Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • False argument to positivism. The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by

    False argument to positivism.

    The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by LIMITS.

    We know something is a truth candidate only when we cannot find a method of it being false.

    The fact that some idea ‘works’ tells us far less, than when some variant of that idea fails to work.

    much of sophomoric philosophy is predicated on the desire for low cost epistemology: confirmation. While science and most advanced philosophy is predicated on the use of high cost epistemology: falsification.

    So the example you give (as well as almost all sophomoric philosophy or religion) is an attempt for those without resources, those without patience, or those who are lazy, to find a discounted means of achieving their ends.

    There are no free lunches.

    Knowledge is expensive. Promises of cheap knowledge through the mind are merely deceits. Comforting deceits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:07:00 UTC

  • “Define your terms. If you can’t define a term operationally, then don’t use it.

    —“Define your terms. If you can’t define a term operationally, then don’t use it. That’s the difference between a scientist, and a story teller.”— Felicity Sharpe

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-08 17:48:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED (by joel davis) —“By a priori reasoning (conflating the

    LIBERTARIANISM EXPOSED

    (by joel davis)

    —“By a priori reasoning (conflating their own imaginary “moral” precepts with observable operations) they determine humans are universally entitled to property rights.

    Yet for property rights to have existential possibility they require enforcement. This enforcement COSTS the enforcers. Non-enforcers must PAY for this service.

    If an individual does not pay for the enforcement of his property rights, he receives them as a parasite.

    By extension, members of society require property rights to mutually gain from cooperative social cohesion.

    Enforcing payment for the costs of the enforcement of property protects society against the higher costs of non-cooperation.”—Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 21:19:00 UTC

  • Peter (all), (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd) RE

    Peter (all),

    (again, probably epistemologically too technical for this crowd)

    RE: https://www.facebook.com/peter.boettke/posts/10158213805095389

    IT’S NOT A CASE OF MISINTERPRETATION BUT MISREPRESENTATION, AND IGNORANCE

    There is a difference between:

    (a) misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

    (b) monopoly/authoritarianism(subjective/apriorism/operationalism vs objective/existential/empiricism) and competition(survival from criticism in both apriorism and empiricism)

    (c) scientists(survival from criticism) and ideologues (justificationism as in misesian/rothbardians)

    ASSERTION

    Any and every statement of social science proposed as a truth claim must survive the following forms of criticism, of which AUSTRIAN economist’s operationalism/intuitionism (misnamed ‘methodological individualism’) provides the first INNOVATION in science in over a century.

    1) categorical consistency (identity – non conflation)

    2) logical consistency (internal consistency)

    3) empirical consistency (external correspondence)

    4) existential consistency (operational language/intuitionism/methodological individualism)

    5) reciprocal consistency (objectively moral: productive, fully in formed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities)

    6) scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes the difference in opportunity costs: the seen, unseen / intended, unintended / caused, uncaused.)

    That completes the scientific method.

    When a mainstream quantitative (correlative) economist issues his findings, in almost NO case does he test (4)(5)(6), and arguably they rarely test (1). In other words, most mainstream (correlative) economists cherry-pick in order to defend priors and desired measures.

    We succeed at what we measure. We fail at what we don’t.

    WHO IS AT FAULT

    1) The Mises Institute has polluted the informational commons for 30 years, if for no other reason than they are philosophically sophomoric to the last man. Their propagandizing by making innovative use of the internet to capture interest has created large numbers of activists who lack breadth of knowledge necessary to judge (test) the ideology they absorb.

    2) While the Christian Austrians (austrians proper) maintained a metaphysical (subconscious) accounting of the challenge of organizing the commons (an aristocratic bias), many if not all of the Cosmopolitan Austrians (jewish Austrians), like the Rousseau, ignored the cost of organizing the commons, under the pretense that man was oppressed – rather than domesticated by the aristocracy (like any other animal) through the use of war, governance, law, and policy. Yes, domesticating man was profitable. It continues to be. That does not mean man was oppressed if it means forcing him into the market and to respect life, liberty, and property.

    3) Academic Practitioners of operationalism / intuitionism / methodological-individualism AND empirical observation are almost equally philosophically sophomoric in their understanding of the innovation of the Austrian method, as the first instance of operationalism/intuitionism discovered in ANY of the sciences.

    This is because (a) philosophers were distracted by the pseudoscientific effort of trying to make analytic philosophy of language into a ‘science’. (b) Popper/Kuhn failed to complete the scientific method sufficiently to explain why it worked so successfully, and therefore how to apply it to adaptive systems (social science), and while Hayek correctly identified information as the model we should study in social science, and correctly identified the common natural law as the means of regulating that information, he failed to learn from Simmel, Weber and Mises, as well as Brouwer and Bridgman how the scientific method could be captured in law and used to regulate that information. (c) the Incentive to take advantage of fiat currency (stock in the state’s revenue and income potential) was so great that economists were as equally distracted by the use of it to obtain legitimacy and influence as were philosophers distracted by the philosophy of language to obtain legitimacy and influence.

    WHY DOES AUSTRIAN ECON MATTER?

    1) because operationalism is more important in social science than physical science, and physical science more important than in mathematics, for the simple reason that the difference between the methods of observation and survival (proof/test/criticism) are trivial in mathematics, limited in physical science, and expansive in social and cognitive science.

    2) because Austrians discovered operationalism in economics where it is most important of all sciences other than perhaps psychology.

    3) because by discovering operationalism in economics, Austrians largely completed the scientific method – despite failing to grasp that they had done so.

    KNOWING THIS, HOW DO WE REPOSITION AUSTRIAN ECON?

