Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • SCIENCE AND THE THEORY OF ACTION : ACTIONS DEMARCATE THE REAL FROM THE UNREAL In

    SCIENCE AND THE THEORY OF ACTION : ACTIONS DEMARCATE THE REAL FROM THE UNREAL

    In praxeology, if statements cannot be expressed as human actions that are open to sympathetic testing of the rationality of incentives then the statements are not ‘scientific’.

    OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS: (Operationalism) Operational definitions are definitions of theoretical constructs that are stated in terms of concrete, observable procedures (Actions). Operational definitions solve the problem of what is not directly observable by connecting unobservable traits or experiences to things that can be observed. Operational definitions make the unobservable observable. ( the concepts or terms used in nonanalytic scientific statements must be definable in terms of identifiable and repeatable operations.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 12:34:00 UTC

  • The Problem Of Competence – The Value Of Critical Rationalism : Skeptical Empiricism, Or What We Call ‘Science’.

    [T]hose who try to master fields usually end up with the Socratic opinion that ‘I don’t know anything (for certain)’. We have simply collected large sets of examples that we know do not work. But this knowledge informs us. If we cannot know much of anything, then why would we create a political system that depends upon our presumption of knowledge? I’m trying to create a political model that facilitates the presumption that we know nothing, and that people will remain desperately imperfect with fragile virtues, rather than assumes that we know anything at all, and can create a system, or people who are indeed virtuous. The scientific method, under critical rationalism bothers me a bit, and I’d like to be sure that Skeptical Empiricism isn’t an improvement on it. But in the balance between science and reason, science appears to win hands down. In the battle between critical rationalism and positivism, critical rationalism wins hands down. Despite the Krugman-DeLong Liberal fantasy that the quantitative measures are in deed measures of what they assume, rather than the noise created as England and America have violently imposed anglo universalism under ‘free trade’ around the world. This is particularly troubling because free trade benefits the most advanced technologist. It is not ‘fair’, it simply produces a virtuous cycle. But it is not a natural cycle, and it’s only possible to enforce as long as anglo culture and institutions are supported by anglo-american (cum Roman) military power. This cannot be sustainable – on purely demographic grounds. [S]o Keynesian noise is not signal. It is just a selection bias that favors Leftist Dunning Kruegerists like Krugman, DeLong, Stiglitz and Thoma. At least, that’s my working hypothesis.

  • TO RETURN CARBON LEVELS TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pIHOW TO RETURN CARBON LEVELS TO PRE-INDUSTRIAL LEVELS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT TAX SCHEMES, OR THE REDUCTION OF CONSUMPTION?

    This is how. The socialists are always wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 10:41:00 UTC

  • NOT THAT I REALLY LIKE METAPHYSICS But in my quest for demarcation between scien

    NOT THAT I REALLY LIKE METAPHYSICS

    But in my quest for demarcation between science and logic: is there any argument for existence independent of time, or is any representation of real world phenomenon time-dependent?

    I mean, logic is not time dependent, and by definition represents states to which we add time and measure change.

    We cannot perceive the long or short without altering time. THis is the value of high speed photography which reduces the unobservable to the observable, and measurement, which reduces the unobservable to analogy.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-21 08:00:00 UTC

  • VIRGINITY AND IQ (For Fun)

    VIRGINITY AND IQ

    (For Fun)

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10882-005-3686-3

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-18 07:16:00 UTC

  • NAIL IN THE POSTMODERNIST COFFIN : BREEDING (Profound) People are mammals. Breed

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2013155a.htmlANOTHER NAIL IN THE POSTMODERNIST COFFIN : BREEDING

    (Profound)

    People are mammals.

    Breeding people is no different from breeding dogs. We inherit our traits. Positive and negative.

    Assortive mating (breeding) reinforces traits good and bad and prevents natural regression toward the mean.

    Inbreeding (cousin marriage in pakistanis, inbreeding in ashkenazi jews) prevents genetic cure of diseases and defects, and instead replicates those traits. Likewise excessive outbreeding regresses the gene pool toward the mean again.

    Assortive mating, intra-class breeding, and natural rotation of elites, produce concentrations of talents while supressing undesirable traits.

    Our races are analogous to breeds. Our classes also.

    The distribution of traits matters because status signals, selection, and cooperation, as well as genetic preference, are higher in group than out group. This is a near universal human bias. Humans act this way no matter what we do.

    The market is society. We are all the same value as customers. We must all have the same value before the law.

    But we are not all the same value as coworkers, family members or mates. And we are not the same value to humanity either in contribution or genes.

    Humans began speciating upon exit of Africa. We were so successful that the speciation was incomplete. We are merely exaggerated breeds. Under mobile populations, industrialization, and consumer capitalism we have, as have the hindus, begun the process of speciating by class.

    This matters because it requires a sufficient percentage of any population to both possess an iq greater than 105 in order for a division of knowledge and labor to form under contractual complexity, and for corruption to diminish sufficiently. It also appears that the Pareto rule is not possible to alter, because the majority of assets must be under the control of this more talented group.

    A free society then, in the libertarian sense, can only exist in a population of males where 80% of the resources are in hands of those 20% with iq over 105 and there is no opportunity to overturn the allocation of property rights by political means. (Natural Aristocracy).

