“I think that’s right. But I think there’s also another dynamic at work: Liberals love to mock but absolutely hate being mocked. When I was a kid this was called “They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-17 23:34:00 UTC
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-11 06:07:00 UTC
http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2009/03/why_is_spain_so_corruptWHY IS SPAIN (AND THE REST OF THE WORLD) CORRUPT? – THE EVIDENCE
This is a fairly hot topic in political economy. But I think Norberg is correct, and the critic Giné that argues that it’s structural, is himself, falling for the mistake that he himself cautions against.
From what we can tell, corruption is the NORM in the world. Universalism is unique to northern Europe. It is present ONLY in germanic countries with universal militia participation, the nuclear family, individual property rights, extensive outbreeding, and prohibitions on cousin marriage.
The last being the problem with most of the world. Small homogenous countries that are highly interrelated because of a prohibition on cousin marriage, and who have universal private property rights, where the nuclear family is the unit of reproductive and economic production, lack corruption – and those that are diverse, pluralistic, and inbred treat family, clan, and tribe as the unit of economic and reproductive production.
It’s pretty simple economics and incentives when you understand what’s going on.
Now you won’t like it if you carry the logic through much farther. Because it explains a bit more about birth rate problems. Single motherhood and extensive participation of women in the work force is only possible for two or three generations. The Romans couldn’t change it and neither can we. Competitive reproduction punishes folly.
The fact is that spain has corruption in government, and structural corruption in government, because of its historical values. These values are called ‘ catholic’ and catholic countries share it. But it’s not because they’re catholic. It’s because these countries REMAINED catholic, because they remained with with strong, paternal extended family structures, and the authoritarianism and extended familism that .
Cultures develop formal institutions to INSTITUTIONALIZE their informal institutions. States mirror moral codes. And moral codes mirror family structures. And family structures mirror the reproductive strategy that mirrors the necessary structure of economic production. (If you can follow that entire chain of events.)
This is expressly counter to the democratic equalitarian, egalitarian, universalist, postmodern mythos that democratic states run on and obtain their legitimacy from.
So, The Spanish may be corrupt. But the fact is, that there will always be SPANISH people. We can’t say the same for northern Europeans. There aren’t enough european countries bast the 12% mark, where subcultures under democracy seek political power and divisiveness that they could not obtain under monarchy, which denies people access to disruptive political power.
See Edward Banfield’s “The Moral Basis of a Backward Society”. Which started this discussion many years ago. See _Trust_ by Fukuyama who has tried to popularize the problem. See Emmanuel Todd’s _Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures and Social Systems_ . See Macfarlane: The Origins of English Individualism
Also of related interest:
Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
Huntington: Culture Matters
Acemoglu: Why Nations Fail
Fukuyama: The Origins Of Political Order
But a word of caution, is that this topic is a third rail. And if you pursue it you’ll be demonized for it. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-09 08:45:00 UTC
IGNORANCE IS A NECESSARY BYPRODUCT OF POSTMODERNISM
If you must believe in SOME falsehoods, that means that you do not believe in scientific TRUTHS.
Socialism + Feminism = Postmodernism = the collapse of reason and science.
THE HARD REALITY THAT SCIENCE IS SLOWLY DEMONSTRATING
(And in which postmodern thought is demonstrated to be false.)
We are vastly unequal in value to one another.
Genders are unequal in distribution of talents.
There are no Female Jack the Rippers and no Female Newtons.
Feminism has increased single motherhood, and increased poverty from single parenthood.
Family structure determines property rights and morality.
Homogenous family structures are necessary for homogenous polities.
Diversity is bad, everywhere, anywhere.
Race is a deciding factor in all personal interactions.
Political preferences are a combination of genetics and family structure.
Redistribution is eventually, genetically, economically, and politically disastrous for a polity.
Median IQ is the most important property of any population.
The “smart fraction” is the most important group of people in any population.
The Pareto principle demonstrates a *requirement* of how much property must be concentrated in the smart fraction of the population.
The religious conservatives are using religion to oppose the state because it works as a means of opposing the state’s attack on the nuclear family and meritocracy.
