Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG (is this then, a refor

    POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG

    (is this then, a reformation of Criticial Rationalism? )

    Popper had it backwards and was a Platonist himself. The problem is not in the discovery of “the nature of things”, but to eliminate the anthropogenic bias endemic to all human thought whether to our reason, memory or perception.

    Telling the truth is easy. It’s not telling a lie, acting as a vector for a lie, or failing to grasp that our intuition lies on behalf of it genes, or errs because of cognitive

    limitations during our evolution that is the problem.

    Had popper and Russell and others understood that it is not the mind of God that was philosophy’s task, and that scriptural interpretation was the method they were applying by the study of language, and instead, they had sought as did science, to remove error, rather than the verbal chimera of truth, the socialists and feminists and Keynesianism may have been unable to destroy western civilization.

    WESTERNERS HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG: TRUTH.

    And in an attempt to seize power from the state, we adopted justification.

    And that was our failing.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:18:00 UTC

  • TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN To some degree, we are confused: the scient

    TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN

    To some degree, we are confused: the scientists developed the method of truthful speech out of necessity AND out of a lack of malincentives. The problem that other disciplines face is that either the externalities produced are somewhat limited, such as the use of mathematical platonism, or the incentives to lie are greater – far greater – than any incentive to tell the truth: such as in politics, law, advertising, the academy in general, or for public intellectuals.

    So what we have done is created an asymmetry of incentives by our incorrect, inappropriate, and morally mistaken advocacy of free speech.

    It is not that we must possess free speech, it is that we are prohibited from bringing a verbal, written, and conceptual product to the market for the consumption of ideas, without requiring that we warranty that good, in an attempt to insure that we do not harm ourselves through excessive warranty.

    However the jury is in on this matter, and instead of spending two centuries defining truthful speech under the limits of law of warranty, we have spent two centuries learning how to improve our lies. And we have, as evidenced by the pseudoscientific efforts of the marxists, and pseudoscientists, and pseudo-rationalists, dramatically improved our ability to lie.

    But since the cause of this continuous improvement of the technology of lying is something we know, and we know how to fix, then there is little stopping us from fixing it.

    All we need to do is return to treating speech as a product and the commons as property, and one may not pollute the commons any more than one may pollute the land.

    It will take very little time, less than two generations, to teach people to speak the truth again.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:18:00 UTC

  • IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as

    IMMORALITY IN ECONOMICS

    In a misguided attempt to conduct economics AMORALLY as if it were a physical science, rather than **THE** science of that branch of cooperation that is unavailable to our direct perceptions, economists have in fact, introduced and imposed upon man, particularly western man, systemic immorality. This is the most immoral age. For a reason: because economists and left philosophers made it our most immoral age. And they did it with the pseudoscientific use of statistics, divorced from the actions necessary to produce economic phenomeon. Had Economists understood operationalism and testimonial truth we would not have produced the immoral century.

    But we did. And it’s my job and that of others to end it – forever.

    Economics must be the study of morality or it is the imposition of immorality.

    Unless you are an immoral advocate of theft, immorality and dysgenic then you there is no counter argument.

    (Do you see how I am correcting Mises and Hoppe yet?)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:29:00 UTC

  • AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS (reposted from economics group) (possibly

    AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATE OF ECONOMICS

    (reposted from economics group) (possibly profound for students of economics)

    Why Stiglitz? He is a critique of BOTH Friedman AND the neo-Keynesians. So why is he important in my view? Even if he hasn’t solve ‘the big problem’? Because there isn’t a problem to be found, or a solution in where they’re searching for one.

    THE BROADER PICTURE

    But the take away from all of the recent economic debate, is that we have not solved the Austrian question of the business cycle (does government make it worse), or the Western Conservative question of the relationship between genetics and norms, and whether **any and all economic propositions** that do not account for genetic and normative differences are false. (And dysgenic for that matter.)

    The progressive moral sentiments (female reproductive strategy – survival of offspring regardless of merit) and the conservative sentiments (male reproductive strategy – competitive families and tribes) are currently at war in politics, because by the introduction of women into the polity, the government no longer represents families with homogenous if paternal interests, but government has become a venue for the competition between not only races and classes, but also between male/meritocratic and female/dysgenic reproductive strategies.

