Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE The purpose of critique is deception and contro

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM AS CRITIQUE

    The purpose of critique is deception and control. Now that I understand that fact, and that Critical Rationalism can easily be used as an instance of Critique, I understand why it is so frequently misused, and why scientists don’t practice CR. They use falsification, sure, and they are forever skeptical, but they do not practice criticism as critique. In fact, they ignore the philosophical community altogether.

    Worse, CRITICAL RATIONALISM without Operationalism is not compatible with truth tellilng. Construction is not justification it is a test of observation vs imagination.

    As a general rule, misuse of CR places emphasis on meaning as a means of control, while the craft of science produces recipes in the universal language of action without control. Science is compatible with operational language and testimonial truth, and CR, as stated and practiced is not.

    Under CR one has no skin in the game. Under science and testimonial truth, one has skin in the game. Thus we get Rothbards, Lesters and Blocks, not science.

    Our western science evolved not to justify but to emphasize truth telling. Hermeneutic scriptural interpretation and the same under jewish law evolved to justify interpretation, not truthful description of extant events.

    Indo European Aristocratic Egalitarian = warrior testimony.

    Anglo Empirical Testimonial truth = Same

    German Duty Testimonial Truth = Same

    Cosmopolitan Justifiactionary = Not at all the same.

    Yep.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 04:54:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? In technical terms: 1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbar

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    In technical terms:

    1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbardian Libertines) allocate all property and rights to individuals, maintain that unethical and immoral thefts are legal, and grant all individuals universal standing (ability to sue).

    2) Classical liberals (“Honest libertarians”) allocate all property and rights to individuals, grant universal standing, and enforce prohibition on unethical and immoral thefts. Classical liberals also encourage construction of commons and prohibit free riding on commons.

    3) Progressives (Democratic Socialists) argue that all property belongs to the corporation (community) and is leased by corporation managers (government) to individuals temporarily for productive use for the good of the community, and that individuals may keep some of the proceeds from the production that they engage in as reward for helping the community.

    I believe that this is the most accurate distinction currently available. Although I could add detail.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 13:47:00 UTC

  • EMPLOYING ARMY OF TROLLS ON SOCIAL MEDIA PUTIN HIRES PRO RUSSIAN TROLLS TO SPREA

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/14/15-Aug-14-World-View-Russia-threatens-to-invade-Ukraine-from-East-and-WestRUSSIA EMPLOYING ARMY OF TROLLS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/08/14/15-Aug-14-World-View-Russia-threatens-to-invade-Ukraine-from-East-and-West

    PUTIN HIRES PRO RUSSIAN TROLLS TO SPREAD PROPAGANDA

    http://www.thetrumpet.com/article/11738.19.0.0/europe/putin-hires-pro-russia-trolls-to-spread-propaganda

    THE LIBERTARIAN SUCKERS ARE PLAYED BY PUTIN’S TROLLS

    PAID RUSSIAN TROLLS ON THE GUARDIAN

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/04/pro-russia-trolls-ukraine-guardian-online

    THE KREMLIN’S TROLL ARMY

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-troll-army/375932/

    HUNTING FOR PAID TROLLS IN THE COMMENTS SECTION

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/06/04/hunting-for-paid-russian-trolls-in-the-washington-post-comments-section/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 15:21:00 UTC

  • (Choice Words) ***Lester has therefore engaged in the argumentative technique of

    (Choice Words)

    ***Lester has therefore engaged in the argumentative technique of Marxist Critique, Using Postmodern verbalism, which is to postulate a straw man, as a vehicle for criticizing extant ideas, in an effort to leave his argument as the last one standing, even though it contains no critical properties. He then states that he is applying critical rationalism, which Popper evolved from cosmopolitan hermeneutic interpretation of scripture – albeit with less deceitful intentions – when in fact, he does not adhere to the constraints of scientific argument. By conflating Critique (verbalism) with Critical Rationalism (criticism), in the absence of testable propositions, Lester’s innovation is not his theory of liberty, it is that he has extended Marxist and Postmodern Critique to address libertarian property rights. Like the marxists, socialists, and postmodernists, we must assume that he does so for unconscious reasons and is a victim of his education. However, the twentieth century’s conquest of liberty, and its near dark age in social pseudoscience and deceptive philosophy, was conducted using such obscurantist and justifactionary arguments in both pseudoscience and pseudorationalism.***

    This criticism of Lester has turned out to be an exceptional vehicle for illustrating just how much the liberty movement has absolutely nothing to do with aristocratic egalitarian liberty, and everything to do with creating as an elaborate justification of multiculturalism, as did the socialists and neo-conservatives.