The state and it’s church (universities) are engaged in a religious Pogrom to replace christianity and aristocracy with pseudo-science and socialism.
LIBERTARIANISM MAY ERR. BUT IT ISN”T FALSE. Or destructive. Postmodernism IS false and destructive.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:09:00 UTC
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/shhh-teen-mob-that-raped-2-women-was-black/WHAT IF ‘EQUALITY’ MEANS WE CAN ONLY MOVE DOWNWARD INTO DEGENERATION?
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-31 06:34:00 UTC
(Silencing the silly people) [P]olitical discourse is not civilized. It is a bloody brutal deceitful affair that is conducted in the pursuit the of power to allocate influence, property and opportunity, using every dishonest, distracting, fraudulent tactic available. Humanities is what it is. And I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself. It is a discourse on norms and morality. Recursive as it may be. It is intuitionist not empirical. Normative not scientific. My point has been a consistent one: we have developed a set of technologies that compensate for the weakness of our perceptions. Debate, reason, measurement, mathematics, science, and economics are fields that only exist to compensate for the limitations of our senses. Our senses are plagued by limitations and by error (cognitive biases). We desire at all times to rely on intuition (memory) rather than thinking (comparison). These are not biases, preferences, opinions. They are empirical facts. They are what they are. Numbers, money, prices, accounting, credit, interest, contract, and rule of law, are technologies just like any other technology that gives us information about the world around us, and compensates for the inability to sense and perceive the world in real time. But that statement alone makes no sense unless we understand also, that the reason we need these things is to coordinate ourselves in a vast network of production none of us could grasp even the simplest part of. The point is that the world is not filled with evil people. It is filled with real human beings who have to survive with fragments of knowledge and resources, but as a collective, we produce the most amazing things, that our ancestors, could not even have imagined could exist. The price for this productivity is that we are in fact, ‘alienated’ by that information: the destruction of our illusion of importance. When the family, extended family, village or tribe was a productive unit, then each persons value was obvious. When all humanity, together, as a collective is the productive unit, then each person’s value is not only not obvious, it is trivialized by the experience. WE don’t like it. We’re alienated by it. We feel alone. And strangely enough we keep consuming to compensate for feeling alone. It’s maddening. So how can we do both? This is the goal of equality. But we cannot have perfect equality for the same reasons that we need numbers: differentiation is necessary for calculation. If I make you feel bad. I am sorry for your feelings. But the stakes are more important than your feelings. Your feelings are a reaction to changes in state. The state of what? your self image? Your perception how the group values you? Your confidence in your grasp and therefore control over the world? What is it that is changing state? Is it Marx’s alienation? It is.
[callout]It is immoral to make someone feel good for believing something that is demonstrably false. Yet we cannot be prisoners of truths. We must struggle to find solutions even when the truth stops us.[/callout]
If I had to make everyone feel really bad for a while in order to achieve relative equality and preserve productivity at the same time. I would think that was a fairly low cost. At least compared to the 100M dead from the result of communism. We are not equal. Certain people make me feel really dumb. I don’t feel bad because of it. I’m thankful that the world has smarter people than I am in it. Because it’s certainly too much work for me, or anyone else for that matter, to do alone. A world without people smarter than I am really scares me. It would mean that instead of feeling alone at times, I would in fact BE alone for all intents and purposes. I studied fine art and art history in school. At the end of the semester we had a critique. The professors tore us apart. Most people left in tears. It was the most important thing we learned all year. And we all were better for it. I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything in the world. (See Surviving as an artist.How to survive an art critique.) On the other hand. It made me, and all the rest of us, pretty numb to criticism. (And americans are, quite clearly, the most narcissistic people on earth.) (See The Culture of Narcissism.Bibiography of American Narcissism. So I am glad that I received that curative process. Although, living here in the east, in the Post-Soviet system, I am very aware how narcissistic americans are. Aware of how I must alter my speech pattern. And I literally cringe whenever I hear an american accent. Americans talk about themselves and how they feel incessantly. [I] have tried to construct this argument as compassionately as possible. But idealism, impossibility, ignorance, deception, and lying are not, in Kantian terms ‘ethical’ means of discourse. The only ethics I know of that I can prove are a) to speak the truth as best as I understand it, b) rely on instrumental science wherever possible as superior to intuitive sense and reason, and c) to avoid involuntary transfers of any kind from others, and d) to prohibit others from conducting involuntary transfers whenever possible.
