalism -vs- Jewish Bolshevik internationalism/globalism — unfortunately International Jewry won. Was World War II “the good war” as is often claimed? No, it was exactly the opposite. The Allied victory marked the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.
-
The Demarcation Problem Is Complete
KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. [A]s far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND:Deflationary Grammars (logics) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. And Descriptive Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. And Inflationary Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. And Grammars of Deceit (llogics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. Given These Dimensions Possibility 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) And These Dimensions of Decidability Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. Where the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. And Where We Can Warranty the Consequences of The Promise of Infallibility of Decidability: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Where Decidability Consists In a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Where Gramma refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. And Where Truth Consists in The Series 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. And Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. In Defense or Advocacy Of: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. And Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
The Demarcation Problem Is Complete
KARL POPPER’S DEMARCATION PROBLEM IS SOLVED, AND THE CRITICAL RATIONALIST PROGRAM OF FALSIFICATION IS COMPLETE: IT WAS LAW ALL ALONG. AND HAYEK WAS RIGHT. [A]s far as I know, western success in science, technology, medicine, and economics was due to the transfer of our legal tradition (including traditional european law to Aristotle to Bacon to Hume to Hayek) – and the failure of our philosophers to understand that transfer. That legal tradition includes a Metaphysical Traditional Contract: 1 – A Universal Militia Regardless of Cost 2 – Excellence and Heroism Regardless of Cost 3 – Duty and Commons Regardless of Cost 4 – Truth and Oath Regardless of Cost 5 – Promise and Contract Regardless of Cost 6 – Sovereignty and Reciprocity Regardless of Cost 7 – The Natural Law and Jury Regardless of Cost 8 – Wherein every man a soldier, sheriff, judge, and his own legislator, of his own demonstrated interests. 9 – And as a result – the only possibility for social organization is Voluntary Markets in: .. – association .. .. – cooperation .. .. .. – production .. .. .. .. – reproduction .. .. .. .. .. – commons .. .. .. .. .. .. – polities .. .. .. .. .. .. .. – war. 10 – Together producing the fastest possible means of human adaptation to circumstances; 11 – Including the continuous evolutionary production of Human Agency (human capital); 12 – By the domestication of man by market eugenics, 13 – And as a result, the direction of surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples of returns produced therefrom; 14 – Including the unique high trust society; 15 – And the informational, scientific, technological, medical, economic, social, political, and military benefits therefrom. 16 – Yielding a genetic distribution free of the burden of underclass consumption, and the costs of their organizaation, administration, and care. These are the organizing principles of western civilization, and what separates the west from the rest, and origin of that separation is in truth before face, cost to self image, cost to the competence hierarchy, and cost to the dominance hierarchy, where truth refers to martial testimonial truth (what the military calls ‘reporting’, warrantied by the speaker, given the consequences that result from error, bias, and deceit in military contexts. India is an extended family, china is a family bureaucracy, the west a military hierarchy, and semitia is feminine supernatural dependency: a civilization of and for women. CRITICAL RATIONALISM So, the demarcation in law between testifiability and fiction, is legal due diligence (falsification). DUE DILIGENCE Man can perform due diligence against every dimension perceivable by man: 1 – categorical consistency (identity), 2 – internal consistency (logical), 3 – operational consistency (existential possibility), 4 – external consistency (empirical), 5 – rational consistency (rational choice), 6 – reciprocal consistency (rational choice between parties in affected by any change in state), 7 – limites and completeness (full accounting within stated limits), 8 – sufficient to meet demand for infallibility of decidability by all parties affected directly or indirectly by the display word ord deed, 9 – and warrantied by possibility of the speaker’s restitution of all parties affected by display word or deed. In other words, yes, one of the demarcations between science and non-science is falsificationary, and requires not only the test of falsifiability, but due diligence against falsehood in all dimensions perceivable by man, and warranty to falsify the incentive to escape due diligence. EPISTEMOLOGY Another is that the individual alone can perform that due diligence, or that the process of due diligence includes only: … [ Problem -> Theory -> Test -> Repeat ] … Instead of: … [ Observation -> Question(problem) -> Free association -> hypothesis -> falsification by one’s reason -> falsification by the full set of dimensions falsifiable by man above -> Propositional Theory -> Falsification by Application in the Market for Solutions to Problems -> Settled (Surviving) Theory -> Presumption -> Metaphysical Presumption ] … Which is a chain of iterations on: … [ Problem(Question) -> Hypothesis -> Test(Falsify) -> Repeat ] .. Under increasing scope of ‘markets’ (competitions) from the mind(imagination) demonstrated actions (due diligence), to the market for applications (applied). … [ Mental-Imagination -> Physical-Action -> Market-Competition ] … And this epistemological sequence applies for all knowledge claims regardless of the discipline, paradigms, and logic within that discipline. CRITICAL PREFERENCE And this brings us to where else Popper – like all literary (platonic) philosophers failed: costs. Costs of due diligence, costs of internal consistency, costs of operational possibility, Costs of empirical (external) correspondence, costs to others if one