Theme: Science

  • What Does Empirical Mean

    (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;
    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification)? Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • What Does Empirical Mean

    (core) Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.

    1. Empirical means observable such that claims can be intersubjectively verifiable or falsifiable: meaning the observation can be “agreed or disagreed upon”;
    2. in addition it means a sufficient volume of observations that we falsify the fragility of episodic memories, our tendency to err, our tendency to find patterns that don’t exist, or to bias the results, and to use both to deceive ;

    3. in addition it means using physical instruments of measurement to compensate for the limits of our senses, perception, and the resulting limits to intuition, prediction, and memory;

    4. in addition it means using logical instruments of measurement (testing) of constant, contingent, inconstant, and non-relations to compensate for the limits of our intuition, imagination, prediction, and reason and as such to prevent claims made in ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.

    5. together consisting of tests of reciprocity of information, and the possibility of Agreement or disagreement by reciprocity of information using due diligence in the falsification of sense, perception, intuition, prediction, and claim by RECIPROCAL due diligence using quantity, quality, consistency, causality.

    See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification)? Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language.

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth) https://propertarianism.com/2020/04/23/psychologizing-fraud-psychology-pseudoscience-and-law-truth/


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 21:22:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253434117842022400

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Psychologizing (fraud), Psychology (pseudoscience), and Law (truth)

    Apr 11, 2020, 3:28 PM

    —“Regarding criticizing psychologizing. Psychologizing is perhaps too broad a term. If you mean Freud, maybe. Jung, Piaget, Frohm? They don’t all offer the same analysis. The latter of master craftsmen of the psyche and should be studied and utilized.”—Marc Malone

    In P-law we talk of acquisitions gains, holds, losses, thefts frauds and conspiracies – these are facts. Psychology talks of experience and values. Why? P-Law (science) is far better than psychology (pseudoscience) although I would go along with Jung and piaget as long as we burn Freud at the stake for his crime against humanity. P is to metaphysics, psychology, and sociology as science is to physics, chemistry, and biology. Literature is just analogy not description of causality. Psychologizing is a form of feminine ridicule to force conformity with female cognition. Freud was trying to counter Menger, Nietzsche, Spencer, and Darwin so that he could preserve jewish female social-construction to undermine western civilization by preserving emotional coercion – their group evolutionary strategy. He built a pseudoscience as did Boas in anthropology, and marx in sociology and economics, adoro-fromm in culture and values, derrida in postmodernism, betty friedan in feminism, rand and rothbard in pseudolaw, the neocons in international law, and cantor and bohr in pseudo mathematics. Instead of using literary pseudoscience, try instead, by explaining rational incentives to acquire, hold, and judiciously spend assets instead. Economics isn’t only the language of social science – it’s the language of social science, psychology, and metaphysics. It has to be. Everything else is self reporting and the reason for the replication crisis in the pseudo-sciencies is decoration in self reporting. People can’t truthfully self report. They can only demonstrate preference. And economics is the study of demonstrated preferences in different contexts despite self reporting of memories and predictions. Emotions are a reaction to changes in state of assets. (really), So either you can explain all people’s actions as the series of incentives that led them to a thought word or deed, and their emotions as natural reaction to positives and negatives or you can’t. The valueof the series of literary thinkers from Jung to Vonnegut as we see in Jordan Peterson’s combination of cognitive science, jungian literary archetypes, and ancient myths and parables, is that the mind is resistant to reasoning, but open to suggestion, and so parables and allegories put the individual in a position of observer, by passing his mistrust, the same way that psychedelics put the mind in position of observer, and in this way we adapt by voluntary choice independent of shame or coercion. We own and therefore do not question our new memory (belief), or feel indebted to others, or fealty tothem, or status penalty, when we use it. When we own an idea we use it without external consideration. There are are at least six methods of cognitive behavioral therapy, all of which perform the same function of creating a rewarding alternate subnetwork network around troubled, traumatized, or depressed (exhausted) subnetworks, and in doing so altering network weights that determine what captures our attention and emotion, and as such alters our cognitive and emotional and autoassociative responses

    1. Prevention by teaching stoicism best, buddhism eh, and religion least.
    2. Second is explanation – this works for the most rational of us. Understanding is enough.
    3. Third is observation – getting the patient to look at him or herself or someone else in the same position as a third person.
    4. Fourth is suggestion by analogy or parable using suggestibility under suspension of disbelief.
    5. First by stoicism or what we call cbt – exposure works through training.
    6. Fifth is chemical freedom from self auditing so that there is no negative emotional relation between experience and understanding.