    Or, egalitarian freedom can exist only where the numerical majority’s iq is over 105. (Enlightenment England, 20th century ashkenazim, east asia), And where that majority has political control, and that majority is prohibited from cousin marriage long enough that private property becomes a normative and trust evolves into the extra familial. It also means states must be small, homogenous nation states.

    Freedom then is a ‘perfect storm’. Thats why its unique to the west, and high trust society is unique to the Small Arc from England to Switzerland.

    POSITION

    this doesn’t mean we return to the past. It does mean that we cannot have any future we choose because it is constrained by these necessities.

    It means:

    Redistribution as calculated by income, without constraining reproduction forces genetic, legal, and normative regression toward the mean.

    Immigration outside of culture and gene pool is limited to that which integrates successfully.

    The goal for any society should not be downward reproduction but encouragement and funding of reproduction in the middle and upper middle classes. And improvement in the quality of life of the lower classes as long as they adhere to a one child policy.

    Time will take care of the rest.

    http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2013155a.html

    QUOTE:

    “Another difference between inbreeding and assortative mating is that the effects of inbreeding are expected to be negative, lowering cognitive ability, whereas the effects of assortative mating affect the high, as well as the low end of the ability distribution, thus increasing genetic bariance, that is, when high-ability parents mate assortatively, their children are more likely to be homozygous for variants for high ability, just as offspring of low-ability parents are more likely to be homozygous for variants for low ability….”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-18 07:02:00 UTC

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • Logic, Praxeology And Science: Dependency And Demarcation. Reforming Libertarianism By Incorporating Scientific Argument Rather Than Relying On The Purely Rational

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL [T]hose three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each? Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses. I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives. WHY DOES THIS MATTER I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other. Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful. Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak. Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology. [W]hat I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one. In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy. Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait. Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.) We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments. And that is what I’m trying to do.

  • LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIAN

    LOGIC, PRAXEOLOGY AND SCIENCE: DEPENDENCY AND DEMARCATION. REFORMING LIBERTARIANISM BY INCORPORATING SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT RATHER THAN RELYING ON THE PURELY RATIONAL

    Those three terms, Logic, Praxeology, and Science describe a spectrum. But what is the point of demarcation between each?

    Which of these domains is capable of testing which category of problems, and what constraints does any domain place upon the others, given that each is open to error, and requires the other to test its hypotheses.

    I’ve been working on this problem now for quite some time, and have almost got my arms around how to talk about it praxeologically: as observable human action: and therefore a test of possibility, rational choice and incentives.

    WHY DOES THIS MATTER

    I have, I think, reformed the concepts of property and morality, but I can’t reform the system of thought that we call libertarian political theory without reforming the distinction between logic (unobservable, internally testable), praxeology (observable and subjectively testable), and science (unobservable, and objectively & externally testable.) That work may have been done somewhere but I haven’t found it yet. And I have a very hard time slogging my way through metaphysical assumptions and highly loaded vocabulary of both logicians on one end and rationalists on the other.

    Current libertarian (Rothbardian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I’ve tried to systematically falsify each of them – there are only a handful really. And I think I have been successful.

    Current progressive (Rawlsian) ethics rely upon very weak rational arguments. I think that I can falsify that argument without much difficulty. Veil of ignorance being a logical fallacy so to speak.

    Conservatives don’t have an argument, so I have to explain their implied argument in libertarian terminology.

    What I find most interesting, from our perspective, as libertarians, is that we acknowledge that the common law is an organic process, and it functions because it must be digestible and applicable by ordinary people in juries. We understand that the english built an empirical society, not a rational one. And that the French took the british concept of liberty and made it into a rational one. Then the germans have tried, and continue to, make it a spiritual one.

    In other words, Rothbard’s arguments, and one of hoppe’s (his only weak one) rely on rationalism rather than empiricism. And while praxeology may be a test, and while reason may be a test, the purpose of empirical analysis is to extend our senses, and reduce what we cannot sense to analogies that we can perceive by proxy.

    Now, prior generations had to suffer with the limited tool of Rational argument, because they didn’t have data, and the socialistic system of central control produces data on short periodicity, and can justify itself with that data. While the libertarian and conservative argument is that the externalities produced outweigh the short term benefits. But we have to WAIT for our data, and therefore socialistic arguments gather momentum in and civic behavior alters while we wait.

    Thankfully we have data now. Our rational arguments were correct. The conservative arguments look like they are correct too. The only progressive argument we are unsure about at present is whether or not fiat money itself can function in a positive fashion, under some as yet undefined circumstance. (We argue that it can’t, out of hand, on rational grounds, but I’m not sure we can prove that there aren’t holes in our reason sufficient to undermine our position.)

    We are lucky. Time has passed. We’ve learned more than our preceding generations had available to learn. And as such we can debate and restate libertarian theory using scientific rather than rational arguments.

    And that is what I’m trying to do.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-16 05:23:00 UTC

  • little simple but it gets the point across. Computationally, it’s really hard to

    http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/dimensions.gifA little simple but it gets the point across. Computationally, it’s really hard to be smarter than we are. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-07-14 11:29:00 UTC