Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • HAIDT VS HAYEK (ET AL) : WHAT THEY FAILED TO GRASP (reposted from a comment to b

    HAIDT VS HAYEK (ET AL) : WHAT THEY FAILED TO GRASP

    (reposted from a comment to boettke)

    First, Haidt provides the first empirical comparison of competing moral codes. Second he demonstrates that they are evolutionary in origin. Third that each represents a conflict in the male female reproductive strategy – with us as male outliers. Fourth, that this reproductive strategy is heritable, and not voluntary.

    Fifth that our political preferences reflect our reproductive strategies. And that we vote our moral codes and nothing more. And do nothing but attempt to justify them. So our arguments are futile. (This reflects the trend for pragmatic and empirical governments to evolve into empirical and moral -ie: pseudoscientific – governments – even in China)

    And sixth that democracy gives voice to those competing reproductive strategies.

    What he fails to grasp, but Emmanuel Todd does, is that the family structure, is a compromise between these competing strategies.

    What neither grasps is that universal democracy under redistribution allows the female majority to exercise their reproductive strategy to undermine the family, and the compromise, between the genders that the family constructs.

    So redistributive democracy without the universal absolute family, and with the immigration of traditional non-nuclear families en mass, creates a competition between family structures, which must, without question, and against all possible argument, create demand for the expansion of the state, a reduction in willingness to redistribute, and increase in political over competing morals, friction, and the necessity for an authoritarian government.

    We must realize that cosmopolitan libertinism and open immigration are fallacies if the jewish enlightenment just as much as Kant’s apriorism is a continental justification for german authoritarianism and duty, just as much as the anglo enlightenment’s fallacy of an aristocracy of everybody is a justification for naval merchants to seize political power from agrarian gentry.these are necessary strategies to justify the needs if unlanded, landed, and island peoples – and the family structures they employ.

    The conservatives were right that normative capital is the requirement for the high trust society that reduces transaction costs sufficiently that free trade and universal property rights and a weak state are possible and rational. Without those aristocratic egalitarian norms, and the absolute nuclear family that suppresses all free riding and provides a universal reproductive compromise , liberty is neither possible nor preferable.

    Libertine cosmopolitan libertarians were wrong.

    Unfortunately, Hayek, mises, popper and their followers failed, just as did their peers in logic, math and physical science to solve the problems of epistemology, ethics and politics when our ethics math and science had to accommodate greater than human scale at the end of the nineteenth century.

    When I publish this fall (fingers crossed) I will fill in the blanks. And solve the problem.

    If you want to chat about Haidt, and the implications of current research on politics, then I’ll put the time in.

    There is a reason western families produced armies and muslims had to rely on slave armies. There is a reason Catholics are poorer than Protestants: family structure.

    Family matters.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-24 04:21:00 UTC

  • DISCIPLINES ORDERED BY CONTENT (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic

    DISCIPLINES ORDERED BY CONTENT

    (interesting)

    1) Imagination

    2) Language

    3) Logic

    4) Economics (ethics/cooperation)

    5) Physics (science)

    6) Engineering

    7) Computer science

    8) Mathematics

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-19 06:28:00 UTC

  • Different Disciplines Ordered by Their Content

    (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic 4) Economics (ethics/cooperation) 5) Physics (science) 6) Engineering 7) Computer science 8) Mathematics

  • Different Disciplines Ordered by Their Content

    (interesting) 1) Imagination 2) Language 3) Logic 4) Economics (ethics/cooperation) 5) Physics (science) 6) Engineering 7) Computer science 8) Mathematics

  • Over my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasse

    Over my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread.

    A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books.

    But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable.

    I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation.

    But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd.

    I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about.

    Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-15 08:52:00 UTC

  • CLARITY OF THINKING – OPERATIONALISM IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES —“Bridgman also ex

    CLARITY OF THINKING – OPERATIONALISM IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

    —“Bridgman also extended his operationalist thinking by considering its implications outside physics. This was important to him at least from the time of The Logic of Modern Physics, in which he ventured: “many of the questions asked about social and philosophical subjects will be found to be meaningless when examined from the point of operations. It would doubtless conduce greatly to clarity of thought if the operational mode of thinking were adopted in all fields of inquiry as well as in the physical” (30–32).”– S.E.P. Operationalism (Bridgeman).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-15 04:57:00 UTC

  • The Difference In Underclass Communication Due To Science

    [O]ver my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread. A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books. But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable. I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation. But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd. I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about. Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

  • The Difference In Underclass Communication Due To Science

    [O]ver my lifetime there have been interesting dramatic changes in the underclasses that I wouldn’t have expected. We know that the spread of science has had profound impact and is probably responsible for the continued increase in intelligence. We know that the spread of general knowledge has had impact. But we have also seen the spread of ‘general awareness’, which means everyone seems to know about almost everything so that unscientific or irrational rumours are much harder to spread. A lot of this has accelerated since the expansion of the internet, and now even more so because of the universal spread of smartphones. But it was already happening under television, radio, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets and books. But while the method and content of intellectual discourse (IMHO) hasn’t changed much in the past 150 years or more, the method and content of underclass conversation has changed so much that it’s unimaginable. I sat at a kitchen table listening to some ‘poor-folk’ (loggers) as a child and I remember how much it horrified me that adults could talk about such nonsense. I couldn’t have been more than twelve at the time. Probably younger. Conspiracy theory is and must be (Dunning Krueger) part and parcel of underclass experience. And it’s probably the most consistent metaphysical assumption of underclass conversation. But that level of ignorance has been forced out of all but the sub-80-IQ crowd. I routinely read academic work written over a century ago, and some back into the post-civil-war period. And honestly, aside from changes in technology, the metaphysical assumptions shared in that thought is pretty consistent across the century. (We have to largely discount the sixties and seventies though as an age of mysticism.) I could talk to most pre-war thinkers on level terms and not feel a void separated us. But if you talked to common people in 1900, 1965 and 2014 the difference would be astounding. Not just in what they talked abut, but what they knew about. Knowledge is enough. Saturation in information will do the job that training cannot.

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • So, is Operationalism (ethical realism) the natural consequence of the failure o

    So, is Operationalism (ethical realism) the natural consequence of the failure of the analytic movement? Is that the final result of incorporating science and abandoning the pretense of rationalism?

    It is, I guess.

    Interesting.

    Science slowly consumes philosophy.

    If not, it is either error, deception by obscurantism, or deception by mysticism.

    Didn’t really plan on that big a program. lol.

    Oh well. At least I know what I am doing with the rest of my life….. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-09 12:30:00 UTC