    Only once you understand this spectrum, AND propertarianism’s restatement of metaphysics, psychology, and sociology AND the rather simple structure of the human brain underneath it, do you know which of those techniques is necessary to use for which problem, and WHY. The world is not complicated when laundered of the errors and fitionalisms that we substitute for knowledge:

    1. Intuitionistic: Analogy->Mythology
    2. Verbal: Sophistry->idealism,
    3. Material: Magic->Pseudoscience,
    4. Emotional: Occult->Supernatural

    It’s our ignorance, errors, biases, wishful thinking and deceits of self and others that make it seem complicated. —Cheers

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • Notes on Eric Weinstein interview:

    Apr 15, 2020, 7:05 PM Notes on Eric Weinstein interview: 1) Continuing my criticism: You notice that Erice is GSRRM’ing all day long, but he’s not proposing an alternative model. Not how to create the research economy. Now how to reform the academy. He hasn’t provided enough a solution that’s strong enough to falsify the existing body of work. All he’s doing is GSRRM. And he pulls entertaining pseudo-intellectual analogy that makes a good story out of his hat rather than produce solutions open to criticism. 2) He goes after Lisi who took a different strategy and at least provided one output: candidates. I don’t see an output here. I see someone hinting at an avenue he wants other men to investigate? 3) Eric’s Attempt at description Two Models GR=General Relativity, . SM=Standard Model Four forces. One Gravitational, three not: 1) photons, 2) gluons and 3) intermediate vector Bosons. Then Matter. GR = Pride of place to gravity. SM = The other three of the four forces shine. photons, gluons and intermediate vector Bosons Take a manifold … (explains a manifold as a workspace in some geometry or other)… then goes off the rails again. Tired. Either you can construct an operational argument or you can’t. Mathematics is a trivial logic that because it is one dimensional (positional) is so simple that we can use it to describe any set of constant referents in constant relation independent of scale. All this childish digression into cartoons is self congratulatory nonsense. Either make the argument or don’t. And yes, it can be made in ordinary language because there is nothing that can be said in mathematics that cannot be said in ordinary, operational language, albeit with effort. 4) Well done on Gauge Theory: that is the best most accurate most parsimonious definition of gauge theory. To construct an operational argument, next describe Arithmetic > Accounting > Geometry > Calculus > Gauge Theory > Schrodinger > Weyl > Dirac > Yang-Mills-Maxwell > Lagrangian etc, using the same technique and it’s an obvious progression. I wish he’d do the same for symmetries and lie groups and explain why they’re important (evidence of equilibria). Correct on how the world hasn’t even caught up to the standard model, but then again, it’s not clear the community has either … because without it farther along, it’s still spoken in platonic language like a neo-mysticism just as dozen’s of great mathematicians warned. Regarding Dimensions: always confuses people when we confuse people with the four dimensional world and the forces (dimensions) that influence the points of reference (Positions) in that four dimensional space. As far as we know only three+one dimensions are required to describe a point in space time, but to to describe changes to it can require absurd numbers of dimensions. It’s one of those problems of the grammar of mathematical platonism. We describe space time with four dimensions, and we describe the forces on points in those four dimensions with additional dimensions when we say ‘it has’ vs ‘ we use’. Space and time do not have anything. We describe them with three plus one dimensions. No point that I know of requires more than three. This platonic (supernatural) vocabulary always loses the audience. 5) There is very little difference between strictly constructed law and the mathematics of euclidian geometry other than the far larger number of referents and operations in human behavior, and the far larger number of causal dimensions in mathematics that needn’t be described in human action.. If I can do it in my field Eric can do it in his. I had similar difficulty when I didn’t fully understand the problem. Once you fully understand the problem you should be able to reduce it to operational language (meaning scientific testimony). He doesn’t. He can’t. I have a lifetime of experience with people across the spectrum whether dyslexia or aspergers or anything in between. The fact that these people (myself included) identify patterns of promise does not mean that they are capable of doing anything about it. And so far the sour grapes thing, which I have also for the exact same reason, is.. well… not helping. Public therapy by verbal exegesis tiresome. Listening to his presentation of his theory, I understood his deduction. Until I understand his construction, assuming there is one, then I can’t tell if obsessions with critiques, virtue signaling, and trauma pandering combined with lack of ability to articulate solutions, is cover for lacking solutions. So, I understand administrative skepticism. Conversation ends.

  • “We solve social science in three generations. Hayek-Mises > Rothbard-Hoppe > Do

    “We solve social science in three generations.
    Hayek-Mises > Rothbard-Hoppe > Doolittle. Jewish(Mises-Rothbard, pilpul, diasporics)> German (Hoppe, rationalism, german free cities)> Anglo-German (Hayek-Doolittle, empirical, anglo-germanic empires).”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 22:05:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253082535669760002

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253077258887139328

  • Hugs brother. The eternal war of men of mind against the dark forces of time ign

    Hugs brother. The eternal war of men of mind against the dark forces of time ignorance and the red queen. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 21:29:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253073357584699393

    Reply addressees: @agent8698

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253070200544432128

  • The eternal war of men of mind against the dark forces of time, ignorance, folly

    The eternal war of men of mind against the dark forces of time, ignorance, folly, scarcity, and the red queen. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 18:29:00 UTC