Theme: Truth

  • [Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obt

    —[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.— Unknown via “Tricky Prickears”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 03:45:00 UTC

  • SOMETHING MAY BE USEFUL BUT IT MAY NOT BE TRUE Many utilitarian concepts are con

    SOMETHING MAY BE USEFUL BUT IT MAY NOT BE TRUE

    Many utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 16:35:00 UTC

  • SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM? —“The easiest way to look like (and be) the smartest

    SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM?

    —“The easiest way to look like (and be) the smartest guy in the room is ask the questions a reporter is supposed to ask (but seldom does these days.) Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? Easy peasy, I’ve been doin’ it for decades.”— Glenn R. Tankersley

    Smart.

    Me, I follow incentives, and ask why anyone would do such a thing. People don’t do what they should. They do what they have the incentives to do. Getting stuff done is largely crafting the incentives needed by people who need to do things.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-04 14:50:00 UTC

  • Just Because It's Useful Doesn't Mean It's True

    [M]any utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.

  • Just Because It's Useful Doesn't Mean It's True

    [M]any utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.

  • Just Because It’s Useful Doesn’t Mean It’s True

    [M]any utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.

  • Just Because It’s Useful Doesn’t Mean It’s True

    [M]any utilitarian concepts are convenient, but not true. Most untrue things produce negative externalities. Most negative externalities cause others harm. Small things in large numbers produce vast consequences.

  • TO BOETTKE ON HAYEK AND MISES’ FAILURES Peter, I have spent years on this questi

    TO BOETTKE ON HAYEK AND MISES’ FAILURES

    Peter,

    I have spent years on this question and I am fairly certain now that Mises’ work, like Bridgman’s was an unsuccessful attempt at developing operationalism.

    Both Mises and Popper can best be understood as cosmopolitan intellectuals bringing their pseudoscientific allegorical culture to their work, just as Kant brought continental duty and authority to his – both rebelling against anglo empiricism.

    Hayek could not solve the problem of the social sciences either. He correctly intuits that the problem exists, but he can only offer us laments, criticisms, and classical liberal solutions. Unfortunately he did not have decades of computer science to provide him with an alternative conceptual framework and terminology to replace his classical liberalism and moral psychology.

    Post mainstream economists cannot yet solve the relationship between mathematics, logic, ethics and economics. And Austrians should have. But the sad state of our ranks and the distraction of philosophers by the marxist, socialist, and postmodern programs misallocated intellectual capital in pursuit of the impossible. So when hayek says the 20th century will be remembered as an era of reemergent mysticism, he only knows something is wrong : endemic pseudoscience – but he does not know why or how to fix it.

    He was a herald and a critic but he did not solve it. So did Poincare, Mandelbrot, Bridgman, the mathematical Intuitionists. So did mises.

    The interesting insight that I have only recently understood, is that the ither disciplines succeeded but their scope was narrower than that of economics. And had mises not failed. Had popper not failed. Had Hayek not failed, then the missing argument would have been available to the less complicated fields of math, logic and science, as well as economics.

    The insight that the only truth that can exist is performative, and the only possible claim to sufficient knowledge necessary to make a truth claim, is the demonstration if construction by operational means and measures. Ie: the problem is ethical.

    I am fairly certain now, that I have solved that mussing bit -by accident. And that the necessary insights exist in the multiple attempts at articulating operationalism in multiple fields – thereby solving, finally, the nature and definition of truth.

    This allows us to repair praxeology as an empirical research program whose theoretical constructs are reducible to operational statements, each of which is sympathetically testable by human perception, as to the rationality and volition of those statements. Ie: truth.

    Mises was too much on a mission, too arrogant, too culturally biased, and too ignorant of mathematics, science and philosophy to solve the problem. But he came closer than anyone else had to date.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-30 06:55:00 UTC

  • “if one can demonstrate construction then all further expansions will consist of

    —“if one can demonstrate construction then all further expansions will consist of increases in precision, not declarations of falsehood.”—-

    I am pretty sure this is correct. But, how do I test it? Need to talk to Mokyr…..


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 23:14:00 UTC

  • Knowledge of change in state (awareness) Knowledge of correlation between cause

    Knowledge of change in state (awareness)

    Knowledge of correlation between cause and effect (knowledge of use) (hypothesis)

    Knowledge of causality (knowledge of construction) (truth)

    Knowledge of Increases in precision (increase in parsimony and explanatory power)

    Knowledge of the limit of marginal indifference ( ultimate truth ) The point at which the question must change in order for the theory to change.

    I am aware of it.

    It’s over there somewhere.

    I can reach it today

    I’s N paces away

    It’s X feet away.

    It’s Y * 10^Zth mm away.

    It’s L light seconds away.

    Precision is determined by context, and so the theory above, of the location of whatever I am aware of, is never false.

    Achilles always passes the tortoise (marginal indifference)

    You always can get close enough moving halfway across the couch, to obtain a kiss. (marginal indifference)

    Buridan’s Ass always can make a choice (and so can we – information is always available).

    No case of infinity exists (only cases of arbitrary precision)

    Not enough ‘marginal indifference’ in math.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-29 08:42:00 UTC