“NEGATIVE DISCOVERY”
Most philosophers, economists, social scientists are looking for explanations – discoveries that increase our perception of the universe. Unfortunately, I am looking to produce critical results: I want to make it more difficult to lie, deceive, harm, and steal. I want to prevent pseudoscience and postmodernism.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-18 09:08:00 UTC
–“our prophet is sacred to us”– [R]ule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life. As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics. The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts. Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.
–“our prophet is sacred to us”– [R]ule of law is more sacred than our lives. Rule of law requires we speak, and understand the truth, not myth. The reason for the velocity of western advancement in all fields is that we tell the truth whether it hurts or not, whether it offends or not – a man must earn respect by speaking the truth, not myth – rather than receive respect for his folly. Western man has systematically eliminated error from man’s mind by demanding the truth in all walks of life. As a political question then, why does a man have a right to believe false things? We cannot stop him from his beliefs in false things, but we can stop him from spreading his beliefs in false things. We can prevent it from his speech. We can prevent it from his publications. We can prevent it from his commerce, his law, and his politics. The source of western exceptionalism is truth telling – even if it hurts. Muslims living in the west are not given special privilege to escape our most sacred value: truth.
—“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman—“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle
—“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle
—“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle
—“White privilege isn’t just for white people. It’s a privilege to live in a world with us in it.”— Eli Harman—“We tell the truth, seek the truth, trust one another, are worthy of trust, rely on property rights, the jury, the militia, and individual responsibility – all so that the rest of the world doesn’t have to. White privilege is the result of our creating universal good.”— Curt Doolittle
—“Even with all the mistakes we made, we still managed to drag humanity out of mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism and poverty – albeit, kicking and screaming all the way. We shall never be heroes to our debtors. However, we should never apologize for what we have done for man. So, that said, Sorry, no, we’re not sorry. We are sorry that we didn’t save mankind for mysticism, ignorance, illness, despotism, and poverty, earlier, faster, or better. But I am not, we are not, sorry for having done so, and reaping the benefits of doing it, and continuing to do it.”—Curt Doolittle
—“Privilege is earned by a people enforcing high costs on its members. Abandoning mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism, and admit to yourself the truth of the failure of your culture to achieve the same – is a very high cost. You can have the privilege of white people too, if you abandon your mysticism, deceit, cheating, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, dual ethics, tribalism, familialism, magic, ignorance, certainty, justification, unearned status, hierarchy and despotism. “—Curt Doolittle
(the importance of the work)
[I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.
But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.
The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.
A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).
All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.
I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.
But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.
And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.
***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***
So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
—–
[1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).
(the importance of the work)
[I] realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.
But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.
The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.
A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).
All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.
I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.
But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.
And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.
***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***
So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
—–
[1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba : You’re right. Once one just attacks justification, it all comes together much more neatly.
Thank you. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-16 04:11:00 UTC
I’M SORRY THAT MY INQUIRY INTO TRUTH ISN’T THAT INTERESTING. 🙂
(the importance of the work)
I realize that I have spent a lot of time over the past twelve months on Truth. And that this appears (falsely) to be a rat-hole, that is not as interesting as attacking the argumentative follies of the political extremes.
But I am working at an institutional solution to the restoration of truth telling and suppressing the problem of intentional deception and ignorance, and acting as a vector for deception and ignorance. This hasn’t been done before. It’s hard work.
The degree to which we justify our investment in ‘meaning’ and justify our reproductive (moral) biases was something that I wasn’t prepared for. Nor was the level of sophistication that can be accomplished by using ‘meaning’ as a means of manufacturing ignorance.
A rationalist says “but it’s useful for understanding” (a justification). A mathematician says “but it works” (a justification). A logician says “but it largely works” (a justification). A lawyer says “but we have tradition” (a justification). A politician says “The people will not understand that” (a justification). An economist says “We try only to solve this problem, not that one” (a justification). A physicist says “that’s unscientific”, without understanding what the ethics of science demand of him, and why (a justification).
All of these justifications (fallacies) manufacture ignorance. All of them impede truth. They provide incentive to continue to justify what we know, rather than reform what we know. Over time they calcify by the mere accumulation of the cost of learning an alternative: transaction costs and conformity costs.
I think this specializing at justification is the underlying reason that civilizations calcify and fail.
But even if that problem is farther out than the one we face today, prohibiting deception in economics, politics(government) and law, so that the people who speak the truth may prosper, dragging humanity along with them, is still the central problem that I face.
And to institutionally expand prohibition on immoral action (negative externalities) thereby increasing transaction (and conformity) costs[1], on an activity that is currently assumed to be harmless (free of negative externality), and expanding that prohibition by law, requires that we have some criteria sufficient to test statements for due diligence against the production of that externality – even if the cost of producing that common (the truth) requires all of us pay costs in both material, intellectual, and of forgone opportunities.
***That sufficiency consists of due diligence and warranty, where the form of due diligence was discovered by scientists, and while inarticulately expressed, requires not just internal consistency, external consistency and the 20th century innovation: the requirement for falsification, but the 21st century innovation: the requirements for operational definitions as proof of existential possibility and the requirement for moral constraint: free of imposed costs that we call negative externalities – stated positively as a requirement for productive, diligent(truthfully stated), fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of all negative externality under the same recursive criterion.***
So that is why I must solve the problem of truth, uniting law, morality, philosophy, science and economics into a single system of thought: the art of truth telling, the means of due diligence, and the provision of warranty to our testimony to the jury of our peers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Lviv Ukraine
—–
[1] Technically speaking a transaction costs (material), opportunity costs(consequences), forgone opportunity costs (norms) and conformity costs(psychological and behavioral costs), are categorized differently – however, I tend to suggest that emphasis on the form of cost is a means of imposing value judgements on what are merely ‘costs’. As such I tend to use ‘transaction cost’ similar to ‘information’: that which is necessary to change state, regardless of whether the cost is material(physical property), physical(body, action and time), or mental(psychological).
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-16 04:09:00 UTC
i don’t feel well, but today, i made sort of accidental progress on the use of meaning, analogy and conflation as sources of ignorance. if it weren’t for all these well intentioned folks trying to justify meaning and allegory, despite their scientific bias, i wouldn’t get anywhere given the literature.
Source date (UTC): 2015-01-15 17:03:00 UTC