[A] RATIONALIST INQUIRES FOR FALSEHOOD, A PROPERTARIAN INQUIRES FOR THEFT.
In most arguments it is a given that they are false. Instead, seek not to prove the leftists false, but seek to prove them thieves.
Then respond with, why are you not willing to trade with me? Why must you lie and steal from me?
–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling
[G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
–“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling
[G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute
[A]ristocracy, Meritocracy, Rule of Law, Market Economies, Manorialism(controlled access to land), voluntary mate selection, late marriage, nuclear family, migratory skilled labor, Low Tolerance Policing/high trust requirement, aggressive hanging, militial warfare (volunteer infantry), harsh winters, mathusian farming production, plagues, economic shocks, and disasters, have the following effects: 1 – force improved long term, mate selection 2 – lower generational rates of reproduction 3 – limit reproduction to those who are in the genetic ‘middle class’ and upward. 4 – redistribute resources upward to middle class and away from lower class reproduction. 5 – cull lower classes aggressively. Which is important, because every person that’s ‘problematic’ at the bottom is six times as costly as every person that’s ‘beneficial’ at the top. The basic math is like this: to organize a society in the voluntary organization of production you must get 80% of the resources in to 20% of population, and that 20% of the population must be ‘intelligent’ enough to make use of it. That means you must get your median IQ somewhere in the 100-106 range before you can really do much toward developing a high trust market economy. And you want to get as close to 112 to 115 if you want to out-compete the rest of the planet with innovations sufficiently to live what we in the west consider a marginally different quality of life. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[A]ristocracy, Meritocracy, Rule of Law, Market Economies, Manorialism(controlled access to land), voluntary mate selection, late marriage, nuclear family, migratory skilled labor, Low Tolerance Policing/high trust requirement, aggressive hanging, militial warfare (volunteer infantry), harsh winters, mathusian farming production, plagues, economic shocks, and disasters, have the following effects: 1 – force improved long term, mate selection 2 – lower generational rates of reproduction 3 – limit reproduction to those who are in the genetic ‘middle class’ and upward. 4 – redistribute resources upward to middle class and away from lower class reproduction. 5 – cull lower classes aggressively. Which is important, because every person that’s ‘problematic’ at the bottom is six times as costly as every person that’s ‘beneficial’ at the top. The basic math is like this: to organize a society in the voluntary organization of production you must get 80% of the resources in to 20% of population, and that 20% of the population must be ‘intelligent’ enough to make use of it. That means you must get your median IQ somewhere in the 100-106 range before you can really do much toward developing a high trust market economy. And you want to get as close to 112 to 115 if you want to out-compete the rest of the planet with innovations sufficiently to live what we in the west consider a marginally different quality of life. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
—I am amazed by how much better my work is conveyed in conversation than by writing. Or is that just my delusion?–
[I]t’s just a lot easier to tailor a conversation to an individual’s points of reference than it is to imagined points of reference.
This is one of the reasons novelists write for someone they know, and it’s why I write on Facebook – so I have some idea who I am talking to.
Otherwise we tend to write either to ourselves in an inconsistent moods, or to chaos with inconsistent voice
Everyone tells me that I am much better in person but it’s only because I can listen for a frame of reference and target it.
—I am amazed by how much better my work is conveyed in conversation than by writing. Or is that just my delusion?–
[I]t’s just a lot easier to tailor a conversation to an individual’s points of reference than it is to imagined points of reference.
This is one of the reasons novelists write for someone they know, and it’s why I write on Facebook – so I have some idea who I am talking to.
Otherwise we tend to write either to ourselves in an inconsistent moods, or to chaos with inconsistent voice
Everyone tells me that I am much better in person but it’s only because I can listen for a frame of reference and target it.
(important) [W]hy do we associate Contractualism with Anarchism, where there is extraordinary demand for the state, instead of associating Contractualism with Nationalism where there is almost no demand for the state?
(important) [W]hy do we associate Contractualism with Anarchism, where there is extraordinary demand for the state, instead of associating Contractualism with Nationalism where there is almost no demand for the state?
[S]ome conflicts are objectively immoral because they generate retaliation
Some conflicts are conditionally immoral because they violate normative contracts consisting in the product (result) of a set of exchanges rather than single actions.
Some conflicts are moral such as the competition for opportunities produced by the market.
Some conflicts are uncertain since they constitute a process of discovery.