Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 14:20:00 UTC
Theme: Truth
-
“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuabl
—“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—�Moritz Bierling�
GREAT QUESTION. THANKS.
It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it.
What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.
POPPER
Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable.
He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’.
Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these:
1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses)
2) Critical Rationalism: we can
3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability.
4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test
5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means.
BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEM
Unempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done.
Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability.
Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it.
Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass.
Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property.
Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice)
Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is:
Perception(random) ->
…Free association (searching) ->
……Hypothesis (wayfinding) ->
………Criticism(test – individual investment) ->
…………Theory (recipe/route) ->
……………Social Criticism (common investment) ->
………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) ->
…………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) ->
……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure )
This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections:
1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity)
2 – Question(Problem)
3 – Iterative Criticism(test)
………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis
………..criticism / theory / use
………..testing / law general use
………..recognition / survival
………..identity / tautology
The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”)
– categorical consistency (identity)
– internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets)
– external consistency (empirical correspondence)
– existential consistency (existential possibility)
– moral consistency (symmetric non imposition)
– scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)
If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites:
– error in its many forms
– bias – wishful thinking in its many forms.
– suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting
– obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading
– lying and deceit in their many forms.
SUMMARY
So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give.
The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure.
Which kind of floored me actually.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 07:25:00 UTC
-
A PHILOSOPHER INQUIRES FOR FALSEHOOD, A PROPERTARIAN INQUIRES FOR THEFT. In most
A PHILOSOPHER INQUIRES FOR FALSEHOOD, A PROPERTARIAN INQUIRES FOR THEFT.
In most arguments it is a given that they are false. Instead, seek not to prove the leftists false, but seek to prove them thieves.
Then respond with, why are you not willing to trade with me? Why must you lie and steal from me?
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 06:32:00 UTC
-
‘”What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the wel
—‘”What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.”—
What is truth? Testimony
What is law? Decidability
It’s not that difficult if you speak operationally (in actions) rather than platonically (in meanings)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 01:21:00 UTC
-
ISN”T A PRIORISM A TRIVIAL CASE? (test post) —“Curt Doolittle said “… and th
ISN”T A PRIORISM A TRIVIAL CASE?
(test post)
—“Curt Doolittle said “… and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rather than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call the scientific method …”—
—“I’d like to hear more about this. With what people call ‘a priori propositions,’ I cannot even conceive of a world in which they are false; they’re logically necessary. With what are called ‘a posteriori propositions,’ I can imagine a possible world in which they are false; they are logically contingent. Are you saying that logically necessary propositions are also known to be true by way of experience?”— Ulysses Aaron Cartwright :
Great question.
We can have this discussion most easily by :
– Examining cases of tautology -> non contradiction > correspondence -> correlation -> analogy
– Just like we can with tautology-> deduction -> induction -> abduction -> guess
– Just as we can with tautology -> law -> theory -> hypothesis -> free association
– Just as we can with naming -> counting -> Arithmetic -> accounting -> Geometry -> and calculus;
– Just as we can with all other dimensional criticisms of the epistemological spectrum.
But I sense that by merely enumerating this subset of spectra that you can see that statements claimed to be apriori are just reductio instances of informational-coincidence as much as are those of prime numbers.
Such statements exist as prime numbers exist but they are merely a simplistic subset expressive in common language as are prime numbers an artifact of the base number system.
There is but one epistemological method for all of mankind.
*Free association->hypothesis->theory->law->tautology.*
When criticizing any statement we have a number of dimensions we can test.
1- Categorical consistency (identity)
2 – Internal consistency (logic)
3 – External consistency (correspondence)
4 – Existential Consistency (operational language)
5 – Moral consistency (rational reciprocal volution)
6 – And scope consistency. (full accounting, limits, parsimony)
We can express theories in any of these dimensions using the language of the method of testing that dimension.
We can also see if statements that survive in a lower dimension still survive in a higher dimension.
In the case of apriori statements they rarely survive scope consistency. In other words, they are often not false but they are also often in-actionable. [1]
This is an example of the difference between ‘meaningful'(creating associations, communicating) and ‘true’ (parsimony, criticism).
If we take a case by case non-trivial study, then it is unclear whether we are saying something meaningful (educational) or something critical (parsimoniously descriptive).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
[1] I usually use the examples: (i) neutrality of money (ii) minimum wages increase unemployment, (iii) the unpredictability of gasses (iv) the scope of newton’s laws.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 14:22:00 UTC
-
WE ARE THE MEN OF THE WEST We hold formation despite our fear. We speak the trut
WE ARE THE MEN OF THE WEST
We hold formation despite our fear.
We speak the truth regardless of cost.
We attack the enemy despite our injuries.
And we will not rest until they are defeated.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 13:48:00 UTC
-
Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—
—“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—
[I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.
Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).
When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.
We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.
So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.
Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.
Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.
So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.
There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).
I hope this provided the answer you sought.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy or Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute -
Q&A: —“Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?”—
—“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”—
[I] don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection.
Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice).
When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract.
We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive.
So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe.
Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”.
Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us.
So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest.
There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads).
I hope this provided the answer you sought.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy or Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute -
So I am tolerant of class signals, and merely intolerant of fallacy and disutili
So I am tolerant of class signals, and merely intolerant of fallacy and disutility. Each class has it’s sacred cows. But they must be slain
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 06:43:00 UTC
-
NOT BAD – BEFORE LUNCH – REPOSITIONING So today I have discussed repositioning e
NOT BAD – BEFORE LUNCH – REPOSITIONING
So today I have discussed repositioning economics as social science, and social science as pseudoscience. And repositioning philosophy as positive aspirational literature of rationalist priests, and negative critical law, of empirical judges.
This mirrors the epistemological method of creative free association to arrive at hypothesis, and criticism to test theories in the hope of discovering laws from that survives.
This mirrors the moral method of doing unto others as we would like done unto us(aspirational), and not doing unto others that which we would not want done unto us (critical).
Economics is merely the method by which we voluntarily cooperate in order to accumulate and use the knowledge from all individuals across the reproductive spectrum.
But it ignores the three roles of Negative force, neutral exchange, Positive advocacy.
Ergo: Women’s Dreams, Brother’s Trades, Father’s Limits.
Yin(female) and Yang(male) do not balance in static harmony. We move through time in a continuous process of discovery. It is this difference that separated static east from dynamic west.
Lover, warrior, judge, King <—> Queen, teacher, mother, lover.
……………………………………….|
………………………………………V
…………………..Brother, Partner, Maker, Trader……
Not bad work to accomplish before lunch. 😉
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 06:19:00 UTC