Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • (INTRODUCTORY READING 4) MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS (cerebral

    (INTRODUCTORY READING 4)

    MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    (cerebral)(interesting)

    I hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims.

    LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION

    Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity.

    ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY

    Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law.

    PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM

    Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems.

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM)

    Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols.

    PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM

    Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM

    Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL

    Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 07:04:00 UTC

  • ***READ ME FIRST*** A RECONSTRUCTION OF PRAXEOLOGY AS ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM FULL

    ***READ ME FIRST***

    A RECONSTRUCTION OF PRAXEOLOGY AS ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH RATIO-EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

    I. PURPOSE:

    1) To restore credibility to Austrian Economics by transforming it from Rationalist and pseudoscientific, to consistent with all scientific and logical disciplines.

    2) To quash rationalist and pseudoscientific fallacies that have discredited Austrian economics, discredited the quest for moral economics, distracted from the quest for moral institutions through moral constraint on political economy, and cast the quest for liberty itself as the province of ‘the lunatic fringe’.

    3) To provide a language for dividing economics into moral (Austrian operational economics) and immoral (Keyensian redistributive economics) disciplines.

    4) To provide a scientific and critical rather than ideological and justificationary discussion of Austrian Economics (at least the German wing) as a method for testing the truthfulness and morality of economic theories – and to advocate restoring morality and truthfulness to economic science.

    What follows is a series of posts I have written in the past few months as I have worked on Propertarianism. It may require that you have a non-trivial understanding of philosophy. And your average passionate advocate of political ideas does not have that understanding. But hopefully you will glean some ideas from it, and provide me with some useful criticism.

    Thanks

    II. SUMMARY:

    The first post summarizes the argument. The remaining articles expand the Introduction take you from basic philosophical concepts, through a series of short essays

    1) REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS NECESSARY (To return the dialog to truthful and moral Austrian economics, and deceptive and immoral macro economics)

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/762176483871723/

    2) WHY ARE YOU REFUTING MISES, ROTHBARD AND HOPPE? (To Save Austrian Economics from the lunatic fringe)

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/762184140537624/

    3) PRAXEOLOGY AS MISES FAILURE TO DEVELOP ECONOMIC OPERATIONALISM (Restoring Austrian Economics To Compatibility with Ratio-empirical science)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

    III. BACKGROUND:

    0) BASIC TERMS (And yes, you probably need to read these rather than assume you know what they mean.)

    – Rationalism vs Empiricism

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

    – Intuitionism in Mathematics

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    – Operationalism in Physics

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    – Operationism in Psychology

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    – Instrumentalism (Eccentric Usage)

    I am a scientific realist, however, I use the term “instrumentalism” (probably a bad choice of words) in a much narrower sense: to refer to our use of logical and physical instruments to reduce phenomenon to that which we can somehow experience and compare, contrast, qualify, quantify or decide.

    1) THE STRUGGLE TO PRODUCE A MORAL ECONOMIC SCIENCE

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750991571656881/

    2) SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750418458380859/

    3) MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751096391646399/

    4) CRITICISM: EMPIRICISM, INSTRUMENTALISM, OPERATIONALISM, FALSIFICATIONISM VS JUTIFICATION: RATIONALISM

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751258491630189/

    5) JUSTIFICATION AS ADHERENCE TO CONTRACT, CRITICISM AS ADHERENCE TO DUE DILIGENCE

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/763919313697440/

    6) MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/10/17/mises-position-in-intellectual-history/

    7) SCIENCE AS TRUTHFUL SPEECH – GERMAN RATIONALISM AND JEWISH COSMOPOLITANISM AS IMMORAL INFORMATION DISTORTION EQUAL TO THE INFORMATION DISTORTION OF KEYNSIAN ECONOMICS.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/752211031534935/

    8) WHICH IS MORE LIKELY: A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION OR ANTI-SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISM?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751253388297366/

    9) THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/752802284809143/

    10) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    – “Praxeology and Its Critics” by Bruce Caldwell.

    http://public.econ.duke.edu/~bjc18/docs/Praxeology%20and%20Its%20Critics.pdf

    – Do We Reason When We Think We Reason, or Do We Think?

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/lfd-.pdf

    – The Objectives of Science

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/poincare.pdf

    – Truth Defined

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/TruthDefined.pdf

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 05:36:00 UTC

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “OPERATIONAL” AND “INTUITIONISTIC” (important) I use the

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “OPERATIONAL” AND “INTUITIONISTIC”

    (important)

    I use the term Operational in preference to Intuitionistic because the term “intuitionistic” is an uncomfortable one (like “rent-seeking”) that is open to easy misinterpretation, and the term “operational” invokes the meaning that I want it to: actions that humans can possibly take.