[callout]The only ethics I know of that I can prove are a) to speak the truth as best as I understand it, b) rely on instrumental science wherever possible as superior to intuitive sense and reason, and c) to avoid involuntary transfers of any kind from others, and d) to prohibit others from conducting involuntary transfers whenever possible. [/callout]
That is, acting morally. It is not moral to respect someone’s feelings if it violates those tenets. It is immoral to make someone feel good for believing something that is demonstrably false. Yet we cannot be prisoners of truths. We must struggle to find solutions even when the truth stops us. We cannot construct that we know of an alternative to the pricing system as an information and incentive system. We can however, learn from it and construct alternatives by using it, the same way we constructed morality under capitalism by making use of self-interest. However, the basic problem, which is that the system itself is both incomprehensible and uncontrollable is probably forever beyond our grasp. And I suggest that it MUST be. Otherwise, like the Corporatism of current large scale institutionalized banking is, it would be little more than an instrument of tyranny.
(Silencing the silly people) [P]olitical discourse is not civilized. It is a bloody brutal deceitful affair that is conducted in the pursuit the of power to allocate influence, property and opportunity, using every dishonest, distracting, fraudulent tactic available. Humanities is what it is. And I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself. It is a discourse on norms and morality. Recursive as it may be. It is intuitionist not empirical. Normative not scientific. My point has been a consistent one: we have developed a set of technologies that compensate for the weakness of our perceptions. Debate, reason, measurement, mathematics, science, and economics are fields that only exist to compensate for the limitations of our senses. Our senses are plagued by limitations and by error (cognitive biases). We desire at all times to rely on intuition (memory) rather than thinking (comparison). These are not biases, preferences, opinions. They are empirical facts. They are what they are. Numbers, money, prices, accounting, credit, interest, contract, and rule of law, are technologies just like any other technology that gives us information about the world around us, and compensates for the inability to sense and perceive the world in real time. But that statement alone makes no sense unless we understand also, that the reason we need these things is to coordinate ourselves in a vast network of production none of us could grasp even the simplest part of. The point is that the world is not filled with evil people. It is filled with real human beings who have to survive with fragments of knowledge and resources, but as a collective, we produce the most amazing things, that our ancestors, could not even have imagined could exist. The price for this productivity is that we are in fact, ‘alienated’ by that information: the destruction of our illusion of importance. When the family, extended family, village or tribe was a productive unit, then each persons value was obvious. When all humanity, together, as a collective is the productive unit, then each person’s value is not only not obvious, it is trivialized by the experience. WE don’t like it. We’re alienated by it. We feel alone. And strangely enough we keep consuming to compensate for feeling alone. It’s maddening. So how can we do both? This is the goal of equality. But we cannot have perfect equality for the same reasons that we need numbers: differentiation is necessary for calculation. If I make you feel bad. I am sorry for your feelings. But the stakes are more important than your feelings. Your feelings are a reaction to changes in state. The state of what? your self image? Your perception how the group values you? Your confidence in your grasp and therefore control over the world? What is it that is changing state? Is it Marx’s alienation? It is.
