My answer to What is the difference between an ideology and a belief? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-ideology-and-a-belief/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=0e8d0fca
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-22 01:55:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976638504791834624
There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)
(No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)
Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.
In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepest-philosophical-concept-you-have-come-by
The Correct Answer
There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.
Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.
Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.
I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.
There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics
There actually aren’t any that are also true. (Really)
(No. Really. We produce “Wisdom Literature” in , mythological, theological, rational, historical, and scientific grammars: meaning rules of continuous disambiguation including disambiguation by permissible paradigms (vocabulary).)
Science produces humiliatingly parsimonious knowledge – and all of the universe and our experience in it can be explained as one continuous set of consequences from a few very simple causes.
In my study of history the number of truths is extremely small, all are knowable, and the number of falsehoods that we have invented to circumvent thought, emotion, and action that correspond with those truths is more numerous than the number of humans.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-deepest-philosophical-concept-you-have-come-by
The Correct Answer
There are two branches of Austrian Economics, the first being Mengerian (Christian) and the second being Misesian (Jewish). The Mengerian revolution gave us marginalism, and marginalism has been fully integrated into economics.
Mises discovered in economics, what Brouwer did in mathematics, and Bridgman did in physics, and others did later in grammar: Operationalism.
Unfortunately he was a the opposite of a scientist, a poor mathematician, a worse philosopher, and he produce ‘praxeology’ as a positive pseudoscience, rather than identifying operationalism in economics as a means of falsification.
I have written extensively on the Misesian Failure, and the Rothbardian exacerbation of that failure, and how Rothbardianism attempted to conflate eastern european anarchism with western european rule of law.
There are only a few questions that separate the Jewish Austrians (Misesian-Rothbardians) from the Mainstream that has fully incorporated Austrian (Mengerian) economics.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-epistemology-of-Austrian-economics
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-ideology-and-a-belief/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=0e8d0fca&srid=u4Qv**Terrible answers. Here is the correct one.**
**Belief and Faith**, because of our theological heritage have been conflated quite intentionally. So we have to deconflate (disambiguate) them before we can answer the question.
A **belief** or **reported preference** refers to that which you report (state) that you understand to be True, and honestly think you will or do, act as if is True. (whether or not you actually act as such is something different.)
A **demonstrated preference ** refers to what we do regardless of what we believe, say we believe. This is why social sciences and psychology were pseudosciences and economics was necessary to stop them from spreading pseudoscience: people demonstrate preferences when they vote or purchase things, and they report, and say they believe very differently from how they vote or purchase. Hence we use only indirectly produced information to test people’s demonstrated preferences, and nearly all surveys are to large part meaningless on anything that someone would virtue signal (Google “Virtue Signaling”).
An article of **Faith** requires we preserve belief (act as if true) something that is contrary to the evidence in order to preserve the value of acting in accordance with Wisdom Literature in order to achieve desirable ends, even when we don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect. In economic terms faith allows us to buy cheap options on achieving a personal or collective good, and renders one’s plans and actions invulnerable to rational and scientific persuasion. That is their value. It turns out that faith in others is the optimum strategy for producing high trust cooperation. That was just a theory until we proved it in the past century.
An **ideology** functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. Ideologies need not be rational or consistent, and are less vulnerable to criticism if they are not. Ideology is the result of our change to (limited) democracy.
A **philosophy** provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. The domain of philosophy is individual preferences, and interpersonal good.
A **logic** provides a grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) for the testing
(criticism) of sets of constant relations for internal consistency between two or more states (falsification by competition).
All disciplinary languages (grammars) from math to logic, to programming, to contract language, to common language, to fiction (and even ficitonalisms – meaning pseudoscience, and theology) consist of variations in the rules of grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), including variations in permissible vocabulary (paradigms).
A **science** provides a formal process and makes use of instrumentation for the use of measurements for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the falsification (passage of testing) of *categorical consistency, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, scope completeness, limits, and parsimony.* If the science is a social science it must also include *tests of rational choice given available knowledge and incentives (rationality),* and if a matter of law*, tests of voluntary reciprocity (morality)*
As far as I know this is the ‘state of the art’ set of definitions.
Curt Doolittle,
The Propertarian Institute,
Kiev, Ukraine.
READING
Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction. (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Introduction-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230367259)
Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political StrugglesUpdated Mar 21, 2018, 9:55 PM
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 21:55:00 UTC
I lost a good follower today. Because I stated the truth as I understand it. It’s too bad. This will always be a problem. I have no way around it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 13:09:00 UTC
As a contrary point of reference:
I write entirely for free, and it is one of the principle reasons why I can write honestly and truthfully and without reservation on very controversial subjects: I have no malincentives to avoid.
As far as I can tell, within a generation, the creative commons license will replace copyright, and in the interim the possibility of profiting from writing other than by winning the lottery of a script, will continue to decline. (And that market is rapidly declining).
Even today, the primary output of paid work consists of little more than gossip within some tiny market for signal-information.
In other words, as each of us travels along our journey, we seek gossip from others passing through the same frame as a means of confirming the virtue of our choices.
The human world is very simple.
The consequence of free information easily published and easily found, is the rapid falsification of the multitude of narratives, and we are not very far from collectively understanding that there exist as few as a thousand ideas and all of them are comprehensible.
The only issue the mirror.
We don’t always like the reflection.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 12:25:00 UTC
The opposition to fictionalism in education will be met with (and I meet with daily) the same opposition as the transformation from Mythology to History, and Theology to empiricism. I understand that. I understand how badly we cling to the loaded frames of our childhood.
That places no bearing whatsoever on the value obtained by each prior transformation from intuition and suggestion to calculation and reason.
Sorry. And history will prove me right.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 11:06:00 UTC
Truth isn’t kind. It isn’t pleasant. If you want kind or pleasant go find your mommy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-21 10:36:00 UTC