Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about. 1) the Christian Austria

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=9a235e59It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 20:31:00 UTC

  • IT TOOK ME A VERY LONG TIME TO LEARN TO SAY THIS SIMPLY Philosophy: the use of r

    IT TOOK ME A VERY LONG TIME TO LEARN TO SAY THIS SIMPLY

    Philosophy: the use of reason to develop categories and values that assist us in decidability within a domain.

    Science: the use of measurements to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceits common in reason and philosophy.

    Testimony (truth): The use of reason and science to assist us in decidability regardless of domain, by requiring a full accounting of each dimension of actionable reality:

    1 – Categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – Internal consistency (logical)

    3 – External consistency (empirical)

    4 – Existential consistency (operational)

    5 – Moral consistency (reciprocal)

    6 – Fully accounting (scope and limit completeness)

    When one uses the term philosophy we do not know of what he speaks. If he speaks of only reason then he cannot make a truth claim. If he speaks of only non contradiction, he cannot make a truth claim. if he speaks of science, then he can make a claim of truth candidacy higher than reason. If he speaks testimonial, he cannot be accused of not making a truth claim.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Hierarchy:

    1 – identity

    2 – utility

    3 – preference,

    4 – good,

    5 – decidability,

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 18:30:00 UTC

  • Spengler is a german, a christian, a spiritualist, and a literary philosopher, n

    Spengler is a german, a christian, a spiritualist, and a literary philosopher, not a scientist. His analysis that killing germany was a disaster was correct, but not for the reasons he imagines – but because germany was just about the finally convert us from the last vestiges of middle eastern semitic lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 17:31:00 UTC

  • Once you realize that all our enlightenment benefit has been from science and la

    Once you realize that all our enlightenment benefit has been from science and law, and all our harm has been from pseudoscience(philosophy) and government, then you realize that the enlightenment improved our material existence but harmed our social orders and our civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 10:28:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Criticisms Of The Austrian School Of Economic Thought?

    It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

  • What Are Some Criticisms Of The Austrian School Of Economic Thought?

    It depends upon which Austrian school you’re asking about.

    1) the Christian Austrians, including Menger and the Marginalists whose work has been fully integrated into mainstream economics with the exception of their certainty of the influence of the business cycle.

    or

    2) the Jewish Austrians, including Mises alone, and perhaps Rothbard, who stumbled upon Operationalism in economics, but instead of comprehending that a truthful proposition must be BOTH externally correspondent, and existentially possible to construct via a series of rationally testable operations, attempted to somehow conflate Jewish Law, and Mathematical Logic and instead, created the pseudoscience of ‘praxeology’ under which they claim all economics must be produced by a sequence of operations.

    This left Mises respected but a laughing stock without a position. Unfortunately he did not understand what he had stumbled upon, and he could have reformed economics. But he failed. He failed because he was committed to his dogma, and committed to his error.

    The only reason we discuss mises at all is because the Mises Institute copied the techniques of the marxists of (a) heaping undue praise, (b) creating long lists of straw man arguments by which to criticize empirical science but never producing anything more than amateurish justificationary pseudo-scientific arguments, (c) using the new medium of the internet as an inexpensive propaganda device, (d) marketing to the well intentioned fools (the young males), and entrepreneurs who, because of their success in the market, overrate their comprehension of political economy.

    So why doesn’t anyone take ‘Austrian Economics’ seriously? They do. They take mengerian economics seriously: marginalism. They take the austrian project seriously: an attempt to develop a social science of political economy by which we remove obstacles to cooperation – NOT as the chicago school has done, a science of MONETARY economy, to insure against shocks to cooperation, and NOT as the saltwater (Jewish Left) school has done, which is a science of the maximum interference that is possible such that the maximum consumption is pursued, so that the maximum capital is moving, and the minimum capital is held in reserve against the most severe of shocks.

    If you understand these few paragraphs you know more about the problems of the economics profession than most professors will ever dream of.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-criticisms-of-the-Austrian-school-of-economic-thought

  • But there is a reason only children and liberal arts majors read marx, and the r

    But there is a reason only children and liberal arts majors read marx, and the rest of the adult world reads science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:37:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867449438322782215

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867447349458726913

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867447349458726913

  • “Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find”— Well, I d

    —“Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find”—

    Well, I don’t know whether that’s true, but 7.2M years ago, predates both the salinity crisis (dry sea) the Zanclean flood.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 18:19:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY IS A WASTE OF TIME: STUDY HISTORY, LAW, PROGRAMMING, ENGINEERING, SCI

    PHILOSOPHY IS A WASTE OF TIME: STUDY HISTORY, LAW, PROGRAMMING, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, ECONOMICS

    —Q: “Name a philosopher that will blow my mind”—

    There aren’t any.

    Philosophy is largely a history of fantasy literature – an attempt to replace the false authority of pseudo-mythology with the false authority of pseudo-rationalism with History, Common Law, and Science as the record of intellectual achievements.

    The 19th and 20th century consist largely of increased emphasis on pseudo-rationalism, and the invention of pseudosciences dependent on statistical justifications of abstract goods reducible to hyper consumption.

    And it has only been since approximately 1999 with the fist book by Pinker, but the flood that followed, that we have begun to fight back against the pseudosciences (freud, boaz, marx, cantor, mises, the frankfurt school) and the new pseudo-rationalism (the french postmodernists and anglo pragmatists).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, UKraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 14:12:00 UTC

  • RESPONSE TO A CRITIC ON THE ORIGINS OF MATHEMATICS (from elsewhere) Math predate

    RESPONSE TO A CRITIC ON THE ORIGINS OF MATHEMATICS

    (from elsewhere)

    Math predates writing.

    First record of written basic math is from egypt.

    First treatise is from greece

    First Geometry from greece.

    First Algebra from greece by Diophantus although it is possible that like newton and leibniz both he and al-Khwarizmi discovered it.

    POsitional numbering in babylon. Decimal notation by Archimedes. zero-placeholder by hindus

    Much came out of the fertile crescent from anatolia to egypt to iran. It was the origin of barley, and it looks like bronze by combining tin from afghanistan with regional copper. And the persian mastery of mountain spring water for drinking, cooking, andirrigation was perhaps the most impressive architecture in the world.

    however, if you do some reading, instead of depending upon bits and drabs of nonsense, you’ll find out that the west disproporionately discovered and innovated faster than all other civilizations combined, despite being on the remote edge of the bronze age.

    Sorry.

    Do some research before you criticize us grownups.

    Here is my reading list.

    http://propertarianism.com/reading-list/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 13:50:00 UTC