    (Thanks Don Finnegan )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 09:14:00 UTC

  • (PROFOUND) Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing a

    (PROFOUND)

    Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing any more than the socialists did, or Hoppe does, or Popper did – or anyone for that matter who relies upon reason instead of science.

    Lester doesn’t understand the difference between an argument reliant upon, and producing, meaning (knowledge of use – correlation), vs one reliant upon and producing truth one can testify to the construction of (knowledge of construction – causality).

    Kinsella doesn’t understand (and maybe Hoppe doesn’t) that a performative contradiction is a verbalism only relevant in law, versus the possibility of demonstrated actions in negotiation regardless of words used (what I call ternary logic). It may be true that libertarianism must always consist in a legal philosophy, but that human NEGOTIATION is not constrained to the limits of legal ARGUMENT. (this is profound for those of you who still put faith in argumentation: argument is not equal to negotiation, and humans negotiate prior to agreement and retain the option to use violence, while after agreement not to use violence we agree to debate.)

    I am unsure about whether Walter Block knows he’s promoting immorality and therefore violating the contract for non-violence with people of western ethics. He’s just a Jewish guy raised with those levantine low trust instincts and trained in justifying them as moral.

    Mises didn’t understand that the reason he failed to develop operationalism that would have fulfilled the promise of his praxeology was his ignorance of other fields, and his fairly weak understanding of the philosophical movements of his era. Nor did he understand that the commons was the western competitive advantage and he was arguing to destroy it.

    Hoppe doesn’t, from what he states in his book, understand the intuitionistic and operationalist arguments, and how they undermine his a-priorism permanently and irrefutably. Nor does he understand that the reason for the failure of intuitionistic arguments in math were due to constancies in math (relations) that are impossible in other fields (causality, information, decidability).

    Rothbard I assume, knew he was just a second-hander appropriating every justification he could find – from Hospers and others like a collector of bottlecaps constructing a mosaic – and using his ability to use half true, untestable, obscurant moralism to justify cosmopolitan low trust ethics in an effort to make his own ethics applicable in the high trust society – also destroying the commons – the western aristocratic competitive strategy.

    Hell, I didn’t know what I was doing either. I just knew there was a problem and I tried to solve it. I was trying to make it impossible for the postmodernists to lie, while helping the conservatives to articulate their ideas. I didn’t know that I was actually accomplishing was to remove the distinction between philosophy and science by stating all philosophy outside of Propertarian constraints to be indistinguishable from mysticism at best, but lying in universal practice. Philosophy as it was constructed, was an exceptional means of lying, and justifying lying, by loading framing and overloading.

    Someone after me will probably finish that work, but the net result is that within two generations we can destroy philosophy and replace it with calculation. That is a profound prediction but I see it already. Philosophy was invented to persuade (lie) with, and calculation is invented to prevent loading, framing and overloading (lying).

    If you stew on this post a bit your world will melt.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-23 08:21:00 UTC

  • ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE

    ANY POLITICAL STATEMENT USING THE WORD “FAIR” AS A INSTRUMENTAL MEASURE IS A LIE.

    (worth repeating)

    –“Fairness may be perceptible but it is not instrumentally calculable, and as such the scope of fairness is limited to members of the small, local group; and any use of the word ‘fair’ beyond the immediately perceptible is not only an error it is a deception if not an outright lie.”–

    –“We have a sense of fairness – the correct term is ‘Proportionality’, and left and right value proportionality differently (equality vs meritocracy), however it is true that all people sense violations of proportionality. However, the fact remains that this is the projection of a sense-perception onto a scale requiring instrumentalism. As such, any statement of proportionality is a fallacy since such a thing is incalculable. Instead, we respond to people who are in need, but we do not SUPPORT people who are in need as a matter of course, because it is UNFAIR (disproportionate) to support people who systemically seek rents at the expense of others. We DO seek to insure each other against the vicissitudes of life, but we also seek to insure each other against free riding. One cannot make one statement without making the other without engaging in verbal deception.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 11:09:00 UTC

