Theme: Operationalism

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.

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.