Theme: Science

  • SLOWLY THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT SPREADS Another social science academic concludes

    SLOWLY THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT SPREADS

    Another social science academic concludes that there is little there there.

    Writing in 1942, the Oxford Professor of Metaphysics, RG Collingwood, said that dismissing academic discussion for insignificant speech is like “scolding little girls for giving dolls’ tea-parties with empty cups and little boys for playing with wooden swords.” Academic discussions, he added, “belong to the world of make-believe.”

    Collingwood was specifically talking about my field, political philosophy, as it is done in universities. Reflecting on his words over the last year, I’ve begun to realise how right he was.

    –Craig Newmark, Newmark’s Door.

    COMMENT

    ————-

    The fallacy of common interest.

    The fallacy of common ends.

    The necessity of common means of achieving opposing interests and ends.

    The enlightenment vision of man was false. It is not mysterious that deliberation over public choice is nonsense, if it is predicated on nonsensical assumptions about the nature of man.

    The market, noy politics, is the only mechanism for cooperating peacefully on means despite conflicting and irreconcilable ends.

    WELCOM BACK FROM THE MATRIX INTO THE REAL WORLD.

    Aristocracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-07 09:29:00 UTC

  • Austrian article by non austrian in….ever? Made my day. I can never grasp Hopp

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2013/11/ignorance.htmlBest Austrian article by non austrian in….ever?

    Made my day.

    I can never grasp Hoppe’s argument against Popper. Or rather, he makes the right argument against the wrong man.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-06 21:18:00 UTC

  • a little closer on the Flynn effect?

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/11/flynn-effect-as-retesting-rule-based.htmlGetting a little closer on the Flynn effect?


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-04 16:09:00 UTC

  • 1) ON THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURAL VERSUS RATIONAL AND RATIO-SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGIES.

    1) ON THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURAL VERSUS RATIONAL AND RATIO-SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGIES. 2) ON THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIBERTY.

    (good read)

    (Quotable)

    “I don’t like package deals. That’s mainly the reason I don’t identify with a particular political position. If I end up looking like a libertarian, it’s only because they happen to be where I’m going anyway. I reserve the right to do my own thinking.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf

    COMMENT

    Ideologies can be as rigid as scripture to which you must adhere (totalitarianism), or mere boundary conditions that describe similar sentiments (freedom). They are both means of obtaining political power. The first is a means of coercion into dogma by threat of ostracization. The second a means of affiliation by promise of opportunity.

    However, both scriptural threat and sentimental promise, are predicated on the absence of ratio-scientific knowledge. In the face of evidence of what man REALLY DOES with democracy, what he does with his economy, with his social order, with his freedom, with his laws, then we no longer are faced with an era of IDEOLOGY.

    We are faced with the outcome of the era of ideology. And the outcome of that era is that the SUCCESS of rich democratic countries had nothing to do with their democracy. Democracy is a luxury good that was ALSO made possible wealth.

    THE SOURCE OF THE WEST’S WEALTH AND PROSPERITY

    But that wealth had nothing to do with democracy. It had to do with:

    1) The aristocratic egalitarian ethics of cattle raiding, land holders, bronze, the horse, the wheel, and chariot, who used inferior numbers, and voluntary, organized, cavalry tactics that required high personal and familial investment, as well as voluntary cooperation in tactics for shared risk and gain. The tendency to adopt disruption in the form of new technology, new members, and new leaders – because enfranchisement meant rights to private property and elected leaders rather than community property and static leaders.

    2) Small homogenous countries – first Pagan, but the more protestant and german the better, operating as extended families, with the high trust of extended families.

    3) The prohibition on cousin-marriage out to six or ten generations, and the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) as the organizational unit of production AND reproduction.

    4) Common law, individual property rights, and rule of law. money, accounting, interest, credit and banking.

    5) The manorial system that suppressed the fertility of the underclasses, and created the ‘protestant ethic’ in all of society, by requiring conformity to good practice in order to obtain access to rented land, and reproduction.

    6) The evolution of credit backed by ‘the extended family’ represented by the state.

    7) Plagues that suppressed and reversed the fertility of the underclasses, and which forced the upper classes to spread into the work force.

    8) An ’empirical bias’: a preferential bias toward, and continuous development of, technical, scientific, practical solutions. We cannot tell if this bias genetic or not yet but in part, it is beginning to look like a) minority status, b) competitive value of technology to compensate for small numbers, c) balance between verbal and spatial intelligence d) habituation.

    9) The discovery and conquest of the New World and the subsequent trade, at a time when a plague had wiped out vast portions of north american indians.

    10) The weakness of the Ottoman empire, Indian continent and the Chinese empire, from institutional decay. (In China, the failure to develop institutions of ‘calculation’ at scale and reliance on moral rather than empirical arguments. In Arabia, the persistent problem of ignorance, tribalism, low IQ, and inbreeding.) The weakness of the colonies, and the relative disparity in technological, calculative, and social development of the rest of the world meant the easy imposition of trade. And the re-adoption of ratio-scientism as a competitive advantage in the west while the other states had either fought it off intentionally (Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization), or who could not for a variety of reasons make use of it (Hindu civilization).