[callout]It is immoral to make someone feel good for believing something that is demonstrably false. Yet we cannot be prisoners of truths. We must struggle to find solutions even when the truth stops us.[/callout]
If I had to make everyone feel really bad for a while in order to achieve relative equality and preserve productivity at the same time. I would think that was a fairly low cost. At least compared to the 100M dead from the result of communism. We are not equal. Certain people make me feel really dumb. I don’t feel bad because of it. I’m thankful that the world has smarter people than I am in it. Because it’s certainly too much work for me, or anyone else for that matter, to do alone. A world without people smarter than I am really scares me. It would mean that instead of feeling alone at times, I would in fact BE alone for all intents and purposes. I studied fine art and art history in school. At the end of the semester we had a critique. The professors tore us apart. Most people left in tears. It was the most important thing we learned all year. And we all were better for it. I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything in the world. (See Surviving as an artist.How to survive an art critique.) On the other hand. It made me, and all the rest of us, pretty numb to criticism. (And americans are, quite clearly, the most narcissistic people on earth.) (See The Culture of Narcissism.Bibiography of American Narcissism. So I am glad that I received that curative process. Although, living here in the east, in the Post-Soviet system, I am very aware how narcissistic americans are. Aware of how I must alter my speech pattern. And I literally cringe whenever I hear an american accent. Americans talk about themselves and how they feel incessantly. [I] have tried to construct this argument as compassionately as possible. But idealism, impossibility, ignorance, deception, and lying are not, in Kantian terms ‘ethical’ means of discourse. The only ethics I know of that I can prove are a) to speak the truth as best as I understand it, b) rely on instrumental science wherever possible as superior to intuitive sense and reason, and c) to avoid involuntary transfers of any kind from others, and d) to prohibit others from conducting involuntary transfers whenever possible.
[callout]The only ethics I know of that I can prove are a) to speak the truth as best as I understand it, b) rely on instrumental science wherever possible as superior to intuitive sense and reason, and c) to avoid involuntary transfers of any kind from others, and d) to prohibit others from conducting involuntary transfers whenever possible. [/callout]
That is, acting morally. It is not moral to respect someone’s feelings if it violates those tenets. It is immoral to make someone feel good for believing something that is demonstrably false. Yet we cannot be prisoners of truths. We must struggle to find solutions even when the truth stops us. We cannot construct that we know of an alternative to the pricing system as an information and incentive system. We can however, learn from it and construct alternatives by using it, the same way we constructed morality under capitalism by making use of self-interest. However, the basic problem, which is that the system itself is both incomprehensible and uncontrollable is probably forever beyond our grasp. And I suggest that it MUST be. Otherwise, like the Corporatism of current large scale institutionalized banking is, it would be little more than an instrument of tyranny.
A SHORT ESSAY ON THE MORAL OBLIGATION TO DISREGARD FEELINGS IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE.
(Silencing the silly people)
Political discourse is not civilized. It is a bloody brutal dishonest affair that is conducted in the pursuit of power to allocate influence, property and opportunity, using every dishonest, distracting, fraudulent tactic available. Humanities is what it is. And I will let the empirical evidence speak for itself. It is a discourse on norms and morality. Recursive as it may be. It is intuitionist not empirical. Normative not scientific.
My point has been a consistent one: we have developed a set of technologies that compensate for the weakness of our perceptions. Debate, reason, measurement, mathematics, science, and economics are fields that only exist to compensate for the limitations of our senses. Our senses are plagued by limitations and by error (cognitive biases). We desire at all times to rely on intuition (memory) rather than thinking (comparison). These are not biases, preferences, opinions. They are empirical facts. They are what they are.
Numbers, money, prices, accounting, credit, interest, contract, and rule of law, are technologies just like any other technology that gives us information about the world around us, and compensates for the inability to sense and perceive the world in real time. But that statement alone makes no sense unless we understand also, that the reason we need these things is to coordinate ourselves in a vast network of production none of us could grasp even the simplest part of.
The point is that the world is not filled with evil people. It is filled with real human beings who have to survive with fragments of knowledge and resources, but as a collective, we produce the most amazing things, that our ancestors, could not even have imagined could exist.
The price for this productivity is that we are in fact, ‘alienated’ by that information: the destruction of our illusion of importance. When the family, extended family, village or tribe was a productive unit, then each persons value was obvious. When all humanity, together, as a collective is the productive unit, then each person’s value is not only not obvious, it is trivialized by the experience. WE don’t like it. We’re alienated by it. We feel alone. And strangely enough we keep consuming to compensate for feeling alone. It’s maddening. 🙂
So how can we do both? This is the goal of equality. But we cannot have perfect equality for the same reasons that we need numbers: differentiation is necessary for calculation.
If I make you feel bad. I am sorry for your feelings. But the stakes are more important than your feelings. Your feelings are a reaction to changes in state. The state of what? your self image? Your perception how the group values you? Your confidence in your grasp and therefore control over the world? What is it that is changing state? Is it Marx’s alienation? It is.
