—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.) I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function. So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.
Theme: Measurement
-
–“Can We Unify the Sciences?”– Yes. And It Wasn’t That Difficult.
—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.) I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function. So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.
-
“What Does True Mean?”– Ok, so traditionally we say “a statement that is consis
–“What Does True Mean?”–
Ok, so traditionally we say “a statement that is consistent, correspondent, and coherent.”
But that’s not really clear enough. So, I’ll expand it fully:
1 – categorically consistent
2 – internally consistent (logical)
3 – externally correspondent (empirical)
4 – existentially possible (operationally stated)
5 – rational and reciprocal (voluntary, ethical and moral)
6 – with stated limits and full accounting. (complete)
7 – and coherent across all of the above. (coherent)
The reason being that (a) those are the categories actionable by man) and (b) no category is closed without appeal to the next. and so (c) any statement must pass all those tests.
Now, a fact consists of a theory of a measurement.
And a statement consist of a promise of constant relations.
And a theory consists of a contingent description of causal relations.
You only know falsehoods. We never know truths without perfect knowledge. We never have perfect knowledge. So all we can do is warranty our truthfulness (due diligence) against falsehood.
This is the difference between justificationism (i think this because of these excuses) and falsificationism (i think this because I have no other choice that survives falsification).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:57:00 UTC
-
BEFORE YOU ASSUME I”M WRONG, ASK. I had to create a language of commensurability
BEFORE YOU ASSUME I”M WRONG, ASK.
I had to create a language of commensurability across all the disciplines so I pulled terms from each where they were ‘the least wrong’ so to speak, giving precedence to math, physics and economics wherever possible.
If my vocabulary confuses you (which I understand) just ask me how I”m using it. Many words are used in different contexts in different disciplines.
Don’t assume (like most people) that I don’t know what I”m talking about. I create commensurability the best I can and then define my terms precisely. But this vocabular takes some work to master. Mastering operational language is even harder. Mastering complete operational grammar is … painful – it’s like programming.
I’m extremely precise.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:49:00 UTC
-
LANGUAGE MATTERS English and German, in particular, but indo european languages
LANGUAGE MATTERS
English and German, in particular, but indo european languages in general are analytic (meaning low context high precision). English uses a huge vocabulary and very precise grammar to increase precision further than the original german. But that said, german is a precise descriptive language.
Semitic languages are synthetic (meaning high context low precision). So these languages require a great deal of interpretation, and are open to suggestion, allegory, and multiple meanings.
Chinese is absurdly synthetic (extremely high context, and extremely low precision), and requires deduction from context to extract meaning. When you directly translate Chinese it sounds poetic. Not because it’s poetic but because it’s so imprecise that we interpret it as poetic.
The west developed law and science, east reasoning and evidence, and the center superstition, parable, and deceitfulness. Why is it that the semitic peoples choose to lie to each other – and themselves? Why are they so low trust? Why could not even the ottomans produce a bureaucracy?
Heterogeneity (diversity), Higher aggression. etc….
—note—
(Problems of disciplinary cross over. Analytic/Synthetic divide in philosophy, in linguistics(Grammar), vs vocabulary(Semantics) vs. … well you get the idea. I pull from multiple disciplines to create commensurable terminology. Misinterpretation by newbs is predictable.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 11:05:00 UTC
-
“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate t
—“A lecturer at my university said that you cannot unify the sciences/integrate them because different disciplines require different tools to understand and apply them. There is no universally applicable set of tools, he argued. Do you have a response to that?”—Reece Edward Haynes
Well, there are many devices necessary for measurement at the various scales, and that since the different scales exist because of different available operations at each scale (that is what demarcates scale), and as such a logic (set of operations and laws) at each scale that differ (subatomic physics, vs physics, vs chemistry, vs biochemistry, vs biology vs sentience vs ecology etc.)
I would say that operational language in the sciences has already falsified his statement, and that dependence upon operational language the same in every discipline and that operations are commensurable (human actions) across disciplines. And that the scientific method(as I’ve defined it) is the same (dimensional warranty of due diligence) in every discipline. I would say that the disciplines could be best treated as grammars, each with instruments, categories, and names necessary for the scale of their inquiry (operations available at that scale). But that those grammars are commensurable in operational prose. Some disciplines are entirely pseudoscientific and some are the opposite. However, most contain idealism, and most violate the method somehow. But that these are problems of language, ignorance, and honesty(deceit) more so than function.
So i think from the evidence and the logic he’s wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-24 09:23:00 UTC
-
Can a Science of Psychology Exist?
(only if it is demarcated from therapy) —“Do you think there can be any valid or empirical discipline called “psychology”?”—-Gearóid Walsh Great Question. At present I undrestand psychology (as a science) as the study of cognitive biases and limits, in the perception and cognition of information. At present I understand it is possible to integrate what we call psychology into the rest of the sciences using Acquisitionism which removes the authoritarian, monopoly, conformist, and feminine bias of pseudoscientific psychology from the discipline, producing a value neutral language of self interest. (Just as I see Propertarianism replacing social science and therefore integrating it fully into the rest of the sciences.) Acquisitionism is far more explanatory and fruitful than ‘conformity’ to an arbitrary norm. I do not see psychology holding only dominion over therapy (counseling, self help). I see that as the responsibility of stoicism (self authoring). And that such a field will make use of ‘reformed’ psychology.
-
Can a Science of Psychology Exist?
