Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • WHEN WE SAY SCIENTIFIC WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE REFERRING TO? (important) (scienti

    WHEN WE SAY SCIENTIFIC WHAT OPERATIONS ARE WE REFERRING TO?

    (important) (scientific method) (informational commons)

    It’s not the subject matter, nor the method of inquiry, nor the method of hypothesizing that’s classifiably scientific or that places any limits on what we call scientific investigation.

    ORIGINATION OF HYPOTHESIS: INCREASED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO PERCEPTION

    We can produce an hypothesis through free association, or random selection. The method of arrival doesn’t tell us anything. In general we must increase the amount of information that we possess either by concentrating time, expanding time, expanding scale, decreasing scale, increasing precision of physical instrumentation, increasing precision of logical instrumentation, increasing precision of institutional instrumentation. Once we have increased information by reducing it to an analogy to experience that we CAN perceive, we can then compare and make judgements and offer hypotheses that transcend the limitations of perception, time, scale, and instrumentation.

    The function of the discipline of science – and that which we call the scientific method – is to test each dimension of a hypothesis to determine whether it survives. And by survival increase the burden that we place on the testing; and by failure discover new potential ideas (avenues) for inquiry (free association).

    Because of this, the discipline of science, with which we practice the scientific method, functions (like its origins in law), as a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion(and substitution), overloading(pseudorationalism, pseudoscience, propaganda), and deceit.

    In the process of due diligence, we search (a process of wayfinding), for possible causal explanations.

    INVESTIGATION: CONSTRUCTION OF INSTRUMENTATION

    The act of scientific *investigation* consists not in the warranties, but in developing categorical, logical, physical, and institutional instrumentation with which to reduce what we cannot directly experience, to that which we can experience, so that we can detect marginal differences, and make decisions, which serve as inputs to our free association (search of memory for patterns).

    So just as we use justification for moral and legal argument, and criticism for truth and scientific argument. Just as we use the golden rule to assert desirable ends, and the silver rule to prevent negative ends, we also construct instrumentation to assert positive tests, and we apply the scientific method, to conduct negative tests.

    Most science requires the invention of tools to extend our perception such that we can reduce the imperceptible to an analogy to experience with which we can make comparisons and render judgments.

    DUE DILIGENCE: WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    But why must we perform due diligence?

    True Enough? True Enough For What Purpose

    ———————————————————————

    Comprehension?

    Further Association?

    Planning action?

    Acting?

    Risking?

    – or –

    Communication?

    Negotiation?

    Advice?

    Ethical license?

    Moral license?

    Risk of loss license?

    Risk of harm license?

    Risk of Death License?

    There are greater consequences to our utterances than there are to our thoughts. What happens in your bedroom is beyond the reach of the commons, and so long as it does not enter the commons there is not a moral question. What happens in your living room among guests may enter the commons or not. What actions and words you speak in public are de facto within the commons. If you PUBLISH and especially do so for any form of profit, then you are manufacturing a good (or harm) that is not only entered into the commons but for the duration of its existence. There is no difference between shipping a poisonous medicine, an incorrect recipe or plan, a product that if misused can harm, or a product that can harm without extraordinary due diligence.

    We tolerate emotional outbursts from one another. We tolerate error from one another, we tolerate bias sometimes, we tolerate suggestion infrequently, and we react negatively do deception and harm. Moral intuitions evolved to cause us to retaliate even at very high cost, against those who engage in parasitism by any means, including the imposition of harm directly or indirectly.

    NO MAN WANTS TO PAY THE COST OF REGULATION AGAINST HARM – HE PREFERS TO EXTERNALIZE THE COSTS PARASITICALLY, FOR TESTING HIS UTTERANCES.

    Parasitism in production, consumption, defense, and information are all natural human behaviors: we take discounts where we can get away with them.

    But the history of civilization is the history of incremental suppression of parasitism from murder, to violence, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy. And the (Popperian) insight that science occurs not only personally, interpersonally, and socially, and that we do harm by pseudoscientific and insufficient diligence, because we have insufficient incentive to warranty our utterances.

    The scientific method, at least for scientists, asks us to use instrumentation and judgement to warranty our utterances against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overlaoding, and decet. It just so happens that in an effort to speak the truth, through these process of warranties, we are more likely to discover that truth.

    THE X/Y AXIS OF DECIDABILITY IN THE SUFFICIENCY OF WARRANTY

    x—> Epistemic process, Y —> Due diligence against harm.

    There is no difference between the production of any good whether physical, normative, institutional, or intellectual. It follows the same process from free association, to individual rational testing, to individual or group hypothesis, to thorough testing, to theory to social application testing, to law, to universal metaphysical assumption about the nature of the universe we live in: physical and totally deterministic, or sentient, and less so.

    What differs only is which output we value that is produced in that process AND the level of ‘truthfulness’ necessary to act upon it without harm to ourselves or others.

    COSTS PROVIDE DECIDABILITY IN CHOICE

    We must always, if we are to avoid error and immorality, remember that the reason that the ancients failed to solve the problem of social science was that they ignored costs. Whether this was a polite mannerism of the wealthy crippling their reason, or the natural consequence of cost exposing our different interests, or fear of overlapping religion and politics, morality and law, and drawing their ire. The separation is either an error, a bias, or a deceit.