    But this is a personal act of argumentative license. There is a significant difference between the terms Operational(actions we take to observe and measure) and Intuitionistic(physical and mental operations that it is possible for humans to perform).

    In practice, when speaking tests of existential possibility, macro economic measures must be performed operationally, often using logical and physical instrumentation. But tests of existential possibility, rationality, and voluntary and involuntary transfer, require only sympathetic testing (reducing economic phenomenon to at least loosely rational sequence of actions that are subjectively believable).

    So just as mathematical operations must be mentally possible and logically consistent (maintaining a balance of ratios), so must sequences of human actions be mentally possible (posses information to do so), subjectively consistent (what we often mistakenly call ‘rational’, but meaning preferential), and if physical action required, physically possible.

    Lest someone leap to conclusions, The difference between mathematical systems and real world systems, is the difference between axiomatic(closed) and real (open) in which humans are constantly subject to information by which they can rearrange the priority of preferences in vast overlapping networks, as well as attempt to outwit one another (contrarian opportunism).

    As such, since in an axiomatic system all information is present, and in a real-world(open) system, all information can never be present, our ability to deduce outcomes is dependent on the degree to which the information is closed (invariant): the more open the system is to new information the less predictive it can be – and as Taleb has demonstrated, shocks generate more resultant signals than predictable signals, and the information required to anticipate signals in the tail is many thousands of times higher than the same predictability within the primary distribution. Therefore while we can deduce general trends in economic phenomenon, we cannot deduce all economic phenomenon with any degree predictive success. Yet we can (usually) explain observed phenomenon given time.

    This means that the Austrian program is largely correct: that economic policy will produce deterministic results. But the position of the main stream opposition is that the good achieved by manipulation is greater than the harm caused by economic distortion. (This remains the central subject of contention, since it will be very hard to prove on way or another.)

    The general trend in economics has been one in which we attempt to provide that improvement by disallowing a shortage of money that would impede growth, by targeting various empirical measures of questionable use, and using the maximum borrowing capacity of the state as a means of inter-temporally adjusting investments in infrastructure and commons. But this emphasis has led to ignoring the means by which economies perform: demographics, education policy, industrial policy, rule of law, homogeneity of culture, and trust. In other words: taking human capital for granted under the false assumption of equality and the good of diversity.

    And this is problematic, because the first most important criteria for economic performance in the absence of external inputs of technology, or military conquest, or possession of unique territory, is trust. And the corporeal state, multiculturalism, and universalism appear to erode that trust systematically – with predictable results.

    BACK TO INTUITIONISM AND OPERATIONALISM

    So, while I may switch from Operationalism (broader) to Intuitionism (narrower) at present I prefer the broader term because of its general meaning and broader scope even though in economics the term Intuitionism is probably closer to corresponding with the purpose I intend: a requirement for the existential possibility of operations in order to criticize our assumptions (premises).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 04:56:00 UTC

  • Operationalism: From Law Through Mathematics

    (cerebral)(interesting) [I] hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims. LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity. ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law. PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM) Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols. PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy. https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

  • Operationalism: From Law Through Mathematics

    (cerebral)(interesting) [I] hope that this spectrum: law, economics, assists us in understanding the position of praxeology in the list of moral constraints that require operational and intuitionistic tests of propositions, prior to making truth claims. LAW: STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under propertarian property rights theory Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute the permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest affect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity. ECONOMICS: PRAXEOLOGY Intuitionism (praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law. PSYCHOLOGY: OPERATIONISM Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm MEDICINE: PROTOCOLISM (MEDICAL OPERATIONALISM) Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols. PHYSICS: OPERATIONALISM Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/ MATHEMATICS: INTUITIONISM Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy. https://www.facebook.com/groups/750292715060100/

  • THE GREEKS SET US ON A PATH. Math isn’t the ideal, economics is. The reason we g

    THE GREEKS SET US ON A PATH. Math isn’t the ideal, economics is.

    The reason we got hooked on deduction was mathematics. In math, the means of exploration (mathematical operations) and the means of testing (mathematical operations) are the same (except in very rare circumstances).

    The greeks ran with this. And we followed.

    The problem is, (as Popper showed us) this convenience in mathematics is an exception due to the simplicity of mathematical operations, and is not a rule. Whereas, in every other field we must use guesses (induction) to arrive at hypotheses, then criticize them for internal consistency(logic), external correspondence(testing), existence (operations), and scope (falsification).

    We test our words to be free of imagination (logic), we test our correspondence with reality to be free of imagination (actions) we test our premises to be free of imagination (operations) and we test our conclusions to be free of imagination (Falsification). (still working on how to say this bit, and not quite there yet.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-21 11:00:00 UTC

  • Intellectual Property (IP) In Propertarianism

    [H]ere is where I end up. And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.
    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.
    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature are a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.  Artists and writers will do their work regardless of compensation, and without compensation those who lack are will be dis-incentivized from producing it.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the rational voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” – and those criteria are violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another.

