I suspect the academy will be even less thrilled by the answer to the synthesis than they were by Darwin, Galielo or Copernicus. @JonHaidt
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:32:00 UTC
Theme: Science
-
I suspect EO Wilson would have been surprised that his anticipated syntesis woul
I suspect EO Wilson would have been surprised that his anticipated syntesis would be produced by psychology and economics. @JonHaidt
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-25 08:31:00 UTC
-
We Solved Social Science
[A]ristotle and Plato : Natural Law (vision but failure) Augustine and The Church. (incremental improvement – but failure) Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Hume (incremental improvement but bordering on science) Menger (Austrian/Galacian Science – German Rational tradition) 1840 Mises (Jewish/Galacian pseudoscience – jewish legal tradition) 1881 Hayek (German/Anglo Empirical – Adopted Anglo legal tradition) 1899 (failure again, with only hayek discovering that it is law not economics that produces social science) Rothbard (Jewish/Russian Justification -Jewish legal tradition)1926 Hoppe (German Rational – Continental legal tradition), 1949 Doolittle (Anglo Empirical – Anglo Saxon legal tradition). 1959 (success) Rothbard, Doolittle, and Hoppe. We solved social science in three generations. The only social science possible is the common law: the discovery of means of violating the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, limited to positive externalities of the same. Economics is the study of information and incentives to cooperate. The basis of natural law is disproportionate value of cooperation. The language of natural law is economic, not moral. It was the failure of prior generations to rely upon financial and economic language rather than religious and moral language that prevented the solution to the problem of the social sciences. Morality is economic. It must be. Since we are part of the physical universe. This is where Hayek ended up. He was right. But even he could not escape his language. And even he did not know how to solve the problem of truth.
-
We Solved Social Science
[A]ristotle and Plato : Natural Law (vision but failure) Augustine and The Church. (incremental improvement – but failure) Hobbes, Locke, Smith and Hume (incremental improvement but bordering on science) Menger (Austrian/Galacian Science – German Rational tradition) 1840 Mises (Jewish/Galacian pseudoscience – jewish legal tradition) 1881 Hayek (German/Anglo Empirical – Adopted Anglo legal tradition) 1899 (failure again, with only hayek discovering that it is law not economics that produces social science) Rothbard (Jewish/Russian Justification -Jewish legal tradition)1926 Hoppe (German Rational – Continental legal tradition), 1949 Doolittle (Anglo Empirical – Anglo Saxon legal tradition). 1959 (success) Rothbard, Doolittle, and Hoppe. We solved social science in three generations. The only social science possible is the common law: the discovery of means of violating the requirement for productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, limited to positive externalities of the same. Economics is the study of information and incentives to cooperate. The basis of natural law is disproportionate value of cooperation. The language of natural law is economic, not moral. It was the failure of prior generations to rely upon financial and economic language rather than religious and moral language that prevented the solution to the problem of the social sciences. Morality is economic. It must be. Since we are part of the physical universe. This is where Hayek ended up. He was right. But even he could not escape his language. And even he did not know how to solve the problem of truth.
-
Definitions: Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.
-
Definitions: Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy, Law. Science A religion consists of a set of myths and rules the purpose of which is to resist outsiders, and to set limits on behavior or to be treated as an outsider and deprived of opportunity and insurance of the in-group. Hence most religions evolve with the weak, who have no means of competition except resistance and exclusion. An ideology consists of a set of ideas the purpose of which is to excite subclasses to act under democracy to obtain political power. Ideologies are used to obtain followers. Likewise followers, follow ideologies. Hence most ideologies if not all ideologies are lower and working class ideologies, and most followers from the lower and working classes. A philosophical system provides criteria for making judgements in the pursuit of preferences. Philosophies are used to obtain peers. Likewise peers seek philosophies with which to pursue preferences together with their peers. hence all philosophies are class philosophies, and most philosophies are middle class philosophies. A scientific system provides for making truthful (true) statements for the description of operations (transformations instate). Scientific systems are used to decide, create, invent, and to provide power over nature and man. Hence, science . Hence science is a largely professional or upper middle class philosophy. A legal system provides a means of resolving differences so that a group can cooperate in the production of generations, goods and services. Legal systems are used to rule others. But require strength to enforce. Hence most legal systems are the product of the upper classes that rule by force, and make use of scientific, philosophical, ideological, and religious systems to speak to classes while ruling them with law and violence. War is a scientific not emotional process. It is only the men at the bottom who need inspiration. And it is the foot-soldier at the bottom whose tenacity most determines a battle. So the relationship between the top and the bottom is necessary, and this is why non-martial polities cannot compete with martial polities – we fight together even if we conceptualize differently.
-
The Public and Specialists
[B]ecause specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft. Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior. The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason. While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists. In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.
-
The Public and Specialists
[B]ecause specialized knowledge is often counter-intuitive, professionals in a discipline overestimate their understanding. This is why economists can only give opinions on very narrow specializations within their craft. Because of the inescapable effect of anchoring, specialists rapidly decline in predictive ability over random surveys of the general population on matters of public behavior. The general public is a constant victim of overestimating their understanding, and display pervasive dunning-kruger effects. Meanwhile specialists underestimate their understanding for the same reason. While each individual in the general public is demonstrably an idiot about almost everything, enough of the general public grasps his state of affairs well enough to bias the survey of the public opinion toward a more accurate prediction than that of specialists. In other words, a lot of people tend to be more right than a few people when it comes to general things, and specialists tend to be right about very specific things, and everyone in between is pretty much useless.
-
The West Failed in 1900
[W]e had almost everything right prior to 1900. We could have survived Darwin’s repudiation of God. But our thinkers failed to solve the problem of pseudoscience and verbalism as a replacement for divine mysticism. We can solve that now with Truthfulness and defense of the informational commons. We can create a strictly constructed law and return to our origins as an empirical rather than ideological civilization. But men must choose to risk life and limb to impose truth or we will simply descend into the barbarism that is the normal condition of uncivilized mankind – the rest of the world. And in doing so, deprive mankind of western innovation for another millennium – if not forever. There are no more isolated indo europeans left to rescue mankind from another wave of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, pseudoscience and organized deception. We must chooses to rule. Or we doom mankind to another dark age. We will see the west decline from the cancer of islam as has North Africa, as has Byzantium, as has Persia, as have parts of central Asia. We must save the world from the genetic and habitual-cultural spread of ignorance. What separates the west from the rest is 1% of the population that seeks to preserve aristocracy, eugenics, technology, science, law, and truth from its opposites. There is evil in the world and it is everywhere.
-
The West Failed in 1900
[W]e had almost everything right prior to 1900. We could have survived Darwin’s repudiation of God. But our thinkers failed to solve the problem of pseudoscience and verbalism as a replacement for divine mysticism. We can solve that now with Truthfulness and defense of the informational commons. We can create a strictly constructed law and return to our origins as an empirical rather than ideological civilization. But men must choose to risk life and limb to impose truth or we will simply descend into the barbarism that is the normal condition of uncivilized mankind – the rest of the world. And in doing so, deprive mankind of western innovation for another millennium – if not forever. There are no more isolated indo europeans left to rescue mankind from another wave of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, pseudoscience and organized deception. We must chooses to rule. Or we doom mankind to another dark age. We will see the west decline from the cancer of islam as has North Africa, as has Byzantium, as has Persia, as have parts of central Asia. We must save the world from the genetic and habitual-cultural spread of ignorance. What separates the west from the rest is 1% of the population that seeks to preserve aristocracy, eugenics, technology, science, law, and truth from its opposites. There is evil in the world and it is everywhere.