If I had to make everyone feel really bad for a while in order to achieve relative equality and preserve productivity at the same time. I would think that was a fairly low cost. At least compared to the 100M dead from the result of communism.
We are not equal. Certain people make me feel really dumb. I don’t feel bad because of it. I’m thankful that the world has smarter people than I am in it. Because it’s certainly too much work for me, or anyone else for that matter, to do alone. A world without people smarter than I am really scares me. It would mean that instead of feeling alone at times, I would in fact BE alone for all intents and purposes.
I studied fine art and art history in school. At the end of the semester we had a critique. The professors tore us apart. Most people left in tears. It was the most important thing we learned all year. And we all were better for it. I wouldn’t trade that experience for anything in the world.
http://artandperception.com/2006/11/surviving-as-an-artist.html
http://faso.com/fineartviews/18528/how-to-survive-an-art-critique
On the other hand. It made me, and all the rest of us, pretty numb to criticism. (And americans are, quite clearly, the most narcissistic people on earth.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture_of_Narcissism
Bibliographic references: http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=3271
So I am glad that I received that curative process. Although, living here in the east, in the Post-Soviet system, I am very aware how narcissistic americans are. Aware of how I must alter my speech pattern. And I literally cringe whenever I hear an american accent. Americans talk about themselves and how they feel incessantly.
I have tried to construct this argument as compassionately as possible. But idealism, impossibility, ignorance, deception, and lying are not, in Kantian terms ‘ethical’ means of discourse. The only ethics I know of that I can prove are a) to speak the truth as best as I understand it, b) rely on instrumental science wherever possible as superior to intuitive sense and reason, and c) to avoid involuntary transfers of any kind from others, and d) to prohibit others from conducting involuntary transfers whenever possible.
That is, acting morally. It is not moral to respect someone’s feelings if it violates those tenets. It is immoral to make someone feel good for believing something that is demonstrably false. Yet we cannot be prisoners of truths. We must struggle to find solutions even when the truth stops us.
We cannot construct that we know of an alternative to the pricing system as an information and incentive system. We can however, learn from it and construct alternatives by using it, the same way we constructed morality under capitalism by making use of self-interest. However, the basic problem, which is that the system itself is both incomprehensible and uncontrollable is probably forever beyond our grasp. And I suggest that it MUST be. Otherwise, like the Corporatism of current large scale institutionalized banking is, it would be little more than an instrument of tyranny.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-29 06:31:00 UTC
VERY CLOSE TO PUTTING ANOTHER STAKE IN POSTMODERNISM: MATHEMATICAL PLATONISM AS ‘FRAUD’.
(Excerpt From A Very Very Very long thread)
Hopefully some people will begin to gasp the difference between morality and property in Propertarianism as I’ve defined them, versus the way Rothbard defined morality and property in libertarianism.
I think that I should probably write 2500 words on how Rothbard’s argument was sufficient for socialism, but insufficient for Postmodernism. That way I don’t have to attack rothbard as hard as I do now.
The necessity of operational language is something that I understood was necessary in politics and law. But it was only over the past year or two that I understood that it is necessary for avoiding fraud.
I still cannot solve the point of demarcation between literature and it’s appeals for empathy, or Heidegger’s confusing mixture of literature and reason, at the expense of causality. I think I know where it is. But I’ll have to work on it.
-Curt
——–
From: William
@Curt Doolittle says: “So I would argue, why not just admit that these are utilities and contrivances, not operational truths, and just go on your merry way?”
I don’t have the vocabulary to express what I think in response to the above. But, I will try to give a stab to convey my thoughts.
First, it appears to me that you are using “utilities”, ” contrivances”, etc in a derogatory meaning, but “operational” in a favorable meaning. This is similar to attaching a derogatory meaning to “liberal”. I will leave it at this without going into it any further.
Second, I have a book “A Course In Constructive Algebra” by Ray Mines, Fred Richman and Wim Ruitenburg. The authors don’t accept the principle of excluded middle and they require elements of sets to be constructable. I have no problem reading it and following the proofs. I realize that I am working in a different context. It is just as good as if I worked in the context of ZFC with allowing excluded middle. In other words, I am not converted over to their method and give up standard ZFC. I do both.