    While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory.)

    I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.
    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent to call it patenting. But the idea of funding off-book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly in medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Intellectual Property (IP) In Propertarianism

    [H]ere is where I end up. And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.
    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.
    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature are a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.  Artists and writers will do their work regardless of compensation, and without compensation those who lack are will be dis-incentivized from producing it.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the rational voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” – and those criteria are violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another.

    While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory.)

    I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.
    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent to call it patenting. But the idea of funding off-book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly in medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • HERE IS WHERE I END UP ON IP in PROPERTARIANISM. And it hasn’t changed much in t

    HERE IS WHERE I END UP ON IP in PROPERTARIANISM.

    And it hasn’t changed much in two years.

    1) Trademarking.

    Yes. It’s a weight and measure. And it’s testable. Violating trademarks is fraudulent.

    2) Copyrighting.

    Possibly – but only if under the model of the creative commons. Meaning free for non commercial use. I don’t care about patents anywhere near as much as I care about ending copyrights on user copyable media. It is very, very, hard to argue that pop music, film and literature is a public good – and I think the evidence is the opposite.

    The difference between my position on copyrighting and the rothbardian, is that since high trust is necessary for the voluntary formation of even a moderately anarchic polity, then the criteria for moral action necessary for a high trust society will be: “Truthfully stated, fully informed, warrantied, productive, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality” is violated by commercially profiting from the creative works of another. While it is hard to say that one should be cast as a criminal for duplicating a non-scarce good, it is another to say that one has the right to profit from it instead of its creator. It would violate the requirement that we all contribute to production rather than act parasitically in order for cooperation to be inter-temporally rational. (ie: Non-retaliatory) I can’t agree that a publisher can make money selling a book without a commission to the author. But I can agree that an author cannot prevent the copying of a book. Same for film, music, and art. And I take this position not because I like it but because I cannot logically find an alternative to it. Humans will retaliate against parasitism, and that is what defines property-en-toto.

    3) Patents.

    Possibly in rare circumstances, but only for very, very, specific public (Citizen-Shareholder) investments that would not be served by the market otherwise. It is arguable that such criteria is not in fact meaningfully similar enough to a patent. But the idea of funding off book research and development at private expense in hope of public reward is difficult to morally argue against – particularly medicine and physical science. If we wanted to put a ten billion dollar bounty on the invention of a fusion reactor that met X criteria it is hard to say that wouldn’t be a good investment.

    Again, I am not sure that this qualifies as a ‘patent’, but to prohibit a voluntarily organized polity from offering a market bounty for the off book production of a high risk good is hard to find argument against.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 15:13:00 UTC

  • TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM (getting very close now) The Question: How do we war

    TRUTH UNDER PROPERTARIANISM

    (getting very close now)

    The Question:

    How do we warranty that we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality? Testimonial truth is a promise, a warranty. But a warranty of what? All knowledge is theoretical; and all non-tautological, non-trivial premises and propositions are theoretical. Therefore how to we know our theories can be warrantied?

    We can warranty that our statement somewhere in this spectrum:

    0) Sensible (intuitively possible)

    1) Meaningfully expressible ( as an hypothesis )

    2) Internally consistent and falsifiable (logically consistent – rational)

    3) Externally correspondent and Falsifiable ( physically testable – correlative)

    4) Existentially possible (operationally construct-able/observable)

    5) Voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange / rational choice)

    6) Market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) Market irrefutable (law)

    8) Irrefutable under original experience (Perceivable Truth)

    9) Ultimately parsimonious description (Analytic Truth)

    10) Informationally complete and tautologically identical (Platonic Truth – Imaginary)

    And we can state what criteria any proposition tested on this spectrum satisfied. And we can conversely state whether a proposition is required to satisfy each criteria.

    All disciplines are subject to this list, and to testimony. All that differs is whether the properties are necessary for application of the theory to the context (scale) at hand.

    Only such statements made under this warranty, are classifiable as moral: consisting of Truthful, fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    OUR WARRANTY IS:

    I. A statement is stated *TRUTHFULLY*: satisfying the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    II. A statement is *TRUE*: Assuming that we eliminated the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, we warranty that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    We can never state whether a statement is “Absolutely True”, as in satisfying Platonic truth. And rarely can we state that we have satisfied analytic truth, and only at human scale can we testify that we have satisfied Perceivable Truth – original experience. But we can always state whether we have stated something truthfully.

    The question is only *whether we truly desire to*.

    CRITICISM OF INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    Things can’t ‘be’ true, we can only speak/write truthfully.

    We have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-17 07:53:00 UTC