errs, implies, or deceives, and costs of liability for one’s displays words and deeds if one errs, suggests, implies, or deceives. In other words, where philosophers are (like theologians) conventionally forgiven their use of suggestion and deceit, scientists, like testimony in court, are not. And this explains the causal relationship between the horrifying damage done by theology and philosophy while providing and questionable good, and the profound gains done by science and its unquestionable goods: raising mankind out of ignorance, superstition, tyranny, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, and the vicissitudes of a nature all but hostile to advanced life. THE AGE OF VERBALISM AND THE AGE OF OPERATIONS Philosophers generally work in sets (verbal associations), and ideals, while the law, engineering work in operations (sequences of actions) and the material. And while sets are largely verbal constructs free of cost, action, operations, engineering, science, law and economics include costs. This is why there is a high correlation between moralizing and philosophy, and a high correlation between science and law. Because moralizing does seeks general rules regardless of cost, and sciences and law seek general rules including costs. It also explains why the west developed geometry (engineering and technology) and the orient algebra (astrology and theology). And it explains the western restoration by Descartes restoration of mathematics from language to geometry. And the development of calculus because of our return to european geometry. And that in turn explains western religion’s development of law, philosophy, epicureanism, and unfortunately stoicism, of the middle classes, and middle east’s development of monotheistic (totalitarian) religion of the underclasses. Why does this matter? Popper never performed a study of scientific research, he just used reason to state that choices in scientific investigation was undecidable. But it’s demonstrably false. The problem in scientific exploration like any form of action (engineering), is that as distance from human scale increases. either smaller or larger, the costs of investigation increases, and as such we pursue the information we can afford to. And this turns out to be the optimum means of investigation. And this corresponds to the physical and human world’s behavior: nature must take the least cost action possible, and humans do as well – as long as we make a full accounting of causes (incentives). DEMARCATION IS SOLVED So the demarcation problem is solved. The word for science is due diligence under the law of reciprocity, inpursuit of giving warrantable testimony about the world regardless of our ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, fictionalisms, and deceits. BUT ALSO, PHILOSOPHY IS SOLVED Philosophy now, like the logics, is complete for truth and limited only to preference within the limits provided by physical laws of Nature, and the Natural law of cooperation: Reciprocity within the Limits of Proportionality. Truth is, and always has been, a subject of testimony under the law of reciprocity, and that discipline we call science, is merely our means of due diligence in pursuit of falsifying our testimony so that we may warranty and accept liability for our truth claims. WHERE WERE WE FIND:Deflationary Grammars (logics) 1 – Mathematics for the measurement of constant relations. .. 2 – Operations for the measurement of existential possibility. .. .. 3 – Reciprocity for the measurement of ethics. .. .. .. 4 – Science (falsification) for the measurement of due diligence against error, bias, and deceit. And Descriptive Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. 5 – Testimony for the truth claims under the promise of due diligence. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Philosophy for choice within the testifiable. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – History for what we have done, and literature for what we might do. And Inflationary Grammars (logics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Myths, Legends, Fairy Tales, Parables, and Rhymes for pedagogy of the young, and the most error-free preservation of the consistency of accumulated wisdom over time. And Grammars of Deceit (llogics) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Suggestions: Loading, Framing, Overloading, Obscurantism, Propaganda, Social Construction, Religion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 – Fictionalisms: idealism-surrealism, magic-pseudoscience, occult-supernaturalism(theology) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 – Deceits (Fictions) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 12 – Denial All else is ignorance, error, bias, wishful-thinking, fictionalism, propaganda, and deceit. And baiting into hazard, using the fictionalisms of denialism, social-construction, idealism, pseudoscience, and the supernatural, is most advanced technology of deceiving other humans. And philosophers have a long history of making false claims that bait our peoples into hazard, because they have failed to perform due diligence against the consequences of the harms that are the direct or indirect consequences of the falsehoods that they have advocated. DEMARCATION IS SOLVED Not only have we demarcated science from non-science, but we have demarcated math, operations, reciprocity, science, testimony, philosophy, history, literature, and myth. Popper’s program is complete. We just don’t want to be accountable for paying the cost of due diligence, so we preserve philosophy like we preserve theology – to escape responsibility for our thoughts words and deeds. Given These Dimensions Possibility 1 – Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable). .. 2 – Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable ) .. .. 3 – Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable) .. .. .. 4 – Population (Self, Others, All, Universal) And These Dimensions of Decidability Indistinguishable(perception) > .. Distinguishable(cognition) > .. .. Memorable(categorical-referrable) > .. .. .. Possible(material) > .. .. .. .. Actionable(physical) > .. .. .. .. .. Choosable(for use) > .. .. .. .. .. .. Preferable(Personal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Good(interpersonal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Decidable(juridical, political) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analytic > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Tautological. Where the Demand for Increasing Infallibility of Decidability Yields the Series: 1 – Intelligible: Decidable enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – Reasonable: Decidable enough for me to feel confident that my decision will satisfy my needs, and is not a waste of time, energy, resources. .. .. 