Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.
Theme: Operationalism
-
Informational Content in Operationalism vs Empiricism
Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.
-
The Anti-Rothbardian Libertarian Canon
THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON:
1) Against the Rothbardian Fallacies 2) A List of Hans Hoppe’s Errors 3) Mises Praxeology as the Failure to Develop Economic Operationalism 4) Mises Place In Intellectual History 5) The Only Means Of Eliminating the State and Constructing a Condition of Liberty Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
The Anti-Rothbardian Libertarian Canon
THE ANTI-ROTHBARDIAN CANON:
1) Against the Rothbardian Fallacies 2) A List of Hans Hoppe’s Errors 3) Mises Praxeology as the Failure to Develop Economic Operationalism 4) Mises Place In Intellectual History 5) The Only Means Of Eliminating the State and Constructing a Condition of Liberty Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
Programming Teaches Operational Thought
Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.
-
Programming Teaches Operational Thought
Programming is as important an innovation in thought as is empiricism. Because while empiricism is but correspondent and logic is a but question of sets, programming is operational (existential). I think the act of creating databases is about as close to philosophizing as you can come, but it involves the same problem as logic: as practiced by the discipline its logical but non-operational, and often non-correspondent. When you combine user interfaces(human-reality), programming (operations), and databases (sets/logic), where the data structures must correspond to real world entities (empiricism), then you have covered the entire conceptual spectrum. If we combine the correspondent, logical, and operational, we have everything but the moral. If we were to add full accounting of all transactions (full capital accounting that is: under property in toto) we would essentially create the entire spectrum of dimensions necessary for cognition. My view is that while the blockchain method is currently too weak for this purpose, that the general theory of duplicated recursive competing ledgers provides the full accounting of TITLES (changes in ownership), and that local databases can take care of local accounting (local measures of local capital), then we would have sufficient dimensional information to produce meaningful artificial intelligences bound by the same limits as we are. But regardless of what we do with programming itself, my objective is to teach people that the sensation of teaching a computer but having the reaction “well it should know that’s what I meant!” vs what you told it to do are two different things. And that this ‘gap’ is solved by training the mind to think operationally – existentially? Why? Because just as empiricism taught us that the information we wished to be contained in our words was not in fact there, programming or in broader terms ‘operationalism’ teaches us how little we actually know. In other words, it teaches us humility and skepticism in our own thoughts. Or conversely, it teaches us how to test for error and deceit in others. Is this an additional burden? Of course it is. So was scientific knowledge. So was literacy. So was numeracy. So was law and order. These are all costs. But they are not sunk costs. They are investments we make. And the investments in truth telling are always the BEST investments man has EVER made. (Good luck trying to argue otherwise) My strategy is to require law be written programmatically (operationally) even more so than today. Strictly constructed by the same means. This will produce an even more readable body of law, and one that can be accumulated technologically in future systems other than the human mind. Law is very close to programming now. But we do not have all the requirements in law that are necessary for the defense of the informational commons. If we do that, then law will be dimensionally complete (as far as I can tell). And we will be able to hold the liars at bay.
-
Sources of Ignorance: God Speech in Logic and Legislation
Logic is written as is legislation. Testimonialism is written as natural law. This is the origin of the conflict: legislation and mathematics, rather than natural law and physics. What does that mean? That law is written as a command. That logical statements are written as promises. The physical statements are written as hypotheses.
-
Sources of Ignorance: God Speech in Logic and Legislation
Logic is written as is legislation. Testimonialism is written as natural law. This is the origin of the conflict: legislation and mathematics, rather than natural law and physics. What does that mean? That law is written as a command. That logical statements are written as promises. The physical statements are written as hypotheses.
-
How About Operational (True) Names for Schools of Economics?