    ON CALCULATION

    The importance of calculation was I think, discovered or at least elucidated by Weber. But calculation is important, because it is NECESSARY. Without means of calculation, as the society becomes increasingly complex,

    SCALE AND DYNAMISM – ADAPTATION – EVOLUTION

    The state is often credited with the origin of calculative technologies. But this is to overstate the ‘state’ in its primitive origins in the fertile crescent. However, these small city states had all the properties of western city states, but earlier. THey created their innovation when they were small. They LOST their innovation when they became states and empires.

    THE STATE CALCIFIES – EVERYTHING. PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT MAKES EVERYTHING DYNAMIC, ITERATIVE, ADAPTIVE.

    The state makes fragility. It trades certainty for stagnation.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 11:56:00 UTC

  • COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS? (question) What is the difference in t

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htmTHE COGNITIVE BIASES OF THE EMPIRICAL FIELDS?

    (question)

    What is the difference in the the cognitive biases of the different disciplines?

    1) Engineering and engineers

    2) Computer science and computer scientists,

    3) Economics and economists (statistics)

    4) Physics and physicists

    5) Mathematics and mathematicians?

    How would you stack-rank these five by:

    i) The weight given to understanding of human hubris vs human rationality?

    ii) The use of obscurant versus operational language

    iii) The use of platonist versus naturalistic language.

    iv) The requirement that people adapt to new knowledge, versus adapt technology to suit the needs and wants of people?

    v) The tendency to favor statist versus libertarian solutions?

    ON IQ

    Now, we have to understand some variations in the data. Mostly it’s a hierarchy of IQ. But Economists usually skew lower than the other disciplines because a) they are paid less, and b) the criteria for what is called an economics degree varies a lot. (It is very hard to make less than 100K as a computer scientist. It is very easy to make 150K. And not difficult to make 200K.) Given the damned rigor of the discipline I find this sort of thing interesting.

    DISCLAIMER

    I am educated as a fine artist, in Art Theory. (The philosophy of art and art history). Essentially as an art critic. Art just isn’t generally good enough to critique any more. 🙂 Although the art-craft movement is still creative and beautiful. 🙂 The movie business is the great sucking sound for artistic talent in America. And art has become a lower middle class occupation with an upper proletarian work force. It is not in the least bit aristocratic.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 09:43:00 UTC

  • USA IS NOT MORE MEDICALLY INNOVATIVE THAN UK OR GERMANY. It’s just a lot bigger.

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/would-universal-healthcare-in-america-stifle-innovation-no-it-wouldnt/THE USA IS NOT MORE MEDICALLY INNOVATIVE THAN UK OR GERMANY.

    It’s just a lot bigger. The USA is the largest HI-IQ country, with the largest distribution of intellectuals.

    –ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE SMART FRACTION.–


    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 09:09:00 UTC

  • “OUR POLITICAL NATURE”: PAPER MACHE INTELLECTUALISM. (book review) (criticism) =

    “OUR POLITICAL NATURE”: PAPER MACHE INTELLECTUALISM.

    (book review) (criticism)

    ========

    This review is from: Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us

    Trivial, biased regurgitation of Haidt’s work without credit.,

    October 29, 2013

    Amazon Verified Purchase

    1.0 out of 5 stars

    I understand the business of writing money-making books by regurgitating the works of others for fun and profit. And I understand the need to simplify works for less academic readers. But I also understand not giving credit to the people who you’re copying. Especially when it’s by attempting to avoid references to them. I also understand the use of obscurant language, bias as propaganda, and oversimplification via analogy as a means of inserting deception.

    This is a weak attempt by an also-ran author to insert his political bias into the political discourse as a substitute for scholarship. It’s not plagiarism per se. Because that would add insult to the prior work.

    Read Haidt instead. It is a balanced work by the leading academic in the field. If you read “The Righteous Mind”, “Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure & Social System”, “The Red Queen”, and “Demonic Males” you will know pretty much the moral origins of human beings. If you read Andrew Heywood’s “Political Ideologies : An Introduction” that will explain political discourse.

    The fact is, that moral codes are largely genetic. What isn’t genetic is determined by the structure of the family (absolute nuclear, nuclear, traditional, extended or tribal). What isn’t determined by family structure is determined by economics. However, this is all misleading because MORAL sensibilities are different from VOTING PATTERNS.

    American voting patterns can be reduced to this single statement, and nothing else matters:

    —“93% of blacks, 70% of Latinos, 60% of those under 30, and 62% of single people, voted for Obama. And white married couples over 30 years of age voted for Romney. Not much else matters.”—

    -Dick Morris”

    NOTHING ELSE MATTERS – WE ARE TRIBAL CREATURES.

