by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA. I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger). The text in a previous post here: [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ] is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect). Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933. In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.
Theme: Science
-
Vacher de Lapouge
by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA. I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger). The text in a previous post here: [ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ] is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect). Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933. In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post. by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
by Daniel Gurpide
Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA.
I donât think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger).
The text in a previous post here:
[ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ]
is a summary of “Les Selections Socialesâ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect).
Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933.
In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly âculturalâ discipline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 19:28:14 UTC
-
INTERESTING. This fellow cited me in a paper. The cite is my argument that there
INTERESTING.
This fellow cited me in a paper. The cite is my argument that there are no influential living philosophers, because science theorizing) has a higher standard of thought than philosophy (philosophizing).
It looks like he is working on a book. He has put out a handful of papers.
He has a very similar program in mind on science versus philosophy.
He is from Paris and writes in the french model (Cartesian Rationalist) not the german or english, but it’s all scientific.
What’s interesting is that he is in the Art business (as I used to be). Hopefully I get to chat with him at some point and expore his thinking a bit. Particularly the science – art axis.
Some of his paintings are attached. (I was trained in representationalism and art history so I’m kinda old fashioned compared to him.)
His artwork is successful. You have to break the 15k barrier, then the 30K barrier to make a good living at it. So he apparently is doing it.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ulrich-de-balbian-5a080538/
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 16:31:27 UTC
-
by Daniel Gurpide Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthrop
by Daniel Gurpide
Vacher de Lapouge was the French founder of a school – Anthroposociology – which wanted to apply the new Darwinian science of evolution to the study of politics. Before WWI, he had followers in Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway and the USA.
I don‘t think Lapouge was ever translated into English, despite his having several American disciples (Madison Grant, Carlos Closson at the University of Chicago). I know he also visited the USA twice (Second International Eugenics Congress in NYC in 1921 and some Conference on Family Planning with Margaret Sanger).
The text in a previous post here:
[ https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=293882641177035&id=100016659043273 ]
is a summary of “Les Selections Sociales“ made by Pitirim Sorokin and polished by me to adapt it to modern sensitivities (the original is too politically incorrect).
Sorokin, Professor of Sociology in the University of Minnesota, wrote a work entitled “Contemporary Sociological Theories” in 1928. It contains a chapter on the racial question. The chapter is memorable, for it marks the close of the period in which both sides in the controversy (hereditarians/environmentalists) were free to put forward their views, and authors who wished to do so could give objective accounts of the evidence pointing in each direction. Sorokin supported neither side, he just expressed clearly and shortly the views of both sides in the controversy. The book is worth reading today, as a reminder of what was possible before 1933.
In France, the main opponent of anthroposociology was (((Emile Durkheim))); in the USA, (((Franz Boas))). From the beginning of the thirties onwards scarcely anyone outside Germany and its allies dared to follow the hereditarian school, lest it should appear that they were excusing or supporting the Nazi cause. Anthropology became a strictly ‚cultural‘ discipline.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 15:28:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. It’s a book length treatment. But you know, h
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
It’s a book length treatment.
But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence.
Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism).
My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle.
I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”.
But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse.
The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging.
That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 13:36:18 UTC
-
It’s a book length treatment. But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out a
It’s a book length treatment.
But you know, hayek, popper, turing all came out at about the same time. Mises, brouwer, and bridgman about the same time. With chomsky then mandelbrot and minsky following. I am not sure who understood the work of whom. But in retrospect I can see the convergence.
Operationalism was sitting there and they had all the pieces, but no one put it together. In retrospect the isolation of the disciplines and their different languages was clearly a cause. The war was clearly a cause because of the academic shift in focus from truth (rule of law) to pragmatism (aggregates and keynesianism, marxism and postmodernism).
My current position is that pragmatism/utilitarianism and the end of truth and reciprocity (law) as a means of decidability in favor of disciplinary utilitarianism (pseudoscience) prevented the synthesis. I know that when I listened to hoppe is saw the underlying issue, and when I read the calculation debate I understood mises versus hayek. I remember it very clearly. I remember where I was standing at the Mises Institute. It just took me a long time to unravel the puzzle.
I think the only other person that came close to it was Rafe Champion. I remember reading a half finished paper of Rafe’s back in maybe the 90’s or early 00’s and thinking “you know this is about right”.
But combining the work of all these thinkers (standing on their shoulders) should have (in my opinion) occurred in the 60’s if not for the civil unrest caused by the left’s takeover of the academy and discourse.
The things that have helped me are the genetics/hbd movement, as well as the cog-sci movement, and the change post 2000 due to the conversion of psychology from a pseudoscience to physical science due to imaging.
That said once you learn the two primary programming language paradigms, and the two or thee primary software paradigms, and the three primary database paradigms, and practice reducing reality to combination, and then apply these ideas to cognition and cooperation and law you see hayek was very close.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-30 09:36:00 UTC
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
More on Sophistry of Conflating Axioms and Theories
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe. An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction. So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency. Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality. As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites. And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description. I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth. So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
WTH is wrong with you? An axiom is a declaration – an ideal. A theory is a contingent explanation – a real. Logical and ideal axioms. Descriptive and real theories. They are not synonyms.
-
MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES Axioms can exist only in for
MORE ON SOPHISTRY OF CONFLATING AXIOMS AND THEORIES
Axioms can exist only in formal logic (and mathematics), laws between men – and conversely theories provide explanatory power about the universe.
An axiom in formal logic is declared the equivalent of true, and therefore we assume it’s no longer contingent or externally correspondent for our purposes of further (subsequent) construction and deduction.
So in that sense we can use axioms for ‘what if’ scenarios in logic, and the interpretation of moral norms, and legislation and law, and textual analysis including scripture – which is where all this form of verbal reasoning comes from: non correspondence with reality, only internal consistency.
Whereas we can only use hypotheses theories and laws when we are making a contingent truth claim about the existential rather than the verbal and ideal. Hypotheses theories and laws originated in the description of correspondence with reality.
As such the use of axioms helps us test logical internal consistency, and the use of theories helps us test external correspondence – since nature is always internally consistent: it can’t help it. That’s what determinism *means*. As such Axioms and Theories are polar opposites.
And using one in the place of the other is generally either a matter of ignorance or attributing the correspondence and consistency of that which is deterministic under logical declaration to that which is underdeterministic under physical description.
I don’t find this very difficult because in math we use axioms, in science we use laws, and only sophists in philosophy seem to attempt to either conflate the two, or to attribute the properties of axioms to that of theories and laws – and that means there are a lot of sophists (like Mises and Rothbard, not to mention Hoppe and every marxist that ever lived). And as I’ve said, as far as I know math survives, but formal logic was a dead end, the grammars replace them, and philosophy is reduced to the preferable and good not the true. And what we call science (due diligence) and law (testimony) determine truth.
So, at present, In my understanding – which I have serious doubts that I’ll ever be refuted – the word axiom is archaic and has no use outside of mathematics and symbolic logic that seeks to imitate mathematics through conversion of reality (operations) to ideals (sets). Axiom = Arbitrary, and Theory = Existential.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-29 13:52:00 UTC