(only if it is demarcated from therapy) —“Do you think there can be any valid or empirical discipline called “psychology”?”—-Gearóid Walsh Great Question. At present I undrestand psychology (as a science) as the study of cognitive biases and limits, in the perception and cognition of information. At present I understand it is possible to integrate what we call psychology into the rest of the sciences using Acquisitionism which removes the authoritarian, monopoly, conformist, and feminine bias of pseudoscientific psychology from the discipline, producing a value neutral language of self interest. (Just as I see Propertarianism replacing social science and therefore integrating it fully into the rest of the sciences.) Acquisitionism is far more explanatory and fruitful than ‘conformity’ to an arbitrary norm. I do not see psychology holding only dominion over therapy (counseling, self help). I see that as the responsibility of stoicism (self authoring). And that such a field will make use of ‘reformed’ psychology.
-
WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE —“You said Psychology is not a science
WHY IS (WAS) PSYCHOLOGY A PSEUDOSCIENCE
—“You said Psychology is not a science. Can you explain this argument as you have done with Marxism? Thanks”—Jamie Watson
PSEUDOSCIENCE (AND RELIGION – THE FEMININE)
(a) based entirely upon projection – with no empirical content (meaning ‘no system of measurement’),
(b) framed as authoritarian (monopoly) demand for homogeneity as its system of measurement
(c) framed as deviation from a non-existent but feminine norm:
(d) framed as guilt for deviation from the authoritarian, feminine, norm.
(e) The scary one: Freud (using oppression into baseline) was trying to reverse Nietzsche (using freedom to exit baseline). Freud was just creating a pseudoscientific counter-revolution for the female mind(collectivism) against the restoration of the male mind(individualism) by Nietzsche. (Just as Marx and Boaz were creating a counter-revolution against Darwin. Just as Rousseau and Kant a counter-revolution against Locke/Smith/Hume/Newton.)
SCIENCE (AND LAW – THE MASCULINE )
(a) all behavior is in pursuit of acquisitions (“man is acquisitive”) of every possible utility – “discounts on risk and calories”.
(b) all emotions are reactions to changes in state of past, present, and future acquisitions – nothing more. Rewards for training a brain that can learn to acquire.
(c) all emotions, personality traits, all cognition, and therefore all behavior are biased by the different reproductive strategies of males and females. (wolves(M-eugenic) vs deer(F-dysgenic))
(d) all acquisition-seeking is biased by class (familial, social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value) to others – in other words, the classes demonstrate biases that reflect the needs of their classes in competition-and-cooperation with the other classes.
(e) We have a limited number of biological reward systems, and those reward systems appear to map to stages of the prey drive (our operational lifecycle) intersecting with our reproductive drives. We describe these variations in reward systems as personality factors and traits.
(f) ….. (more in an hour…. need to play chauffeur for my niece – my favorite munchkin.)….
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:01:00 UTC
-
He Solution to Kevin Mac Donald’s Question of How and Why the Culture of Critique
(important) (core) 1) Ashkenazis succeeded in reversal of gender bias in cognitive ability, while maintaining pastoral aggression. (We can easily measure this, and all data I’ve seen supports it.) 2) The result has been adoption of the female group social strategy, 3) … and the Female primate’s reproductive strategy for constraining alphas. 4) Female Humans seek systemic free riding and parasitism upon the commons (force the tribe to pay the cost of her offspring), control reproduction and leadership by undermining, and undermine using disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossip, straw manning, heaping of undue praise, and spreading of undue criticism. They poison(pollute) the informational commons. All female behavior evolved to either control children at the lowest cost, obtain rents from men and the commons at lowest cost, and to increase the cost of her sex, affection, and political support (positive gossiping), by both scarcity of it an constant undermining in the absence of it. ( It’s a very simple algorithm really.) 5) So, Ashkenazi behavior and its damage to all host civilizations is just Instinct, common interest, common strategy, and not conspiracy: Neither women nor Ashkenazim know that they do. They both destroy unless their behaviors are severely limited. And the lesson is that males that cannot constrain their females (or their proxies) from undermining are too weak to rule (defend). Evolution does its work if men do not. 6) In other words: The Culture of Critique is just the Female Group Evolutionary Strategy making use of each innovation in “distribution” writing, traveling and preaching, printing, mass media, the priesthood and the academy, the entertainment industry and the media rallying women and the underclasses against the aristocracy (white males). 8) The Technological History is: Gossip > Monotheism(writing) > Pseudoscience(printing) > Industrialized Lying (major media) 7) This is the answer to @TOOEdit’s mystery. “They are all female” and act accordingly out of intuition to undermine at all opportunities, and to seek parasitic rents on the commons. 8) Our only mistake was ‘free speech’ rather than free warrantied (ie: truthful) speech. And our means of correction is quite simple. Extend the involuntary warranty we impose upon goods and services to that of speech (information); restore Defamation, (Libel, Slander), and physical retaliation for insult (fighting or ‘the judicial duel’); We let loose the industrialization of lying under the premise of false speech under the assumption that our high trust people and our high trust habits were universal to man. But they are not only unique to westerners, but unique to western males who aggressively police their honor (reputations) by the aggressive physical and legal suppression of falsehood, and the universal duty to do so. White males are the human race’s aristocracy and developed aristocratic technological civilization using heroism, truth, sovereignty, reciprocity( empirical law of tort), markets in everything, including a market government between the classes, and markets for information in multiple disciplines. Only the most competitive people can use meritocracy. The weak cannot. They will lose. Hence why no other civilization evolved what the west did. Truth, Testimony, Sovereignty, Natural Law of Reciprocity: Tort, Markets in everything as a consequence, and competition, reason, empiricism, and science to resolve differences between those markets. So excellence and superiority are not a question. They’re measurable. We pay the high cost of truth and duty regardless of the cost to the signal hierarchy (dominance or competence hierarchy). We invented truth reason empiricism science, market civilization because only we could – because only the most competitive can succeed under meritocracy. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.