Third, I have no qualms about working out a problem in Newtonian physics (like calculating the moment of inertia of a spinning top). I don’t know if you would say I am doing “operational truths” because the operations are constructive, or if you would say I an not doing “operational truths” because the result is not true because Newtonian physics is not true.
Fourth, I suspect that in the 21th century there are still philosophers who support the framework of mathematicians who do standard ZFC theorem proving. That is, those mathematicians have not been abandoned by philosophers who try to justify, explain, etc what the mathematicians are doing. And there are other philosophers who support other different views, who have mathematicians following them to provide their ground to stand on. If these philosophers can’t agree among themselves, why do you want the mathematicians to choose just one of them. Are mathematicians a better judge of the various philosophical views than the philosophers themselves?
Fifth, I believe mathematicians would not have any qualms switching among the various mathematical foundations. Would a “utilitarian” philosopher be ok with writing a paper in the “platonic” viewpoint, and vice versa?
————–
From: Curt Doolittle
@William Hale
RE “Second”, “Fourth”, “Fifth”
I think we are still talking past each other. I’m fully appreciative of using multiple methodologies to solve problems. I’m fully appreciative of the fact that mathematicians, like a general staff, run theories – and that surprisingly often, some particular formula describes a useful natural process. The question is, do you understand that point of demarcation, or not. And do you claim that the standard of truth in deduction is equal to the standard of truth in construction. That the two standards are marginally indifferent is different from the two standards being identical. They aren’t. So then, there are statements that are necessarily true. And statements that are deductively true. IF we can claim there are many types of infinities but some are larger or smaller. Then perhaps we can claim their are many truths, but that some are more authoritative than others. if you claim that .999… is operationally equal to one, that is different from whether .999.. is deductively equal to one, or equal by fiat. But in a conflict over which statement is a more authoritative truth, the operational must be. Because it can be nothing else. And even this is not important to me. What is important is that the Russell/Cantor debate led to platonism. And platonism was adopted by postmodernists. Yet the more parsimonious answer was readily available.
RE: “Third”
I would say that newtonian physics is sufficiently precise for the calculations where it is sufficiently precise. This is all that needs to be said. Just like all scientific theories are open to revision, so are all formulae. Why mathematicians feel that they need to create Platonistic standards of truth when the matter is one of precision is … as far as I can tell… an artifact of the language of the Greeks, Bacon and Newton – religious language. Appeals to divine authority.
RE: “First”
I am raising a moral objection. Correct? Is then moral context not relevant? 🙂 But that said, I think that when one makes a truth claim about something that is in fact, utilitarian, it is… either immoral, ignorant, or dishonest.
In other words, do we get to act selfishly when it suits us?
WHY
What if all political language (law, regulation) was stated operationally, so that it was not open to interpretation? How would that change civic discourse?
Utterances are actions and all actions have consequences. Or, are we not responsible for our actions?
The basic argument is that, when making truth claims, scientific statements, stated operationally, are moral, and non scientific statements are immoral. It is very hard to commit fraud by operational argument. It is very easy to commit fraud by platonic argument. In fact – that is the entire purpose of it.
For example, money laundering. Money laundering is the process of removing causation. If mathematicians remove causality from their language, it is laundering as well (information loss). If I cannot launder money because it causes externalities, why can I launder causality in mathematics if it causes externalities?
Everything isn’t relative. 🙂 Truth is accurate description of causal relations. Everything else is ‘contrivance’. And the only reason for developing alternative forms is to say ‘we can get away with it’ and to raise it to the same level of legitimacy as truth. The same way that politicians use the word ‘law’ to give legitimacy to ‘command’. There is but one LAW of human cooperation. The rest is commands and punishments. And non-operational language, platonic language, meant to provide legitimacy, is in fact, a violation of that single law: theft. It is fraud by omission. Obtaining convenience and legitimacy by use of language that avoids causal relations. Mathematical platonism if argued as a truth claim, where that truth claim is also stated as equivalent to operational truth, is in fact, fraud.
