– A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use.
– AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy.
– A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods.
– A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.)
– MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions.
– A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words.
– NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.
Theme: Science
-
Do You Know The Difference? Religion Vs Ideology Vs Philosophy Vs Logic Vs Mathematics Vs Science
– A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use. – AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy. – A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods. – A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.) – MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions. – A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words. – NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational. -
Why Is The Austrian School Of Economics And Economist Ludwig Von Mises Not Discussed In American Academia?
Because in large part it is absolute nonsense.
This is a very technical problem, but in the sense that you should be able to produce an individual, operational, description of any economic phenomenon in order to assert a truth claim ( trace the incentives), that’s true.
In the sense that this technique is sufficient for the identification of all economic phenomenon it’s simply false – and we have many cases now.
In other words, Mises tried, like Marx and Freud and Boaz, and Cantor to create a pseudoscience. And he failed. And he has been justifiably ignored because of it.
You have also been the victim of propaganda as well, since it was very clear at the time, as it is very clear to any serious student of intellectual history, that there was a vast difference between the Mengerian (Polish-christian) wing, and the Misesian(Ukrainian-Jewish) wing of the Vienna school.
And the findings of the Mengerian school (a) caused marx to stop writing about communism, (yep, really), and (b) have been fully incorporated into contemporary economics under the terms “mengerian”, “marginalism”, and ‘subjective value’.
If you want to put these movements in context, here is the difference between the major schools of economic thought (The conflict between rule by discretion and rule by natural law).
The Not-So-Austrian School in Context.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute.https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Austrian-School-of-Economics-and-economist-Ludwig-von-Mises-not-discussed-in-American-academia
-
Curt Doolittle’s answer: Because while the marxists-boazians-freudians failed by
Curt Doolittle’s answer: Because while the marxists-boazians-freudians failed by pseudoscientific (rousseauian) visions of man, and where communists failed by pseudoscientific history, and where the socialists failed by pseudoscientific economics, and where the libertarians failed by pseudoscient… -
Curt Doolittle’s answer: Because while the marxists-boazians-freudians failed by
Curt Doolittle’s answer: Because while the marxists-boazians-freudians failed by pseudoscientific (rousseauian) visions of man, and where communists failed by pseudoscientific history, and where the socialists failed by pseudoscientific economics, and where the libertarians failed by pseudoscient… -
My answer to Why are people so sure the current experts in science can’t be wron
My answer to Why are people so sure the current experts in science can’t be wrong when history has shown they have … https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before-2/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=b1ead2df
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-16 02:38:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941860046220222465
-
Is Human/animal Hybrid A Possibility By Science?
It is possible to transfer traits (we can do that) but genomes contain a great deal of error checking and redundancy, and proteins work together in a complex ‘cellular ecosystem’ where small variations can produce catastrophic consequences to the organism’s ability to survive. So to say we can cumulatively transfer traits between our species is probably true. But all attempts to cause inter-breeding have failed. (Yes, scientists, particularly one russian, have tried it.)
So trait-addition and modification is probably not only possible but may be beneficial (so that we can live in harmony with large mammals in particular by pedomorphic/neotenic evolution as we have done with dogs.) But inbreeding is too ‘primitive’ a method because in all but outlying cases, the genomes would consider the ovum ‘defective’.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-animal-hybrid-a-possibility-by-science
-
Is Human/animal Hybrid A Possibility By Science?
It is possible to transfer traits (we can do that) but genomes contain a great deal of error checking and redundancy, and proteins work together in a complex ‘cellular ecosystem’ where small variations can produce catastrophic consequences to the organism’s ability to survive. So to say we can cumulatively transfer traits between our species is probably true. But all attempts to cause inter-breeding have failed. (Yes, scientists, particularly one russian, have tried it.)
So trait-addition and modification is probably not only possible but may be beneficial (so that we can live in harmony with large mammals in particular by pedomorphic/neotenic evolution as we have done with dogs.) But inbreeding is too ‘primitive’ a method because in all but outlying cases, the genomes would consider the ovum ‘defective’.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-animal-hybrid-a-possibility-by-science
-
What Is The Minimum Yield Of A Nuclear Bomb? How Small Can We Make A Nuclear Explosion?
It depends upon the fissionable material, but roughly 11–30lbs. It’s possible to make a backpack weapon of about 50–70 pounds and it’s ‘rumoured’ that the Russians tried to make one or more of them. That would (I am guessing) result in an explosion on the scale of 10–20 Tons of TNT. Which is a lot but it’s not all that impressive. Usually we measure weapons by the kiloton (1000 tons). Furthermore there is a sort of maximum value of practical nuclear weapons, because they get very heavy. So for example, US W-80 cruise missile yields 150kt.
You would need about five of those for Manhattan, and I can’t imagine how many for los angeles (which is a huge territory).
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-minimum-yield-of-a-nuclear-bomb-How-small-can-we-make-a-nuclear-explosion
-
Why Are People So Sure The Current Experts In Science Can’t Be Wrong, When History Has Shown They Have Been Wrong Many Times Before?
GOOD QUESTION, BUT NOT QUITE RIGHT.
Because by and large, use of the scientific method (using observation and measurement to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit, eventually, incrementally, provides more and more precise descriptions of the universe – even if it is very often, two steps forward and one step back.Psychology was entirely pseudoscience. Social science is largely pseudoscience – and those findings that are not, are ‘unpleasant’, and avoided by the field. Much of mainstream economics is very close to pseudoscience, even if it is empirical. Most of political science is pseudoscientific nonsense. Most if not all of philosophy is pseudoscientific nonsense. However, if we look at the hard sciences, meaning physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science, and mathematics, those fields (particularly physics) have been best at not claiming falsehoods. Whereas all other disciplines excel at claiming falsehoods. We are primarily constrained at this point by the fact that we cannot produce tools to test those things we wish to – they’re too expensive or require too much energy, and we don’t have the technology yet.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-people-so-sure-the-current-experts-in-science-cant-be-wrong-when-history-has-shown-they-have-been-wrong-many-times-before