Theme: Science

  • WILL WE SEE A POST-RELIGIOUS FUTURE? Given that we see a decline in religiosity.

    WILL WE SEE A POST-RELIGIOUS FUTURE?

    Given that we see a decline in religiosity.

    ON ARATIONAL VS RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL ETHICS

    – Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases

    – Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases.

    – Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases.

    – There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really)

    – All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions.

    – All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors.

    – So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications.

    – And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification.

    – Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

    ON 20th CENTURY PSEUDOSCIENCE

    Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense.

    Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power.

    Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power.

    So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories).

    I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth.

    Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity.

    I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the hellenic enlightenment).

    And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-30 09:51:00 UTC

  • POPPER IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR GOD – HE FAILED TOO (from elsewhere) (good piece) B

    POPPER IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR GOD – HE FAILED TOO

    (from elsewhere) (good piece)

    Bruce. (All)

    You’re a good guy. A moral man. But you do realize that Popper failed to complete his program – even the falsificationary program – and most of what he says is pseudoscience with moral loading?

    If you cannot describe something as a series of actions, then you are engaging in pseudoscientific double speak – an error of aggregation not dissimilar from the averaging of averages. Popper’s double-speak is not as artful or complete as Marx’s pseudoscientific double speak (dialectic), but it is equally untruthful: claiming parsimony that it does not contain.

    We may indeed face a kaleidic future but that’s immaterial. We divide our perception, cognition, knowledge and labor, and constantly try to outwit the course of events in a deterministic non-sentient universe, for our benefits: consumption. That future needn’t be known by anyone, and cannot be. It is not the individual perception of the future that matters, but the collective outwitting of the course of events, so that we can seize the difference and call it ‘production’.

    It’s true that justificationism is dead. But Critical Rationalism was incomplete. Critical Preference is a logical, not empirical statement. In fact, it appears at least, that we can choose which avenue to pursue by that which requires the lowest cost. This is identical to the means nature uses. So the least cost route appears to be the most efficient route we can ever know. So it appears that critical preference is a moral argument – a bit of advice – rather than logical or empirical argument.

    I am fairly certain at this point that you are somehow desperately trying to find a source of supernatural wisdom to replace the supernatural wisdom of scripture. But it’s not to be found in Popper. Popper and his entire generation of thinkers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences. All of them. Because they were logically attached to enlightenment egalitarian, equalitarian, universalism: an advocacy of monopoly if there ever was one.

    We can never stop problem-solving. Never cease innovation. Never cease competition. We can never ‘relax’ and fall upon past wisdom. Because submission is not available to man. We are the only gods we know of in this universe. Those we imagine are merely those we aspire to be. And by that aspiration we achieve.

    If there is any devil, any fallen god, any fallen angel, it is the one who whispers that there is but one god. If there is one evil scripture it is equality. If but one sin it is submission. We divide our perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, and by exchange we collectively compute that which is necessary to persist.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 05:49:00 UTC

  • Science And Philosophy: 2500 Years Of Intellectual History Condensed Into 125 Words.

    [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which philosophical science, the social sciences, and the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech).

    This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity, of which philosophical science requires the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another subset of those criticisms.

    Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and Voluntary Transfer (objective morality).”

    (I suppose a lot of philosophers could read that paragraph and weep – that it took us 2500 years to state it.)

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

  • Science And Philosophy: 2500 Years Of Intellectual History Condensed Into 125 Words.

    [T]he discipline we call philosophy and the discipline we call science consist of a set of methods (processes) which philosophical science, the social sciences, and the physical sciences, use to launder existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences) from our testimony (speech).

    This laundering is achieved by a set of methodological criticisms addressing increasing levels of complexity, of which philosophical science requires the full set of criticisms, social science a subset of those criticisms, and physical science yet another subset of those criticisms.

    Those criticisms consist of tests of: Identity, Internal Consistency, External Correspondence, Existential Possibility (Operationalism), Full Accounting (against selection bias), Parsimony (limits), and Voluntary Transfer (objective morality).”

    (I suppose a lot of philosophers could read that paragraph and weep – that it took us 2500 years to state it.)

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine.

  • EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: ITS NOT LIKE I”M ALL THAT GENTLE ON ANYONE I am just more hos

    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: ITS NOT LIKE I”M ALL THAT GENTLE ON ANYONE

    I am just more hostile to pseudoscience and deceit than I am to error.

    I’m attacking the failures of:

    – The Anglo Enlightenment

    – The German Enlightenment

    – The Jewish (Cosmopolitan) Enlightenment

    – The French Enlightenment

    And the failure of the:

    – Russians

    – Muslims

    – Asians

    To have their own incomplete, or failed, enlightenments.

