—“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me. Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”. This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.
Theme: Operationalism
-
“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube in
—“Hey Curt ! I have been following you for some times. I just saw your youtube intro to propertarianism. When you talk about operational grammars, are you talking about isolating the rules of each domain of human knowledge and find a common ground between them ?”— A Friend
Wow, that is one of the smartest first-questions anyone has ever asked me.
Yes. “universal commensurability” or “universal language”.
This allows us to criticize (judge) across all disciplines.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 10:37:00 UTC
-
The only possible closure is categorical, internal, external, operational, consi
The only possible closure is categorical, internal, external, operational, consistency and coherence, including limits, parsimony and full accounting – meaning falsification against reality. Argumentative rationalism isn’t closed. Hence why it’s the hide of sophists and theology.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 20:33:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994676771349032961
Reply addressees: @Noblesm85
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576
IN REPLY TO:
@Noblesm85
@curtdoolittle The scientific method and falsification are also reliant upon constructivist rationality- which is the product of consensus (irrational) thought- and furthermore, is predicated on the axiom that one can, or ever will, be able to understand the universe.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576
-
1) No they are not The scientific method says only that operational construction
1) No they are not The scientific method says only that operational construction (existential possibility) and logical construction (internal consistency) and external correspondence (empirical observable evidence), limits, parsimony and full accounting must survive.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 20:29:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994675918969933824
Reply addressees: @Noblesm85
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576
IN REPLY TO:
@Noblesm85
@curtdoolittle The scientific method and falsification are also reliant upon constructivist rationality- which is the product of consensus (irrational) thought- and furthermore, is predicated on the axiom that one can, or ever will, be able to understand the universe.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994665016854040576
-
FOR GROWNUPS (repost) 1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Eve
https://propertarianism.com/2018/03/19/philosophy-for-grown-ups/PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS
(repost)
1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.
2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.
3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.
4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.
5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.
6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.
As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 21:22:00 UTC
-
It’s justificationary pseudoscience – an interaction on Pilpul. The fact that we
It’s justificationary pseudoscience – an interaction on Pilpul. The fact that we can create grammars (general rules) and Logics (constant relations) does nothing without operational (commensurable) language – and with it the other two are trivial.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 11:31:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991641410569981952
Reply addressees: @smalwigwamlight @FriedrichHayek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991317082636611585
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991317082636611585
-
ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM (operationalism, or Scientific Praxeology) I’ve consolidat
https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/01/economic-intuitionism-or-scientific-praxeology/CONSOLIDATED ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM
(operationalism, or Scientific Praxeology)
I’ve consolidated the posts on Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Libertarianism, and anarcho capitalism into a single post. As well as the translation of kantian apriorism into scientific prose. (Equivalent to approx 20 pages – a paper.)
You might want to keep this link around, or share it because it’s the majority of the argument against libertarianism, which is necessary to get our ‘idealistic’ brothers to convert to Sovereigntarianism. (Propertarianism).
I have organized this content (and a lot more) into a book draft, but it’s low on my priority list. So if I put it out, it’ll be later on.
https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/01/economic-intuitionism-or-scientific-praxeology/
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 18:26:00 UTC
-
ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM (operationalism, or Scientific Praxeology) I’ve consolidat
https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/01/economic-intuitionism-or-scientific-praxeology/CONSOLIDATED ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM
(operationalism, or Scientific Praxeology)
I’ve consolidated the posts on Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Libertarianism, and anarcho capitalism into a single post. As well as the translation of kantian apriorism into scientific prose. (Equivalent to approx 20 pages – a paper.)
You might want to keep this link around, or share it because it’s the majority of the argument against libertarianism, which is necessary to get our ‘idealistic’ brothers to convert to Sovereigntarianism. (Propertarianism).
I have organized this content (and a lot more) into a book draft, but it’s low on my priority list. So if I put it out, it’ll be later on.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 18:26:00 UTC
-
There isn’t any shortcut.
THERE ISN’T ANY SHORTCUT TO WISDOM There isn’t any shortcut. You are either going to read enough basic history, and then learn the operational deconstruction of incentives from me, or you aren’t. There isn’t any shortcut. There isn’t one book. There is however a series of books that are the minimum you’ll need. But that’s not easy. My book will teach you the science and logic of natural law, and all that it entails. But it will simply explain how to make all the knowledge of all the disciplines, commensurable – into a single universal language. That said, history provides the storytelling. And it’s the stories we remember. Stories serve as search algorithms. Logic serves as recipes.Science insures we don’t err. We have had enough of us working to gether now that very smart people with a scientific education and knowledge of computer science, and a bit of history can grasp the ideas within a year. For most people it takes two to understand, and another one or two to master the use of. Which is like any other STEM discipline. ‘Cause it’s like any other STEM discipline….. —“You’ve made a comment elsewhere which I’ll try to paraphrase. Once you get the importance to operationalism, obstacles to demonstrated intelligence are removed. From there, the way forward is just by acquiring more knowledge. There is no way around it. If you don’t have the data (information), operational arguments amount to well articulated opinions and nothing more.”— Bill Joslin
-
TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS” OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.
TODAY’S CLASS: “CONSTANT RELATIONS”
OK. So lets try this. “Constant Relations”.
(And for super geeks watch what I do to logic and set theory with operationalism.)
1) Now, what is the difference between “differences” and “constant and inconstant relations”?
a) So neurons can identify that which is the same, that which is different and can accumulate these differences, as more correspondent or less correspondent, right?
2) When we say “nothing” what CAN we refer to?
Neil: “Everything”.
Curt: “Correct, when we say ‘nothing’ we can only mean everything, and we have not selected from everything.”
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-23 15:39:00 UTC