This is, in fact, the source of the argument for postmodern thought: mathematics.
We may not HOLD each other accountable for our actions. But our actions have consequences that we are RESPONSIBLE for, whether we hold our selves accountable, or others hold us accountable for them. I am holding (or anticipating holding) mathematicians responsible for the consequences of their actions. (this is the theory I am testing via argument to make sure that I understand it.)
And operational language is the only truth. Everything else is an allegory to it. We can speak truthfully to the best of our knowledge. We can write theories that are testable. But we can make no truth claim that is not operationally stated. Because platonism is the laundry of causal relations.
Mathematics has reinvented mysticism – appeals to platonism to justify arguments. I don’t care about math as a discipline. It’s not terribly important. I care about society. i care about the fact that in democracy, debates have consequences. And the moral commons is an asset we must protect like any other asset from the privatization of wins and the socialization of losses.
So when I say, operationally .999… cannot exist, and even if it could could not equal 1, because it never CAN equal one. That is a true statement. Or, given that the the correct term is ‘substitution’, that .999.. in any context we can imagine, can be substituted for 1. Or if you were to say that … is a a notation for that which we cannot operationally state because of the limits of our number system. Or if you were to say that because in all real world applications, precision is contextually dependent, and infinity allows us to represent contextual precision. Or if you say you say deductively, they are equivalent, if not equal. Or if you say that in practice, the fields of irrational numbers tell us what geometric calculations will be problematic or easy. Or if you say that in practice, fields of (rings of) complex numbers, actually do represent combinations of charges we observe at the subatomic level. (there are still more I can think of). Then all of those are valid statements. They are true statements. But under no conditions are platonic arguments ‘true’. That is a terribly deceptive game that is the source of moral ‘relevance’ in our society.
Mathematical ‘truth’, not stated operationally, is a contrivance, which we use to give status and legitimacy to pragmatic utilitarian actions just as governments give legitimacy to commands by calling them laws. In practice this does not affect our calculations due to the marginal indifference of contextual precision. Symbolic substitution, at marginally indifferent precision does not affect our calculations as well.
There is absolutely no reason that mathematical language must be stated platonically other than status seeking, and legitimacy seeking.
If questioned, it is quite alright to say, ‘we do these things because, in our craft it is easier’ that is different from saying, ‘we do these things because they are true’. The first is a pleading for understanding given the high cost of operational language. The second is an act of fraud.
– cheers. 🙂
(PS: I suspect that I may have given you the vocabulary to express your thoughts.) 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-29 02:14:00 UTC
http://themonkeycage.org/2013/08/22/a-theory-of-the-importance-of-very-serious-people-in-the-democratic-party/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themonkeycagefeed+%28The+Monkey+Cage%29SMART
“My theory … revolves around the role of the news media. The media are a liberal, Democratic-leaning institution. This can be seen, for example, from surveys of journalists (the last one I saw showed Democratic reporters outnumbering Republicans 2-1) or political endorsements or various other studies. It is my impression that the news media lean left but the public-relation industry leans right.
“Anyway, my point here is that the Republican party has a lot of resources, including much of big business, military officers, and organized religion. They don’t need the news media in the way that the Democrats do. And, I suspect one reason why Very Serious People are important for Democrats is that they are respected by the media. The Republicans can put together a budget that is mocked by major newspapers and nobody cares. But if the Democrats lose the support of the New York Times, they’re in trouble. Hence the asymmetry in seriousness. One might say that the Republicans are hurt by a similar asymmetry with regard to social issues, in that they can’t ignore the support of the religious right or talk radio. Although this is a bit different: the so-called Very Serious People pull the Democrats toward the center, while social issue groups pull the Republicans to the right.
“To put it another way, each party has a coalition of financial interests and political activists that are important in staffing the party and shaping its goals. The Democratic party’s balance has changed: in recent decades, with the decline of labor unions, various segments of industry such as high-tech have become important, also there are doctors and lawyers and newspapers. These are all groups that will tend to favor centrist, status-quo, what Krugman might call “very serious” policies.
“I think this could/should be studied more systematically (ideally in some sort of comparative analysis with data from many countries).”
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-26 01:46:00 UTC