  • SUSCEPTIBILITY DUE TO TRUST NOT STUPIDITY I don’t mean to call Rothbardians stup

    SUSCEPTIBILITY DUE TO TRUST NOT STUPIDITY

    I don’t mean to call Rothbardians stupid and immoral per-se. It’s easy to be misled by pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science. It’s easy to be misled by half-truths. It’s easy to be misled by words that sound moral but which produce immoral actions.

    I don’t mean to call Misesians stupid per se. It is easy for average and above average minds, to be misled by pseudo-rationalism and pseudo-science when it is articulated with that great a level of detail. That’s the purpose of loading (emotions), framing (selective inclusion and exclusion of properties), and overloading (great detail, and repetition).

    But the susceptibility of those minds capable of managing economic thought, which requires consideration of more dimensions that other forms of thought, demonstrates why so many are susceptible to the other forms of cosmopolitan deception via loading, framing and overloading: leftism in general, and neo-conservatism.

    They manipulate our moral intuitions. We are the most moral people. We are most subject to pseudoscientific excitement of our moral intuitions. Whatever moral bias you adhere to, the cosmopolitans have a pseudoscientific and immoral argument to excite you: leftism, libertarianism, or neo-conservatism. And high trust europeans are readily susceptible to these false moral arguments.

    Just as our scientists and philosophers have been subject to such pseudoscience in the form of abstract truth (Popperian truth as well), psychology, sociology cantorian sets, platonic truth, mathematical platonism, and modeling.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 09:42:00 UTC

  • WEAPONIZED GOSSIP (Profound) We humans are capable of three means of influence,

    WEAPONIZED GOSSIP

    (Profound)

    We humans are capable of three means of influence, persuasion, and coercion.

    1) Violence or the threat of it.

    2) Remuneration or the threat of deprivation if it.

    3) Ostracization or the threat of it.

    I’d originally taken the idea from Johnson, who referred to ostracization as morality.

    But with our advances in genetic, cognitive, behavioral, and anthropological knowledge it has become clear to me that the means of influence is gossip. That our gossip accuses others of moral violation. And that moral violation drives ostracization. And that ostracization drives up opportunity costs and transaction costs.

    Gossip evolved as a means of rallying betas to kill, punish, or control alphas. And therefore return reproductive control to females.

    Once you approach political speech as gossip for the purpose of reproductive control, you rapidly come to the conclusion why it is morally loaded and why it is rarely rational or scientific.

    You also will understand why the culture of critique was successful in the 20th century.

    Its weaponized gossip.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 08:31:00 UTC

  • I took me a long time to understand how he could construct such complex fallacie

    I took me a long time to understand how he could construct such complex fallacies, but once I understood that he substitutes accusations of stupidity for all moral resistance it was clear that he is merely an immoral man attempting to apply aggregate inter-state morality to particular intra-state (tribal) groups. He is calling morality and moral man stupid. His argument is that we should prefer wealth over morality.

    Think about that for a minute. **We should prefer wealth over morality.**

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 11:16:00 UTC

  • just replays hitlers strategy. Media makes opinion. Any justification they want

    http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/09/15/russia-concerned-about-rights-of-russian-speakers-in-the-baltics/Russia just replays hitlers strategy. Media makes opinion. Any justification they want to. If you can find a moral story and stay on message it will win.

    If Russia is right then Hitler was right and Mexicans invading america are right.

    For my part, I am not sure I disagree with tribalism. I agree with it. However, in the choice between corruption, or against corruption, in favor of pervasive lying and against pervasive lying, in favor of prosperity or in favor of poverty, in favor of high trust or in favor of low trust, I choose to be against corruption and against pervasive lying, in favor of prosperity, in favor of high trust, and against everything that Russia stands for and does.

    This is just how it is. Bring your invading conquering, corrupt, low-trust, lie-believing, pseudoscientific Russian speakers home to the poverty of your militarism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-16 10:57:00 UTC