Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT? (important piece) (central

    EVERYONE IS THINKING BACKWARDS AND IT”S MATH’S FAULT?

    (important piece) (central theory)

    You can deduce a mathematical answer, and offer a proof of construction of that mathematical answer, because mathematics consists largely of formal operations – even if we label them incorrectly for marketing purposes. (Functions as numbers so to speak.) And the operations that we deduce with are the same (mostly) that we construct with. So much so that they constitute tautological differences only.

    But this emphasis on exploring with the same tools that we use for constructing proofs, has distracted us. The fact that we deduce something mathematically is irrelevant – it’s the fact that we can offer a proof of construction operationally that is the ‘proof’ – not the deduction. The deduction is what we take credit for, but it might as well be an act of accidental stumbling.

    We face this same problem in logic – we can deduce, something however we want to – in some vague approximation of the mathematics wherein the process of deduction mirrors the process of construction.

    But it is NOT the DEDUCTION that provides us with value, it is the proof of construction that has value – that tells us that a theory is testifiably true – as existentially possible.

    ***The better perspective is that the delta between our means of deduction and our means of construction simplifies the likelihood that we CAN at some point create a proof of construction.***

    So here again, Popper is ALMOST RIGHT. It’s not the justification or the deduction that matters. But he fails to grasp that it is the proof of construction that tests a theory, then it is the proof of construction of an internally consistent description. That it is a proof of external correspondence. That we have limited the errors in that correspondence through falsification.

    Of course justification of one’s deductions doesn’t matter! The question is whether your theory is demonstrably parsimonious enough that we can use it without harm (waste), and whether you warranty it as such.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 08:55:00 UTC

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus

    The difference between Propertarianism/Operationalism/Testimonial truth, versus say, even critical rationalism, is that your opinion on any particular matter doesn’t really matter much. Its just whether you can actually do it: construct a propertarian argument operationally. I mean, **its really freaking hard***. If you can even construct the argument itself you’re probably pretty close to right. It’s not so much whether you can test the argument – like most logical constructions. Its whether you can even put one together. The hell with justifying it – what passes for testing an argument. The question is whether you can even construct one.

    (Same with reverse Russian mathematics.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 15:19:00 UTC

  • CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL (deep)(example of w

    CONVERTING THE EXPERIENTIAL TO THE OPERATIONAL TO THE CAUSAL

    (deep)(example of why we need operationalism and propertarianism)

    What is the definition of a ‘market’?

    Peeling away layers of human intellectual crutches to find the truth.

    My point is to question whether:

    1) Norm (reduction of transaction costs),

    2) Location (actually: density necessary to decrease opportunity costs), and;

    3) Exchange (actually the transfer of control according to normative rules sufficient to decrease transaction costs);

    In which exchange assumes:

    4) property, and property assumes family structure, and family structure assumes inheritance, and all of which assume division of labor, which in turn assumes a population, and structure of production available to it.

    So, just as an example, why isn’t the definition of a market a set of normative habits, that are the results of the structure of production, and the structure of the family, in relation to the nearby competitors, that encourage people to act and engage in distributed production and consumption, by reducing production costs through division of labor, opportunity costs through proximity and transaction costs through consensus rituals, such that production is rational to engage in, despite the ever decreasing knowledge of particulars, and increasing dependence upon prices alone?

    Something of that nature.

    I think what has been troubling me is the state-fulness ( not as in corporeal but as in fixed properties at a position in time) rather than the conditions that must be overcome in order for us to participate in rational action when we possess so little information.

    And I am trying to figure out how to capture the causal properties rather than the mere names of observations. We humans are fascinated by experiences, but we possess those experiential stimuli because it is necessary for us to acquire, and helpful for us to acquire through cooperation. So any experiential definition is circular. What then, is the cause prior to our experience?

    Reduction of production costs, reduction of opportunity costs, reduction of transaction costs, and through reduction of those costs we act according to the least effort to us.

    Our experiences merely reward us for the exploitation of, and construction of the means, of such cost reductions.