3 – Actionable: Decidable enough for me to take actions given time, effort, knowledge, resources. .. .. .. 4 – Ethical and Moral: Decidable enough for me to not impose risk or costs upon the interests of others, or cause others to retaliate against me, if they have knowledge of and transparency into my actions. .. .. .. .. 5 – Normative: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – Judicial: Decidable enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different knowledge, comprehension and values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – Scientific: Decidable regardless of all opinions or perspectives (True) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Logical: Decidable out of physical or logical necessity .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 – Tautological: Decidedly identical in properties (referents) if not references (terms). So to borrow the one of many terms from Economics, we can see in this series (list) a market demand for increasingly infallible decidability. And Where We Can Warranty the Consequences of The Promise of Infallibility of Decidability: 1 – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship .. 2 – True enough for me to feel good about myself. .. .. 3 – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results. .. .. .. 4 – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. .. .. .. .. 5 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. .. .. .. .. .. 6 – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal. Where Decidability Consists In a) In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice) absent discretion. In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the system�(ie: grammar). b) In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary). Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm). Where Gramma refers to the rules of continuous recursive disambiguation given the dimensions included in the paradigm(network of constant relations), and consequent limits on vocabulary and logic within those dimensions. And Where Truth Consists in The Series 1 – Tautological Truth: That testimony you give when promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. 2 – Analytic Truth: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). 3 – Ideal Truth: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) 4 – Truthfulness: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, fictionalism, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. 5 – Honesty: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. And Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, in The Series: 1 – Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary,Differences) 2 – Internally Consistent (Logical) 3 – Externally Consistent (Empirical) 4 – Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) 5 – Rationally Consistent (Consisting of Bounded Rational choice, in available time frame) 6 – Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) 7 – With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) 8 – Warrantied … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: 1 – Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; 2 – Error and failure of Due Diligence; 3 – Bias and Wishful Thinking; 4 – And the many Deceits of: … (a) Loading and Framing; … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … (d) and outright Fabrications. In Defense or Advocacy Of: 1 – Any transfer of demonstrated interest that is not: … (a) productive … (b) fully informed … (c) warrantied … (d) voluntary transfer(harm, imposition of costs) upon demonstrated interests internal to the display word or deed; … (e) and free of imposition upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality. And Including but Not Limited to The Series of Those Categories Of: 1 – Murder, 2 – Harm, Damage, Theft, 3 – Fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, 4 – Free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, 5 – Baiting into Hazard (The cause of 20th C pseudoscience) 6 – Rent-seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, 7 – conversion(religion/sophism/pseudoscience), 8 – displacement(immigration/overbreeding), 9 – conquest (war). Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
-
Yes. I Answer the TABOOS.
What? I answer every Taboo. My job is to end the postwar industrialization of lying by pseudoscience and sophism and return us to our Natural Law of Reciprocity. I worked on Religion last year, and the Jewish Question now. Truth Creates and Settles Controversy – PAINFULLY.
-
Yes. I Answer the TABOOS.
What? I answer every Taboo. My job is to end the postwar industrialization of lying by pseudoscience and sophism and return us to our Natural Law of Reciprocity. I worked on Religion last year, and the Jewish Question now. Truth Creates and Settles Controversy – PAINFULLY.
-
It’s gotta be genetic.
I’m pretty sure it’s genetic like I’ve said: feminine cognition. Why do you get a Cantor Postmodern Math, Niels Bohr creating Postmodern Physics, Betty Friedan’s Postmodern Feminism, Derrida Postmodern Truth, with the exception being Keynes’ less postmodern economics?? Why do only Europeans produce aristotle, archimedes, DaVinci,Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Poincare, Hilbert, and why does even their Einstein write a description not a cause? Why do they get a Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Chomsky vs Babbage,Frege, Goedel, Hayek, Turing and Doolittle? Verbal is real vs real is real.
-
It’s gotta be genetic.
I’m pretty sure it’s genetic like I’ve said: feminine cognition. Why do you get a Cantor Postmodern Math, Niels Bohr creating Postmodern Physics, Betty Friedan’s Postmodern Feminism, Derrida Postmodern Truth, with the exception being Keynes’ less postmodern economics?? Why do only Europeans produce aristotle, archimedes, DaVinci,Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Poincare, Hilbert, and why does even their Einstein write a description not a cause? Why do they get a Marx, Freud, Boas, Derrida, Chomsky vs Babbage,Frege, Goedel, Hayek, Turing and Doolittle? Verbal is real vs real is real.