#tcot #tlot #NRx Philosophy can be performed wishfully, morally, rationally, historically, and scientifically. Only the last has any value.
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-22 11:15:45 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/623813677716754432
Theme: Science
-
What Is Critical Rationalism?
[C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)
SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London) -
What Is Critical Rationalism?
[C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)
SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London) -
Another on Aristocracy(criticism) vs Republicanism(Justification)
Science=critical. Morality=justificationary. [I] have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, property-right/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.
OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.
REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(London, July 16, 2015) -
Another on Aristocracy(criticism) vs Republicanism(Justification)
Science=critical. Morality=justificationary. [I] have been working on the series: ‘obverse/revers, justification/criticism, morality/science, property-right/prohibition, GoldenRule/SilverRule, that is the western innovative alternative to eastern static ying-and-yang. Where they match sides, we only overlap in a venn diagram. Where they have a balance of equality and necessary cooperation, we have a division of labor and voluntary cooperation.
OBVERSE: Positive Government uses Justification and ascent (republic) – the objective is to do good. Concentrate all resources behind single ideas: monopoly provision of commons: the government society. But we cannot know good, or agree on good. Napoleonic law of prior restraint. Scope of Property is limited. Standing is limited. Rule is by Coercive Government (ascent). Judgements are ideological and hypothetical. And this creates opportunity for rent seeking(parasitism). At best, this strategy is useful for transitioning a failed people.
REVERSE: Negative Government uses Criticism and prosecution (aristocracy) – the objective is to do no harm. Distribute all resources according to preferences of the contributors: market provision of commons: the civic society. And we can know harm. Common law of dispute resolution. Scope is Property-en-toto, Standing is universal. Rule is by prohibitionary judgement (veto). Decisions are empirical and operational. And this strategy creates no opportunity for rent seeking (parasitism). At worst, this strategy is useful for maintaining a successful people.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(London, July 16, 2015) -
WHAT IS CRITICAL RATIONALISM? Critical Rationalism is an epistemology developed
WHAT IS CRITICAL RATIONALISM?
Critical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism.
ASSERTIONS:
1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.)
2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate.
3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false.
4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”).
5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)
SUMMARY
One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon:
……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth;
–or–
……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.
Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine (London)
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 08:35:00 UTC
-
End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars
THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.
—-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-
[W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….
-
End Libertinism: Prosecute Liars
THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES.
—-“Kurt, whenever I hear someone say the laws of science prove X, I know that they do not know the history of science. Science never speaks for all time and it never has. I am saying that the use of history as if it were an experiment of science is fallacious. So the entire beginning of your conversation above is without any meaning. I was merely being polite.”—-
[W]ell, you didn’t hear that right? In fact, the first sentence of my response says just the opposite. So are you creating a straw man? Do you err or do you lie? And moreover, You are not being polite. You just do not understand what youre talking about and can’t defend it. So you avoid articulating it. You hide behind a lie. A pretense. (a) economic phenomenon are emergent and non-deducible. That is what defines an economic phenomenon. (b) emergent economic phenomenon are empirically observable, and are not directly observable. (c) causes of observable phenomenon can either be constructed out of subjectively testable existentially possible operations, or they cannot be true, because we cannot construct an existence proof (d) all general rules of arbitrary precision possess limits. (e) for this reason, rational justification (apriorism) can be used only for contractual and moral justification (informationally complete statements), not for the the criticism of truth propositions (informationally incomplete statements). (f) we can identify any hypothesis by free association – the means of constructing the hypothesis conveys no truth content. (g) But since we can identify an hypothesis by free association, we must eliminate the imaginary content, leaving only the existential content. So the purpose of criticism is to eliminate imaginary content and leave only possible content. (h) We can test any hypothesis only by attempts to criticize it to see if it survives. We cannot justify it – ever. (i) We can list the means of criticism from the most rudimentary through each additional dimension until we have exhausted all possible dimensions known to us. i. identity (category) ii. internal consistency (logic) iii. external correspondence (often called explanatory power) iv. existential possibility (existence proof) v. limits (falsification) (often called parsimony) vi. full accounting (prohibition on selection bias) vii. morality (consisting of voluntary transfers) Even if we pass all of these tests, this only tells us that we have a truth candidate. We can never know if we have found the most parsimonious truth. Mises engaged in multiple verbal conflations not the least of which were conflating science and logic, and conflating truth and morality. On top of it he relied upon the fallacy of justificationary german rationalism, rather than criticism. Like Hoppe he confuses empiricism (observation – existential testing) with positivism. He uses half-truths to obscure his failure: that man acts, but not why he evolved action, nor why he acts: to acquire. He avoided the smithian insight that cooperation is the scarcest good, and that it is cooperation we spend most of our efforts in obtaining. Science is the discipline of truth telling by laundering imaginary content from our hypotheses. Philosophy is the discipline of truth telling. Science and philosophy are identical under this assertion. Economics is no different from any other discipline other than we can subjectively test first principles (rational incentives) in economics, while we cannot test the first principles of the universe yet – because we do not know them. Although mathematics is nearly good enough, since axiomatic systems cannot lose information the way theoretical systems can. Economics is scientific because science is merely the discipline of truth telling by sanitizing our theories of error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit. MOVE ON. I ended mises. Deal with it. Move on. I ended rothbard. deal with it. Move on. I ended intersubjectively verifiable property as sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Move on. The cosmopolitan branch of libertarianism is dead. I killed it. Forever. It’s in the dustbin of history. The only liberty that remains is aristocracy. The violent suppression of parasitism in all its forms through the definition of property as property-en-toto (demonstrated property that humans will retaliate against aggressions against), and the use of rule of law under the common law to incrementally suppress aggressions against property en toto in all walks of life. There is no free riding. No liberty at a discount. No empty words by which we obtain liberty. Liberty does not exist unless it is made. It is made by men with arms killing or threatening those who impose upon that which they have acquired without imposing costs against property en toto upon others. Now you can go run to Hans, or any other libertarian smart enough to hold an argument with me and I will defeat them. What you cannot do is state that you hold a position that you cannot defend except by error, foolishness, or pretense of deceit. Cosmopolitanism is dead. The century of pseudoscience and deceit is over. Welcome to the new age. Thus endeth the lesson. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (5) Curt Doolittle – THE PROSECUTION CONTINUES. 🙂 PROSECUTE LIARS….
-
do we know about population and technological progress? A paper by Ashraf and Ga
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdfWhat do we know about population and technological progress?
A paper by Ashraf and Galorm http://www.nber.org/papers/w17037.pdf concludes: “…population density in pre-industrial times was on average higher at latitudinal bands closer to the equator.”
Yet the countries closer to the equator did not end up being the drivers of industrial progress, even though they sometimes had higher rates of progress in agricultural times. Northern Europe, with the exception of the Dutch Republic, was never the star for population density. This paper also indicates that technology drives population growth — more than vice versa — and that “time elapsed since a region’s neolithic breakthrough” predicts later technological progress fairly well.
If you add an extra baby to most societies, ceteris paribus, the rate of expected idea generation does indeed go up in theory. But how important a factor is that, compared to other influences on ideas generation?
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:15:00 UTC
-
Untitled
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21591157-new-technique-has-drawn-wiring-diagrams-brains-two-sexes
Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 04:04:00 UTC