RATIONALISM PROVIDES A VECTOR FOR THE LIES OF LIARS
—“The most troubling thing about rationalism, is that it does not help correct those people who are telling lies, but who are not desirous of lying. As such rationalism, like religious mythos, functions as a vector for lying. One can perpetuate a lie through argument without understanding that he is lying – lying on behalf of others, but lying none the less. And entirely unaware of it.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 10:57:00 UTC
RATIONALISM: THE LANGUAGE OF LIARS?
(from elsewhere)
—“The data suggests that the only reason to rely upon rationalism is to lie. That is because most liars rely upon rationalism. The reason scientists rely upon the truth telling method (more accurately as empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism, and testimonial truth), is because it is harder to err, bias and lie. So if any given argument can be conducted both in the language of liars, and in in the language of truth tellers, then why would one defend use of the language of liars? Why would anyone rely upon rationalism except to lie?”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-23 10:54:00 UTC
GETTING CLOSER TO CORRECTING THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS
—“We can only know when we speak falsehoods. We cannot know when we speak the truth. Therefore all we can ever do is testify truthfully. And we can only testify truthfully, even if we desire to, by operational description, because we ourselves are the victims of error, bias, wishful thinking, habit, and deception. So to speak truthfully is only possible if we limit ourselves to operational actions and measures. This does not convey ‘meaning’ which is what others often desire. We can either leave the derivation of meaning to others, or we can construct the meaning by way of analogy. The problem is, that when we construct an analogy, we must add information external to the facts. To convey meaning is not to convey the truth. One can convey meaning by analogy, but then one must provide operational descriptions in order to prove that one has not erred, biased, imagined, or lied. This argument, is the simplest reduction that I know of for the arguments of the intuitionists(mathematics), Operationists (psychology), and Operationalists (physics), and Praxeologists (economics). It is a moral restatement of the mathematical argument for the requirement of Reverse Russian Mathematics in order to make a truth claim. Speaking truthfully is merely a matter of whether we can testify to their existential possibility of their construction as well as the theory’s existential correspondence with demonstrable reality .”—
I think that when I was arguing with critical rationalists earlier in the year, I could not distill this argument down this far. Neither Poppers ‘meaning’ nor David’s formal logic solve this problem. As such I stipulate that this is the correct solution to the critical rationalist problem, and that as Alex has argued, popper was a cosmopolitan, and he was a victim of the vast legacy of cosmopolitan errors. He was half right but he was not right enough.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 11:23:00 UTC
–“Truth defeats gossip, operationalism defeats obscurantism, testimony defeats platonism, but only declaring the normative commons as shareholder property rights allow us to punish the use of gossip, obscurantism and platonism; and only punishment for such thefts provides an incentive against their use.”–
Punish evil.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 10:12:00 UTC
If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to experience), then how can we convince people that something that they cannot intuit is in fact moral…… How the hell do we solve this problem…
If one is intuitively immoral (as it appears the majority are) then, then how is any argument able to persuade?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:59:00 UTC
I just realized, that Oversing is an enormous elaborate lie detector….. wow. What does that mean?
(I mean… is that what I was doing all along… for years, and never knew it? Just by following my intuitions?)
fuk… I’m going to add a specific gossip metric…. or maybe we’ll add heavy weight to gossip in the Soft Skills, by creating a negative weight? Yes. Negatives…. Yep.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 20:40:00 UTC
TRUTH IS ENOUGH: ARGUMENTATIVE FRAGMENTS
Over the past day, I have accumulated the following posts, started by Michael Phillip’s excellent short piece on the persistence of marxism, but which taken together compose an argument: That we pursue status signals by the use of verbal justification; that very bright people use their intelligence to signal; that this cognitive bias promotes immorality; and that there is but one cure for our cognitive bias: truthful speech; and that truthful speech is only possible to conduct operationally; and that truthful speech is the necessary and sufficient criteria for constructing a moral polity; where morality is defined as avoidance of breaking the incentives to cooperate, by the total prohibition upon free riding.
Immorality is a Competitive Advantage
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10152813033212264
The Incentives Of Marxists
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10152808947787264
Education Makes one Cunning but Not Moral
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10152812455752264
What Must A Moral Man Do?
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10152813014372264
My Own Bias for Truth Telling As Conflict Suppression (Gene Machine’s and Unconscious Justification)
https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10152813003142264
BUT THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MISSING FROM THE LIST:
1) That arguing truthfully is merely tedious, and burdensome, not difficult. It is moral, not cunning.
***2) it is logically impossible pursue a cunning moral strategy, and it is ONLY Possible to pursue a moral society using Propertarianism and Aristocratic Egalitarianism.***
This last statement is profound. I have merely captured in scientific and modern language the ancient aristocratic egalitarian practice that we have developed for as much as 8000 years, but certainly no less that 4000. I am the first to do it. And the only reason I could do it was because science gave us the tools that were unavailable to previous generations.
***THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH***
It has been, and is, and it always will be.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 07:22:00 UTC
IF YOU CANNOT CONVINCE OTHERS, WHAT MUST YOU DO?
Suppress their Propaganda.
Defeat their arguments.
Punish them for their lies.
Speak the truth.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 02:29:00 UTC
WHY DO WE LET THEM LIE TO US?
They lied to us and they taught us to lie. But why were we weak? What made warriors into gullible victims? Why did the cosmopolitan lies, and the lies of the christians, succeed? Why could we not resist the christian lies, the cosmopolitan pseudoscientific lies, and the socialist, postmodern and feminist lies?
(Altruism. Trust. Our Respect for the Commons.)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 04:55:00 UTC
TABOOS
You know, I look at investigating taboos as intellectual honesty. And I know that makes people a little frustrated with me. But I have to fully explore the intellectual taboos to understand their CONSTRUCTION. So, I don’t think it’s wise to avoid these subjects, as much as it is to understand how and why they are constructed so that we can develop arguments and institutions that solve the REAL PROBLEMS that taboo subjects (ideas, biases, norms) evolved to counter. You cannot solve something by pretending it’s false, or avoiding it because it’s undesirable.
Sometimes you just need to get in there and get your hands dirty.
(Reminds me of that woman who dissects beached whales and can’t get the small off of her for a few weeks afterward… lol).
Most taboos exist for reasons. Good reasons. Most stereotypes are true. That does not mean we should not understand them so that we can find institutional solutions that allow us to replace A-RATIONAL taboos, with rational institutions.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-15 05:53:00 UTC