    WE JUST FOLLOW GRAVITY.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 09:46:00 UTC

  • THE USE OF TERMS Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrum

    THE USE OF TERMS

    Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrumentalism. What happens to tools when you leave them lying around for any idiot to use? Well, they fall victim to the tragedy of the commons – no one takes care of those tools. They abuse them, they misuse them, and they care not what happens to them. And they are rarely if ever suitable for precise work – ever again. But somewhere exist the original precise versions of these tools, or their offspring, that reflect the precision necessary of master craftsmen. These tools are suitable for precise work. So whenever possible its in your interest to find the precise terms – because the origins of terms was that they solved problems for their creators. It is the problems they solved that constitute their necessary functions, not the various uses and abuses and misuses, that the common man as put them through in opening his barrels, cans and bottles. However, we must also keep in mind that dishonest men and well intentioned fools craft tools of deception that are equally precise. And again, is the problem that they solve with their deception that we must discover, not what they intended us to deduce from it. This is the operational approach to language: to discover the problem solved by the statement, not the intention of the author.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 11:05:00 UTC

  • I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements,

    I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements, but that within any universal statement tolerating a distribution. This is necessary for the construction of general rules of communication.

    I have had numerous death threats, and been asked to run for office frequently, and I’ve had people stalk me, and I see nothing special about women with the same problem.

    Women are a dead weight in battle and thats the evidence and the evidence is in – women get men killed.

    The value women provide in any conflict is the provision of supplies, staffing the work force, and providing care taking – and losing their sons.

    But there is no equal to the loss of life and limb. So no, this is a statement that has no merit.

    Nature produces many more males than females for precisely this purpose and under stress females produce more males, and under prosperity more females.

    We evolved this way. Men are where nature experiments and we are disposable. ON the other hand possibly because we know we are disposable, we are highly sensitive to politics – so that we cannot be easily disposed of.

    Women on the other hand evolved to make sure they were safe enough to care for their offspring even if their off spring are harmful to the population (see the stats on mothers defense of serial killers and criminals vs fathers)

    So my point is that we feel what our genes instruct us to feel, and our words are just negotiations.

    The family and one vote per family neutralizez the use of government to conduct war between the genders.

    I think this is one of the insights I have tried to provide. And I will never convince women that their offspring are ugly, stupid, and a terrible additoni to the gene pool, and net drain on humanity. I mean, can you imagine women actually looking at their children that way?

    I cannot imagine not. Women used to expose their children if they could not care for them without self harm. Now they don’t need to expose them, just let others pay for them.

    The cost of this is being paid by men who will now see their old ages in poverty, and loneliness.

    Anyway, that is why men will fight. to the death, or why other men will conquer any group that manages to succeed at the feminist program.

    It’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 08:09:00 UTC

  • that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements

    http://bv.ms/1thsTYtScience that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements in data collection, calculation, and computing by increasingly mechanical means of instrumentation. With these advanced, made possible by instrumentation, collection, analysis and explanation were specialised – but without operationalism as a moral and logical constraint upon scientific statements, pseudoscience has evolved as a specific disciple – and means of fund and attention getting – because it’s easier than practicing science.

    This fallacy is so embedded in western thought at this point it will be as difficult to erase as was anthropomorphism or the act of divine hand.

    It is the phlogiston theory of the 20th century brought about by advances in tools without corresponding advances in reason.

    We can intuit a theory by any possible means. Statistical collection analysis extends our sense, perception, and therefore reduces the imperceptible to an analogy to experience that renders it perceptible.

    And such correlations can help us develop hypotheses, and can invalidate older theories.

    But without converting hypotheses intuited from statistical observations to a series of testable actions on the part of humans, no such pseudoscientific statement can be said to have been tested.

    This is the reason for the fallacies of social science over the past centuries: wishful thinking about human nature in the left and pessimistic thinking about human nature as purely incentive driven if required to pay costs of decisions in the other.

    Mor later. Thanks for the post. – curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 00:18:00 UTC

  • PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT (worth

    PRAXEOLOGY CAN BE REPAIRED — AT THE EXPENSE OF THE COSMOPOLITAN PROJECT

    (worth repeating)

    Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-31 12:26:00 UTC

  • The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train

    The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train the mind to eliminate imaginary content, so that they could morally testify to the truth of their statements.

    So, scientists needed to compensate … they need ed to tell the truth… As such, what we call the scientific method is not particular to science but to all human utterances. It is either just ‘the method’, or it’s the MORAL METHOD.

    Now, scientists merely make use of a SUBSET of the Moral Method, given that they are both largely unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs. Mathematicians likewise are unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs.

    But anyone engaging in the social rather than physical sciences, or in production, or in law, is likewise bound to not engage in adding imaginary content.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 03:35:00 UTC