Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.
Theme: Science
-
Langan Crosses the Border Into Woo Woo
Mar 8, 2020, 1:54 PM No I don’t pay attention. Langan crosses the border into woo woo. I’ve addressed his work elsewhere. I’ve commented there a few times. But, like I said, over 145 it is not clear that there is any substantial benefit without worse side effects, except in the purely physical or mathematical disciplines where intuition no longer can bias a decision across the border from true (consistent) into meaningful, preferable, or good (desirable). Over 130 the only difference is how long you have to work to get it, and how innovative you might be. Over 145 we see some benefit in mathematics and the hard sciences dependent upon mathematics. Over 160 still isn’t testable in any sense of the word, and all value I’ve seen is merely verbal, with whacky factor (think chomsky) increasing rapidly. In general it is almost impossible to communicate across two standard deviations (30pts). I can tell when people have a higher iq than I do by their verbal facility on one side or the patterns they identify and work with on the other. I know my weakness and always have, and it’s short term memory, which is why I do better at pattern recognition and iterative synthesis than chess and mathematics. Conversely, I will see a pattern and I will discover its cause, no matter what information I look at. I didn’t go into physics because I once I understood the wave particle duality in high school I understood it was a problem only money could solve. I didn’t go into math because I saw it as puzzles not problems and autistics need to be cautious about getting addicted to puzzles. I went into technology because I thought it would be possible to produce artificial intelligence. By the early 80’s I realized it was a hardware problem and required vast investment to make progress although the ideas I formed during that time are still not used anywhere other than my work in the grammars and ethics within P-Law. I used the market opportunity to make money at tech, and then turned my attention to economics and politics which did not require massive capital investment – just hard work and time. When I could retire early to work on the problem full time I did. My only concern at this point is that my age is increasing faster than I am completing the project. In retrospect I had to invent P in order to talk to normal people. Which is why so many other men like me are attracted to it. But without something like P, if you’re not neurotypical, you are somewhat a prisoner in your own head, and limited by that prison to what you can influence. I was. I’m not. but I also have more ‘fight’ than any ten other men. Which is what you need to make it as an entrepreneur.
-
Falsification vs Underdetermination
Falsification vs Underdetermination https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/falsification-vs-underdetermination/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:40:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266348576394940417
-
Falsification vs Underdetermination
Mar 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
—“Greetings, I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”— We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.
-
Falsification vs Underdetermination
Mar 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
—“Greetings, I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument: A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”— We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand. I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense. The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim. There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential. That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it. P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics. When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.
-
Why, in THOUSANDS OF YEARS, did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did
Mar 10, 2020, 11:13 PM
—“No. Actually during the so called dark ages Europe fell centuries behind Asia in science, medicine and technology.”—Sarah Jane@Sarahjanecares
I don’t err. The question is why despite having two dark ages, in a few centuries in the ancient world, and a few centuries in the modern world europeans are responsible for 98% of inventions and dragged mankind out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease. Others didn’t. So the question is, why in THOUSANDS OF YEARS did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did in just hundreds? If the greeks had not overextended, we could have had the industrial revolution within two hundred years of archimedes. Deal with it. Genetics+Law+Culture.
-
Why, in THOUSANDS OF YEARS, did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did
Mar 10, 2020, 11:13 PM
—“No. Actually during the so called dark ages Europe fell centuries behind Asia in science, medicine and technology.”—Sarah Jane@Sarahjanecares
I don’t err. The question is why despite having two dark ages, in a few centuries in the ancient world, and a few centuries in the modern world europeans are responsible for 98% of inventions and dragged mankind out of ignorance poverty starvation and disease. Others didn’t. So the question is, why in THOUSANDS OF YEARS did no one accomplish ten percent of what europeans did in just hundreds? If the greeks had not overextended, we could have had the industrial revolution within two hundred years of archimedes. Deal with it. Genetics+Law+Culture.
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lie
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/philosophy-vs-law-vs-science-vs-p-law-end-the-century-of-pseudoscience-and-lies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 22:53:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266140677253013504
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.
-
Philosophy vs Law vs Science vs P-Law – End the Century of Pseudoscience and Lies
Mar 16, 2020, 1:27 PM Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. We call this ‘justification” benevolently, and ‘excuse making’ pejoratively. Law presumes the negative – erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent – and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not. We call this ‘falsification’ in the technical, or ‘survival’ from prosecution in the practical. Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists. Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and regardless of what he testifies to, when he testifies in public to the public about matters public: whenever he makes or implies a truth or moral claim. We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism. And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not. P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
NOTES: 1 – Philosophy, Science, Law: the discipline as demonstrated by the behavior of members of the discipline.