    ========


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 07:31:00 UTC

  • HAYEK AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS : SIMILAR, CORRECT, MODEL “[Hayek] made a quite fr

    HAYEK AND COMPUTER SCIENTISTS : SIMILAR, CORRECT, MODEL

    “[Hayek] made a quite fruitful suggestion, made contemporaneously by the psychologist Donald Hebb, that whatever kind of encounter the sensory system has with the world, a corresponding event between a particular cell in the brain and some other cell carrying the information from the outside word must result in reinforcement of the connection between those cells. These day, this is known as a Hebbian synapse, but von Hayek quite independently came upon the idea. I think the essence of his analysis still remains with us.”

    — Gerald Edelman, in “Through a Computer Darkly : Group Selection and Higher Brain Function”, in Bulletin — The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1, (October 1982), p. 25


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-23 03:46:00 UTC

  • HAYEK HAD IT MOSTLY RIGHT “The main reasons for dwelling … on Hayek’s model is s

    HAYEK HAD IT MOSTLY RIGHT

    “The main reasons for dwelling … on Hayek’s model is simply that it has certain properties, absent from most others, that conform exceptionally well to recent neurobiological evidence on memory and that make it particularly suited to the current discourse.”

    — Joaquin Fuster, Memory in the Cerebral Cortex : An Empirical Approach to Neural Networks in the Human and Nonhuman Primate (1995), p. 89


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-23 03:38:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE AS RELIGION : THE CIVIC SOCIETY : THE CONTRAST OF BUDDHISM Science helps

    SCIENCE AS RELIGION : THE CIVIC SOCIETY : THE CONTRAST OF BUDDHISM

    Science helps us understand causality:

    (a) incentives.

    (b) repetition.

    (c) emergent behavior

    (d) unintended consequences.

    I complain about most mystical religions for the same reason. Buddhism is the least bad of the bad.

    A friend just posted excerpts from the Dali Lama’s book. And while I find practitioners non-threatening, the argument troubles me. The argument that we should unite science and religion. Because the tradition in buddhist thought is that we explore the self. But, it is much less the process of exploration than it is the process of manufacture. The mind is emergent, not existent.

    If we look at the incentives it is a less political religion, because it is a more personal philosophy. We tend to attribute to buddhism less harm, because it is a personal, rather than political philosophy: a reformation of hinduism from the political to the personal.

    But there is no need to reconcile religion and science. We have. History as mythology. Heroes as gods. Politics as ritual. Science as personal philosophy. The participatory civil society so unique to the west. The civil society that our government, like the Chinese government, has actively destroyed by exporting responsibility for society to the bureaucracy.

    Now, it may be that this pagan religion of history, science and reason is focused on the group rather than the self. And it may be that this pagan religion is non-platonic. And it may be that this pagan religion is less INTUITIVE, but equally EMERGENT, and produces superior EXTERNALITIES by focusing human thought on cooperation, rather than introspection.

    It may be that this pagan religion is an aristocratic religion and that the buddhism, like most other religions, must be allegorical because it is not possible for all humans to grasp science and reason.

    It may be that the aristocratic political, and the commoner-introspective, are compatible. But I do not think that the civil society can tolerate it. And I this one of the reasons that buddhism feels more acceptable today to us – we have surrendered the civil society to the state, and become subjects, and can NO LONGER FIND SATISFACTION by participating in the civil society.

    Buddhism is escapism. Powerlessness. Acceptance of the world as it is. It masks the ease of intuitive internal obsession as the excuse not to engage in the difficulty of unintuitive, contemplation. It is so because the individual is indeed POWERLESS in the imperial bureaucratic society. Just as he is POWERFUL in the civil, participatory, society.

    Western man seeks to transform the world to his will. Eastern to accept and conform to the world. This is the fundamental difference between our cultures. They submit. We participate.

    The emergent mind in the practice of science produces the Flynn effect of making us all constantly smarter. And wealthier. And more healthy.

    The reason we are in conflict is that we are both scientifically AND we have surrendered the CIVIL SOCIETY to the BUREAUCRATIC STATE, and as such we seek a new religion, because our real religion CIVIC PARTICIPATION has been taken from us, in order to create worship of the state.

    The state did not kill christianity. Christianity was just ritual. The state killed our civic society.

    If you grasp this the will understand the interrelatedness of our mental models of the world, and the trivial simplicity of the organized religions compared to the CIVIL SOCIETY of the west, which, operating as city states of extended families, created the high trust society, and all the prosperity that came from it.

    – Curt Doolittle. Kiev.

    NOTE

    Allegorical language is the language of deception. It may be the language of self-deception. It may be the language of political deception. But it is the vehicle for deception. Science speaks in operational language so that we cannot so easily engage in deception under the guise of inarticulate language.

    Operational language

    Historical Language

    Allegorical Langauge

    Mystical Language


    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-18 04:25:00 UTC