    1) By using both empirical and operational methods, Austrian econ’s are engaged in social science: the study of human cooperation those markets for reproduction, production of private goods and services and information, production of common goods, services, and information, and production of competition against other groups (group evolutionary strategy). THEY PRACTICE SCIENCE.

    2) By attempting to correct accumulated misinformation in the economy and assist networks of sustainable specialization and trade in adaptation, Chicago (freshwater) economists are attempting to (a)remain within rule of natural law (social science) and preserving the individual’s (b) ability to forecast and plan, (c) protection from retroactive legislation (policy) required by natural law. THEY PRACTICE MORAL SCIENCE.

    3) By attempting to maximize consumption, mainstream economists ignore social science, violate natural law, and insert disinformation into the economy to the point where disinformation and malincentives accumulate on longer time horizons at greater scale, than individuals, organizations, the economy, the nation, and the civilization can adapt to. THEY PRACTICE DECEITFUL, IMMORAL, PSEUDOSCIENCE.

    WHERE CAN YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT AUSTRIAN ECON’S PLACE IN HISTORY?

    This post contains pointers to a series of articles that position Menger/Mises and their discovery in intellectual history as part of the movement of late 19th and early 20th century that failed, and allowed us to be subject to 100 years of social pseudoscience.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 09:54:00 UTC

  • Joshua Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias

    Joshua

    Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience) and deceit, without having done so.

    In practice this means following the scientific method, but the completeness of that method’s practice is the question.

    In social science as in psychology, we know that reported preference data is basically impossible to trust, whereas demonstrated preference data largely contradicts reported data.

    We know that in psychology, they’ve spent the past 30 years trying to escape pseudoscience, because projection in psychology (observation) is as impossible as reported data.

    We konw that both economics (vs social science) and cognitive science (vs psychology) caused both disciplines to reform. We know genetics and archaeology ( vs anthropology ) caused the discipline to to begin (slowly) to reform. And a present we are seeing demographic and voting patterns refute both educational ‘science’ and ‘political science’. All for the same reasons: subjective reporting is impossible wither it be self observation or other-observation.

    So, when we say that the scientific method requires a warranty of due diligence, and that we require empircal due diiligence in particular, then the means by which we warranty that we are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit largely depends upon the construction of instrumentation, and the recording of data that is not subject to subjective interpretation.

    Secondly, the most common error after subjective reporting, is temporal variability or what is often called ‘externalities’. In other words, you might measure something and think it’s a good, but you fail to measure the externalities (consequences) which might be very bad (the energy consumption of producing a photovoltaic panel has until recently been far in excess of its lifetime productivity.)

    Thirdly, one must report on one’s criteria of decidability in the statement of a judgement of good, neutral, or bad. Meaning, one cannot take for granted that one’s value judgements are rational, and certainly not scientific. What are those priors? have we tested them? Or in other words, you cannot deduce from false premises, and you cannot equally deduce from false value judgements – doing so is an other form of reporting error.

    But that is not the full scope we must warranty against. That full scope is:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – logical consistency (internally consistent)

    3 – empirical consistency (externally correspondent)

    4 – existential consistency (by use of operational language)

    5 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes deltas in opportunity costs.)

    6 – reciprocity consistency (or what we call objective morality)

    Unfortunately, while most people are reluctant to comment on the physical sciences when they do not feel that they understand them, the average person at every level of society feels qualified to comment on psychological, social, political, and economic phenomenon that are in fact quite more complex than the physical.

    But then this is a cognitive bias we all share. That’s because we evolved to negotiate on behalf of our reproductive interests (genes) and not to tell the truth. The average person equates truth with ‘in my, my kin’s, my alliances’, and my nation;s reproductive interests.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-05 11:31:00 UTC

  • More Thoughts on Operationalism

    MORE OPERATIONALISM (economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics.

    For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories. But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations. So: 4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon. 3) Empirically measurable phenomenon. 2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon. 1) Operational construction of those phenomenon. 0) Information In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them. 0) Information 1) Operations 2) Mathematics 3) Computers 4) “Recipes” 5) “Language” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • More Thoughts on Operationalism

    MORE OPERATIONALISM (economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics.

    For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories. But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations. So: 4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon. 3) Empirically measurable phenomenon. 2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon. 1) Operational construction of those phenomenon. 0) Information In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them. 0) Information 1) Operations 2) Mathematics 3) Computers 4) “Recipes” 5) “Language” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • More Operationalism

    (economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics. For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories. But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations. So: 4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon. 3) Empirically measurable phenomenon. 2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon. 1) Operational construction of those phenomenon. 0) Information In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them. 0) Information 1) Operations 2) Mathematics 3) Computers 4) “Recipes” 5) “Language” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • More Operationalism

    (economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics. For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories. But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations. So: 4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon. 3) Empirically measurable phenomenon. 2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon. 1) Operational construction of those phenomenon. 0) Information In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them. 0) Information 1) Operations 2) Mathematics 3) Computers 4) “Recipes” 5) “Language” Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine.

  • MORE OPERATIONALISM (economics, philosophy) I’ve been working with framing the d

    MORE OPERATIONALISM

    (economics, philosophy)

    I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics.

    For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories.

    But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations.

    So:

    4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon.

    3) Empirically measurable phenomenon.

    2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon.

    1) Operational construction of those phenomenon.

    0) Information

    In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them.

    0) Information

    1) Operations

    2) Mathematics

    3) Computers

    4) “Recipes”

    5) “Language”

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-27 08:38:00 UTC