[W]hy don’t we just rename each branch of econ operationally instead of geographically: 1 – Austrian: Economic Social Science. 2 – And then follow with Chicago: Economic Rule of Law. 3 – And follow finally with Saltwater: Economic Discretionary Spending. There is plenty of reason there is such conflict between schools over method when the schools seek three different ends: 1 – Institutional improvement seeking to eliminate frictions and asymmetries of information. 2 – insurance against shocks and errors given asymmetries of information and natural frictions. 3 – disinformation to force corrections to the asymmetries of information and natural frictions. There is no monopoly methodology to be found in social science. There are just actions we can take at different points in the inter-generational organization of production of offspring(families), goods and services(market), commons(govt), and polities(nations). Each group specializes in their reproductive interests: 1) good intergenerational families (Austrian/social-science), 2) aspiring families (classical liberal / rule of law ), 3) and unsuccessful families and their priesthoods (saltwater / progressive / discretionary spending) When you argue (falsely) that some method is true or false for the purpose of providing a monopoly of decidability, then you’re engaging in fallacy. When you argue that we have only so many domains of action in economics, and that each school studies that means of action, that’s simply true. When you state that the consequences of three intertemporal strategies: eugenic long term, pragmatic medium term, and dysgenic short term, then just admit that’s what we’re doing. The fact that we (a) try to create a monopoly framework of decision making from (b) a set of tools of limited utility, (c) serving different reproductive (and therefore class and race) strategies, then we are just making the same fallacy that monopoly majoritarian, first-past-the-post rule does: that we need a monopoly rather than a market in government and therefore a monopoly rather than a market in economics. Let’s imagine for a minute that we had three houses of government, and that economists in each field held one house: austrian/social science, Chicago/rule-of-law, and freshwater/discretionary-rule . Now let’s imagine that these three groups had to create a policy where all three compromised upon the result. What would we see? Smaller government(medium term) and better normative behavior(long term), in exchange for higher redistribution (short term). Now let’s extend this model and ask why we don’t have a senate (Austrian), a house (freshwater), and a lower house (saltwater), and that these economists advised members of each house. This is what we had in the old English system of monarchy, lords, house, and church. We had a perfect government. The classical liberals were just wrong. Not all of us can or wish to, join the middle class. Most people simply wish to consume the most that they can with the least effort and risk. The rest of us want to compete for the crown. There is very little new under the sun. Most human discourse is as polluted as the waters of Bangladesh with error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. Our rhetorical problems exist largely because it is so easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. And that problem exists only because, while we force producers to involuntarily warranty goods, involuntarily warranty services, we do not force them to involuntarily warranty their words. Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable. We cannot warranty perfection but for the purpose intended. What we can do is warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
How About Operational (True) Names for Schools of Economics?
[W]hy don’t we just rename each branch of econ operationally instead of geographically: 1 – Austrian: Economic Social Science. 2 – And then follow with Chicago: Economic Rule of Law. 3 – And follow finally with Saltwater: Economic Discretionary Spending. There is plenty of reason there is such conflict between schools over method when the schools seek three different ends: 1 – Institutional improvement seeking to eliminate frictions and asymmetries of information. 2 – insurance against shocks and errors given asymmetries of information and natural frictions. 3 – disinformation to force corrections to the asymmetries of information and natural frictions. There is no monopoly methodology to be found in social science. There are just actions we can take at different points in the inter-generational organization of production of offspring(families), goods and services(market), commons(govt), and polities(nations). Each group specializes in their reproductive interests: 1) good intergenerational families (Austrian/social-science), 2) aspiring families (classical liberal / rule of law ), 3) and unsuccessful families and their priesthoods (saltwater / progressive / discretionary spending) When you argue (falsely) that some method is true or false for the purpose of providing a monopoly of decidability, then you’re engaging in fallacy. When you argue that we have only so many domains of action in economics, and that each school studies that means of action, that’s simply true. When you state that the consequences of three intertemporal strategies: eugenic long term, pragmatic medium term, and dysgenic short term, then just admit that’s what we’re doing. The fact that we (a) try to create a monopoly framework of decision making from (b) a set of tools of limited utility, (c) serving different reproductive (and therefore class and race) strategies, then we are just making the same fallacy that monopoly majoritarian, first-past-the-post rule does: that we need a monopoly rather than a market in government and therefore a monopoly rather than a market in economics. Let’s imagine for a minute that we had three houses of government, and that economists in each field held one house: austrian/social science, Chicago/rule-of-law, and freshwater/discretionary-rule . Now let’s imagine that these three groups had to create a policy where all three compromised upon the result. What would we see? Smaller government(medium term) and better normative behavior(long term), in exchange for higher redistribution (short term). Now let’s extend this model and ask why we don’t have a senate (Austrian), a house (freshwater), and a lower house (saltwater), and that these economists advised members of each house. This is what we had in the old English system of monarchy, lords, house, and church. We had a perfect government. The classical liberals were just wrong. Not all of us can or wish to, join the middle class. Most people simply wish to consume the most that they can with the least effort and risk. The rest of us want to compete for the crown. There is very little new under the sun. Most human discourse is as polluted as the waters of Bangladesh with error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. Our rhetorical problems exist largely because it is so easy to engage in error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. And that problem exists only because, while we force producers to involuntarily warranty goods, involuntarily warranty services, we do not force them to involuntarily warranty their words. Lying was industrialized by combining pseudoscience, propaganda, and diminution of standards of education by the elimination of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and economics from our education system. So we have the perfect storm: the ability to saturate the environment with propaganda, a population insufficiently educated to falsify it, and no means of juridical defense by which a minority can prosecute it. When we could create a perfect opposition: a population sufficiently educated to falsify it, a media with incentives to speak truthfully, and the juridical defense of the informational commons by which any minority can hold speakers accountable. We cannot warranty perfection but for the purpose intended. What we can do is warranty that we have done due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propaganda, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.