    Only the west discovered truth and high trust. But our enlightenments were incomplete. All of them. They all failed.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 11:59:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY —I suppose it would really annoy H

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY

    —I suppose it would really annoy Hawking to have it demonstrated that the scientific method is only a moral philosophy: a set of criticisms that allow you to warranty that your theories are free of existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences).—

    (The first person who gave me that idea was Ken Hopf. Too bad he is stuck in 1930.)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 08:52:00 UTC

  • STEPHEN: PHILOSOPHY ISN’T DEAD, SO MUCH AS JUSTIFICATIONARY RATIONALISM IS DEAD.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/8520033/Stephen-Hawking-tells-Google-philosophy-is-dead.htmlNO STEPHEN: PHILOSOPHY ISN’T DEAD, SO MUCH AS JUSTIFICATIONARY RATIONALISM IS DEAD. AND SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHY ARE ONE.

    You know, I bet I could convince him that I have unified philosophy and science under testimonialism and propertarianism, and claim that science was just philosophy, and most of philosophy was error.

    TESTIMONIAL TRUTH, TESTMONIALISM, PROPERTARIANISM, CONTRACTUAL GOVERNMENT.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 07:42:00 UTC

  • OUR HISTORY THANKS TO SCIENCE

    http://www.moreright.net/the-long-run-economic-performance-of-ancient-greece/REWRITING OUR HISTORY THANKS TO SCIENCE


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 02:12:00 UTC

  • PSEUDOSCIENCE:—“The failure to warranty that you have sufficiently laundered e

    PSEUDOSCIENCE:—“The failure to warranty that you have sufficiently laundered error, imagination, bias, wishful thinking and deception from your theories (statements), leaving only existential information, free of projection, as truth candidates.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 11:53:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND INFORMATION THEORY (Guest Post) Eds: Kirill stated “well, yo

    PROPERTARIANISM AND INFORMATION THEORY

    (Guest Post)

    Eds: Kirill stated “well, you’ve unified science and social science. So how do we unify science, social science, and information theory”. (Pretty awesomely Nerdy question really!!!) He thought about if for a bit and sent me this post. And, maybe it’s hard to grasp the elegance of his point, but if you’re enough of a science wonk then you’ll see how brilliantly he puts it together (Despite English being his third language.)

    “FROM ENTROPY TO TRUTH TELLING”

    – Kirill Latish

    [E]ntropy is commonly understood as a measure of disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics entropy of isolated system never decreases. Moreover. Hubble’s law tells us that Entropy of Universe tends to increase with time. And even more — the cosmological arrow of time points in the direction of the Universe’s expansion, or in other words — in the direction of Entropy increasing.

    So we can assume that everything tends to Chaos – most stable state. That means that Evolution – is expressible as “a process of chaos production”.

    This statement looks absurd from the first look. You can argue – we investigate the Universe, learn more and more about Nature, produce new and new things (read – order). But let’s not forget about costs. Each bit of partial knowledge that we accumulate, each product that we produce – is the result of an action, and that action, according to the second law of thermodynamics, can only increase Entropy. So that means it increased the amount of Chaos.

    **Everything we do leads to increasing amount of disorder in the Universe**

    From the other side we can say that Intelligence level of a person is amount of Chaos produced by this person. At the same time Intelligence level is amount of True facts that person knows and can use. And there are only two ways how we can “earn” Truth facts – empirical, or analytical:

    – Empirical – try to get Truth from experiments.

    – Analytical – try to get Truth statements from the information flow around us.

    COMMUNICATION

    Information flow exists only because we communicate with each other. So let’s ask – why do we communicate? And the answer is fairly simple – it is profitable for us. In many senses. From the beginning of our history we collaborate because it is much easier to survive in groups. It is easier to defeat our enemies, easier to learn, easier to resist to unpleasant environment conditions, and easier to produce goods and services of all kinds.

    And so we can make two key conclusions:

    1. In groups we can do more than apart – so the group is producing more disorder than all members individually.

    2. For all our lives we try to resist the Universe – we are trying to not become fuel for Chaos.

    TRUTH TELLING

    And let’s think about difference between telling Truth and Lying. Truth telling is expensive in short term perspective because you have to check facts, and telling A lie doesn’t cost anything. But in long term perspective Truth telling gives you a competitive advantage by giving you the ability to use knowledge against your enemies.

    And it is only one real choice that you have in your life – tell the truth and face up with all costs on this way, or lie and become a fuel for the Universe. From that point choice is obvious. But the problem is that we are almost always using greedy algorithms trying to solve our problems. But that doesn’t work in long-term perspective – and moreover – leads to defeat in the main battle in our life – Battle for survival.

    So now we have very clear, long-term, survival strategy:

    ***Collaborate with society, operate only with truthful facts, try to attract maximum number of participants to your group in long term***

    Kirill Latish,

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-24 08:17:00 UTC