My answer to Who won the socialist calculation debate? https://www.quora.com/Who-won-the-socialist-calculation-debate/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-10 01:15:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1027725012546068480
ONLY THE WEAK NEED LIES
Incentives = Decidable independently of intuition.
– vs. –
Values = Decidability dependent upon intuition.
[You] have a great deal of confidence in your biases, and put too little effort into the truth.
The truth is only painful if you cannot find a method of achieving your goals by other than deceit.
Since I know how to achieve those goals without succumbing to the seduction of engaging in deceit, I do not fear the truth.
You do.
And that is why you are weak.
Source date (UTC): 2018-08-07 15:24:00 UTC
The criteria of decidability vary greatly between the male and the female. This is easily demonstrated. Men and women judge by very different criteria.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 13:55:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1023930156207882242
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
The criteria of decidability vary greatly between the male and the female. This is easily demonstrated. Men and women judge by very different criteria.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 13:55:38 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
It’s a book length treatment.
But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence.
Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism).
My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle.
I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”.
But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse.
The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging.
That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 13:36:18 UTC
The criteria of decidability vary greatly between the male and the female. This is easily demonstrated. Men and women judge by very different criteria.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 09:55:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe.
An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction.
So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency.
Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality.
As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites.
And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description.
I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth.
So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 17:52:43 UTC
—“To construct a right requires a contract (exchange of rights and obligations under reciprocity), a means of deciding if a right has been violated (natural law) and an ability to provide restitution if they have been violated (insurer).”—Andy Lunn
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 16:13:59 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1023602548320690176
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“To construct a right requires a contract (exchange of rights and obligations under reciprocity), a means of deciding if a right has been violated (natural law) and an ability to provide restitution if they have been violated (insurer).”—Andy Lunn
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 16:13:49 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference,
And:
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 23:37:34 UTC