    This is the reason for the failure of democracy: while law must be practiced with individuals, the state must be practiced with families. The introduction of women into the government rather than into their own house of government, was as destructive as the dissolution of the differences between the monarchy, landed nobility, middle class businessmen (the commons), and our failure to add a house of proletarians (dependents).

    With these two acts under the fallacy of equality of interest and ability we eliminated the possibility of government to function as a market between families with dissimilar economic interests, and instead, made it a venue for the conduct of oppression by one group of interests over another.

    There are no adequate compromises, because as structured, current economics and politics produce undecidable propositions that we mistakenly assume are a problem which further analysis will solve by providing us with pareto optimums.

    But this is an equivalent to the search for the philosopher’s stone, or the alchemical conversion of lead into gold. It is merely an exercise in collecting more data, of greater precision without adding insight.

    The fact of the matter is that the enlightenment project has been a scientific success and a political failure – we cannot improve upon the family, the market, and houses of government that conduct exchanges of commons’ between classes of different material ability and interests.

    We need not search for non-existent (platonic) Pareto Optimums. We must merely conduct exchanges needed to produce Nash equilibria that are calculable by individuals of their own volition. This will restore some eugenics to the society ad the expense of the lower classes. But that is to the benefit of all mankind even if it is not something everyone wants to hear, because it deprives them of the cheap status signal of looking down upon others and feeling higher by the mere existence of the inferior and unfortunate, rather than having to take risks and actions necessary to produce something by their own ability and hands.

    There is nothing for economists to discover except this principle.

    (I’ll be here waiting having tea with Hegel, when they do.)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    RANKINGS OF ECONOMISTS

    Ranking of economists by citation.

    https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.person.nbcites.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 06:17:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Who is more prominent economist?” (E.S.L. Question) Economist? I am a

    QUESTION: “Who is more prominent economist?” (E.S.L. Question)

    Economist?

    I am always unsure what people are referring to. Today that label largely refers to an econometrician, the way mathematics refers to a mathematician: as a methodologist. But I think when we ask most questions of economics, we are asking about who is the best political economist, or social scientist, because econometrics (measurement) is really not all that interesting except as a methodology for addressing one of the following domains:

    …………………………………….Mathematician………………………………

    ………………………………………………|………………………………………….

    …………………………………….Econometrician………………………………

    ………………………………………………|………………………………………….

    Political Economist…………………..|………………..Monetary Analyst.

    Social Scientist………………………..|………………..Financial Analyst.

    Legal Philosopher…………………….|………………..Investor……………

    Public Intellectual…………………….|………………..Entrepreneur…….

    There are a very small number of econometricians contributing to each of the above domains. If we look at citations it’s surprising how small the number is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 04:59:00 UTC

  • that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements

    http://bv.ms/1thsTYtScience that relies upon statistical correlation is merely a side effect of advancements in data collection, calculation, and computing by increasingly mechanical means of instrumentation. With these advanced, made possible by instrumentation, collection, analysis and explanation were specialised – but without operationalism as a moral and logical constraint upon scientific statements, pseudoscience has evolved as a specific disciple – and means of fund and attention getting – because it’s easier than practicing science.

    This fallacy is so embedded in western thought at this point it will be as difficult to erase as was anthropomorphism or the act of divine hand.

    It is the phlogiston theory of the 20th century brought about by advances in tools without corresponding advances in reason.

    We can intuit a theory by any possible means. Statistical collection analysis extends our sense, perception, and therefore reduces the imperceptible to an analogy to experience that renders it perceptible.

    And such correlations can help us develop hypotheses, and can invalidate older theories.

    But without converting hypotheses intuited from statistical observations to a series of testable actions on the part of humans, no such pseudoscientific statement can be said to have been tested.

    This is the reason for the fallacies of social science over the past centuries: wishful thinking about human nature in the left and pessimistic thinking about human nature as purely incentive driven if required to pay costs of decisions in the other.

