[M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist direction. It wasn’t. It was from the socialists, the libertarians, and the neocons. From every angle of the political spectrum We have been fighting the wrong battle. There are no answers there. Time to fight for civilization. For a return to truth, merit, honor. Aristocracy. Curt Doolittle (Not to discredit hoppe’s solution to institutions, and his criticism of democracy. )
Theme: Science
-
Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It’s A CRAFT.
[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.
-
Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It's A CRAFT.
[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.
-
Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It’s A CRAFT.
[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.
-
Anchoring, Ideology, Dogma: Not Science. It's A CRAFT.
[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests. Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.
-
ANCHORING, IDEOLOGY, DOGMA : NOT SCIENCE – IT’S A CRAFT The problem with special
ANCHORING, IDEOLOGY, DOGMA : NOT SCIENCE – IT’S A CRAFT
The problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary for the pursuit of truth as is the exploration of them. the defense against both anchoring, ideology and dogma is to increase one’s breadth of knowledge as fast as one’s depth, and to discard anything that doesn’t survive your tests.
Science progresses only after the death of proponents of ideas, precisely for these reasons. Science is practiced as a craft, and learned by apprenticeship. Ignorance of and ridicule of philosophy in the scientific community is legendary. Scientific philosophy is almost always conducted as a proxy for morality, and therefore politics, of some sort or other(as was Popper’s), in order to transfer the moral legitimacy, and assumed lack of bias of science, into the highly loaded and biased domain of Politics. Craft in itself is not one of the three possible means of coercion: force, remuneration, moralism. All of the other specialties must make use of Craft. Meanwhile craftsmen go about their duties without much use for coercion.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 01:52:00 UTC
-
You know, the first academic who snowed me was Stephen J Gould. I mean, it turns
You know, the first academic who snowed me was Stephen J Gould. I mean, it turns out, that the man was simply a liar.
Krugman is the same creature: a liar. Chomsky is, well, a liar.
These men turn out to be just plain artistic liars. I mean, they’re sophisticated liars. But in the end, they’re liars.
Exasperating.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 10:13:00 UTC
-
The Copenhagen Interpretation as an Example of the Problem of Epistemology at Scale
Link: The Copenhagen Interpretation [A] profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can. As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can only be claimed by observation and measurement, I realize the problems facing those in quantum mechanics and those of ethics and politics of heterogeneous polities, are both products of vast increases in scale and complexity that our minds neither evolved for, nor have our language and epistemological traditions evolved to accommodate. We are still mystics at describing reality at scale, not because we are conservative or unwilling, as we were with religion in reaction to science, but because despite our willingness we do not yet know how. There are two solutions to this problem: to state scale concepts in perceivable terms as best we can, or to restate all concepts in new terms. Under both models language will eventually evolve, and with it the populace. I suppose the former is more pragmatic but less truthful, and the latter more truthful but less likely to succeed. In ethics I face this same problem. And its painful.we must use extant language despite that it is wrong, clarify its meaning by cleansing it of error, and restate relations formed in homogenous polities with the properties of heterogeneous polities. Universalism is an error in scale, measurement, and logic. Its yeoman’s labor.
-
The Copenhagen Interpretation as an Example of the Problem of Epistemology at Scale
Link: The Copenhagen Interpretation [A] profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can. As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can only be claimed by observation and measurement, I realize the problems facing those in quantum mechanics and those of ethics and politics of heterogeneous polities, are both products of vast increases in scale and complexity that our minds neither evolved for, nor have our language and epistemological traditions evolved to accommodate. We are still mystics at describing reality at scale, not because we are conservative or unwilling, as we were with religion in reaction to science, but because despite our willingness we do not yet know how. There are two solutions to this problem: to state scale concepts in perceivable terms as best we can, or to restate all concepts in new terms. Under both models language will eventually evolve, and with it the populace. I suppose the former is more pragmatic but less truthful, and the latter more truthful but less likely to succeed. In ethics I face this same problem. And its painful.we must use extant language despite that it is wrong, clarify its meaning by cleansing it of error, and restate relations formed in homogenous polities with the properties of heterogeneous polities. Universalism is an error in scale, measurement, and logic. Its yeoman’s labor.
-
Theoretical Descriptions As An Act Of Psychologizing The Universe 🙂
CONFLATING TRUTH WITH TRUTHFULNESS / AND THEORY AS PSYCHOLOGIZING THE UNIVERSE. (probably a little difficult for most but possibly profoundly useful)
—“But we can claim that our theory is true and often do so. In fact, the idea that we cannot do so is itself a theory which, if true, cannot be claimed to be true.”—
[O]f course, I didn’t make that claim. I only claimed that we can test if you speak truthfully, as in honestly and diligently, not whether your theory is true. Any statement reducible to human actions is open to sympathetic testing, and is no longer subject to the errors of meaning. Processes work or do not, there is no error of meaning in them. That which is demonstrated is true. Theories are the opposite. Very little of what is spoken is other than a word game. We can state human actions both as actor and observer.They are the same, merely from a different point of view. But, we must anthropomorphize the “actions” of the physical universe if we state the universe’s position (theoretical definitions) — or we can state the observer position (operational definitions). When we state the observer position we need not add imaginary content. When we state the universe’s position we must always add imaginary content – we must hypothesize.We can not read the mind of the universe (at least yet). This is what mises intuited by imitating the ideas of other thinkers, but he was not able to state it, and fell into pseudoscience instead. In economics we have a constant problem of this nature between Austrians and mainstream macro. Austrians stress the human position as both actor and observer. However, in the mainstream is common if not universal to state that ‘the curve moves this way” in response to some change. when the cause is human activity. (Sometimes I wonder if all this talk of theories is just another type of justification, and recipes are the only truth we can or do know. We can categorize our recipes, but that is all. Everything else, is imaginary.) This is probably more important than is obvious at first blush. Between the problem of (a) anthropomorphizing the physical universe (theoretical definitions), (b) the obscurity provided by functions, (c) the obscurity provided by experiential definitions, (d) the obscurity provided by imaginary definitions (analogies), (e) the obscurity provided by the verb to-be, (f) the variety of cognitive biases that we know of, (g) and pervasive human framing and loading, if not (h) the cosmopolitan techniques of critique as means of overloading (deception), it seems that human beings are desperate to add meaning wherever they can – when the exercise of science is in no small part an effort to remove meaning. We do not need to psychologize the universe. Which is in no small part what is being done. (psychologizing the universe: I have to work on this a bit more but it’s pretty close to the criticism I’m looking for.)