    The reasons we did not solve the problem of social science, are the same reasons popper did not correctly identify the scientific equivalent of the mathematical axiom of choice: cost.

    The universe takes the least cost route. Man takes the least cost route. Scientific investigation can and does proceed successfully by taking the least cost route. And it is the least cost route to information expansion that we CAN and do use to provide decidability in matters of inquiry. And that is what we do.

    Man is a very simple creature. We observe changes in state of assets that we value (calorically). These changes in assets produce chemical reactions we call emotions. Our mind evolved to assist us in obtaining those emotions. Our minds use memory to conduct wayfinding. We then criticize our wayfinding. And of the possible found ways, we take that which provides the greatest return in the shortest time, for the least effort, with the greatest degree of certainty, ad the lowest risk.

    Becuase we are merely a part of nature. And memory is very useful for the production of energy, and the conservation of energy, despite its extremely high cost of operation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-22 06:09:00 UTC

  • @Mises Hayek:rule-of-law=liberty. Mises: operationalism -ergo social science. Ro

    @Mises Hayek:rule-of-law=liberty. Mises: operationalism -ergo social science. Rothbard: extends Locke:Soc-sci. expressible as prop.rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 14:07:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/767000207040978944

  • We can test hypotheses for existential possibility, but that does not mean we ca

    We can test hypotheses for existential possibility, but that does not mean we can investigate phenom w/reason alone.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 14:02:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766998824913022976

    Reply addressees: @fabianlibertari @mises

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765904351621701632

    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/765904351621701632

  • Actually, he discovered operationalism in economics, but unlike Brower and Bridg

    Actually, he discovered operationalism in economics, but unlike Brower and Bridgman (and Poincaré) he didn’t get it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-20 14:00:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766998385433858048

    Reply addressees: @fabianlibertari @mises

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765904351621701632

    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/765904351621701632

  • Mises discovered operationalism, Rothbard strict construction, Hoppe strict ince

    Mises discovered operationalism, Rothbard strict construction, Hoppe strict incent.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:09:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766004089759141889

    Reply addressees: @FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766003281516650496

    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/766003281516650496

  • Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?

    –“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling

    [G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis.  Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?

    –“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling

    [G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis.  Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • “Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuabl

    —“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—�Moritz Bierling�

    GREAT QUESTION. THANKS.

    It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it.

    What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.

    POPPER

    Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.

    He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.

    Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:

    1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses)

    2) Critical Rationalism: we can

    3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.

    4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test

    5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.

    BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEM

    Unempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.

    Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.

    Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.

    Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass.

    Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.

    Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)

    Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is:

    Perception(random) ->

    …Free association (searching) ->

    ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) ->

    ………Criticism(test – individual investment) ->

    …………Theory (recipe/route) ->

    ……………Social Criticism (common investment) ->

    ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->

    …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->

    ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )

    This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:

    1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)

    2 – Question(Problem)

    3 – Iterative Criticism(test)

    ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis

    ………..criticism / theory / use

    ………..testing / law general use

    ………..recognition / survival

    ………..identity / tautology

    The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”)

    – categorical consistency (identity)

    – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets)

    – external consistency (empirical correspondence)

    – existential consistency (existential possibility)

    – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition)

    – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

    If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites:

    – error in its many forms

    – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms.

    – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting

    – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading

    – lying and deceit in their many forms.

    SUMMARY

    So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give.

    The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure.

    Which kind of floored me actually.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 07:25:00 UTC

  • Q&A: TWO QUESTIONS: OPERATIONALISM, AND NICK LAND. First, I don’t use the term ‘

    Q&A: TWO QUESTIONS: OPERATIONALISM, AND NICK LAND.

    First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism.

    For a general rule to exist, and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*:

    categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency, moral consistency, scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony).

    So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions.

    When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true.

    TWO: NICK LAND

    I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful.

    Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument.

    I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 07:01:00 UTC

  • PINKER’S CRITICISM OF TALEB IS TALEB’S DOING BUT… Taleb is right, pinker is wr

    PINKER’S CRITICISM OF TALEB IS TALEB’S DOING BUT…

    Taleb is right, pinker is wrong, but Taleb makes his arguments to general principles rather than operational explanations.

    This is why we must have empiricism AND operationalism in scientific assertions.

    This is why people like Taleb must work top down (empirically) and others like me must work bottom up (operationally). And why opportunities to do both, like Darwin’s, are the product of novel data collection at much larger (logarithmic?) scale.

    I suspect that because of our status differences Taleb and I could not work together on this, and no one will see our different missions as the same as that of Hayek (long run law) and Mises (medium run finance), or that Taleb and I are working on the same problem that Poincaré, Mises, Hayek, Popper, Brouwer, and Bridgman failed to solve: how to we separate science from pseudoscience, once we are talking about stochastic systems at very great scale? What happened when teh industrial revolution hit, and we needed to move from operational accounting to correlative statistics, yet could not bridge the technological gap of testing our statistical statements like we do our theoretical statements. Especially when there is profound incentive to use financialization to accumulate risk and spend down capital precisely because at such scale operations are imperceptible to us.

    We boil the frog.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-14 22:01:00 UTC