    Mor later. Thanks for the post. – curt.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 00:18:00 UTC

  • The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train

    The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train the mind to eliminate imaginary content, so that they could morally testify to the truth of their statements.

    So, scientists needed to compensate … they need ed to tell the truth… As such, what we call the scientific method is not particular to science but to all human utterances. It is either just ‘the method’, or it’s the MORAL METHOD.

    Now, scientists merely make use of a SUBSET of the Moral Method, given that they are both largely unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs. Mathematicians likewise are unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs.

    But anyone engaging in the social rather than physical sciences, or in production, or in law, is likewise bound to not engage in adding imaginary content.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 03:35:00 UTC

  • Brilliant *** –“It’s true, actually science is Dennett’s “universal acid” that

    Brilliant ***

    –“It’s true, actually science is Dennett’s “universal acid” that will dissolve everything we hold dear except life itself. In this sense, conservatives are more correct than liberals, since the former correctly believe that evolution contradicts everything they believe.

    The liberals, whose beliefs are more ambiguously related to science, refuse to accept the smaller adjustments necessary to accommodate science, even though so many more of them do accept the “modern scienctific worldview”.”– Adam Voight

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 10:09:00 UTC

  • THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE –“1. social sciences cannot control condition

    THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE

    –“1. social sciences cannot control conditions such to test the variables of a hypothesis.”—

    This statement is false. It is one of the many libertine lies. As most libertine lies, and like most successful lies, it relies enough on a grain of half truth to be able to fool the audience by suggestion.

    Positivism as a movement is false, but empiricism is not. There is no requirement for constructing data, only for observing and collecting data as measurement of one kind or another, because we must be sure that by the use of measurements, we compensate for the frailty of our wishful thinking, our biases, our reason, our perception, and memory.

    For example, we can and did hypothesize red shift. We cannot create red shift, only observe it. Likewise, we can construct an theory of the economy, or of any social phenomenon, and exhaustively test the theory against all instances of the collected data.

    As long as the data that CORRESPONDS can be operationally DESCRIBED – that is, reduced to a rational series of human actions – then we have conducted both a test of external correspondence as well as a test of internal consistency.

    Just why this lie has been so successful I am not sure. I suspect that it is because people WANT to believe the lie, as they want to believe many lies. Because they try to justify what gives them advantage, rather than seek the truth whether it is advantageous to them or not.

    But the fact remains, the criticism of empiricism in the social sciences is nothing more than an elaborate lie, that literally through “advertising” by cosmopolitan libertines, has successfully overloaded an ignorant and wishful population sufficient to persist the lie – just as all cults and religions must accomplish, libertines (all cosmopolitans) have accomplished this particular lie.

    PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE IF WE SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND WE MAY ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH WHERE PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE. BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WE CALL “SCIENCE” IS A MORAL ONE – and has nothing particular to do with scientific research, but all human inquiry.

    1 – Empiricism: observe, measure, record.

    2 – Instrumentalism: reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable by means of formal instruments (physical instrumentation) or informal instruments (logic).

    3 – Operationalism: defend against the introduction of error, wishful thinking, bias, and imagination.

    4 – Testimonial Truth: it is not possible to testify to the truth of a proposition that you cannot state operationally, as both a means of construction (internal consistency, existential possibility), and a means of use (external correspondence, external correlation).

    As far as I know the libertine fallacy stands irreparably falsified by this argument.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 08:56:00 UTC

  • IRONY: CONSERVATISM IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE, AND PROGRESSIVISM IS AN UNSCIENT

    IRONY: CONSERVATISM IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE, AND PROGRESSIVISM IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE.

    —“…while conservatism is arationally structured, and progressivism is rationally structured, it turns out that conservatism as practiced is scientific, and progressive is unscientific (religious).”—

    This is in no small part because conservatism is structured demonstratively and progressivism is structured verbally.

    But the palpable irony, is that conservatism is a scientific method advocated arationally, while progressivism is an unscientific method advocated rationally.

    If humans can engage in such farcical verbal nonsense, on our most important matters, then what does that say about us? That we are just chickens clucking at the wind?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 03:26:00 UTC