Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM (meaningful) Most ph

    THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM

    (meaningful)

    Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.

    That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.

    But if propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.

    That means an end to moral intuitionism.

    Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.

    And that is why we need formal logics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 12:44:00 UTC

  • If you want to get rid of mysticism and pseudosciences like freudianism, marxism

    If you want to get rid of mysticism and pseudosciences like freudianism, marxism, scientific socialism, Postmodernism, then you also have to get rid of Continental Philosophy, Cosmopolitan Philosophy, Rights theory, Austrian Economics and Praxeology.

    And if you do that you will also by consequence get rid of mathematical and logical platonism, and the much of cheap mathematical physics.

    That is the price of honest politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-11 09:31:00 UTC

  • Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy

    [I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

  • Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy

    [I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions. Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality. Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods. In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’. Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science. There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    [P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion. The origin of textual interpretation is religion. The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’. Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation. It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works. The purpose of: 1) Operational language 2) Internal Consistency 3) External Correspondence 4) Verification and Falsification …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason. [O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims. The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body. The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

  • WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE? –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given herme

    WHY PSEUDOSCIENCE?

    –“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

    Precisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion.

    The origin of textual interpretation is religion.

    The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’.

    Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation.

    It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works.

    The purpose of:

    1) Operational language

    2) Internal Consistency

    3) External Correspondence

    4) Verification and Falsification

    …is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason.

    Operational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims.

    The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body.

    The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.

    Thanks for the great question. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-07 08:45:00 UTC

  • ARE MORAL PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA AFTER ALL Second anchor quits rather than report P

    http://digg.com/video/video-rt-anchor-quits-on-airTHERE ARE MORAL PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA AFTER ALL

    Second anchor quits rather than report Putin’s propaganda.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-05 17:56:00 UTC

  • GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY I love Hop

    GOOD ECONOMICS AND BAD ECONOMICS / GOOD PHILOSOPHY AND BAD PHILOSOPHY

    I love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions.

    Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality.

    Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods.

    In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’.

    Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science.

    There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:33:00 UTC

  • HOPPE IS WRONG ON POPPER – AND THIS IS WHY. I suspect that at this point Popper

    HOPPE IS WRONG ON POPPER – AND THIS IS WHY.

    I suspect that at this point Popper would suggest that all our attempts at social engineering have failed. And that we should constrain our ambitions to improving the institutions that facilitate economic calculation.

    While Hans attacks Popper for his piecemeal social engineering, the fact of the matter is, that Popper’s philosophical work is the closest to that of Propertarianism yet stated in the Germanic languages.

    I don’t criticize Hans for his imperfections: (a) that private property rights are logically sufficient for the suppression of demand for the state, and (b) that argumentation is not causal, (c) that praxeological statements are a-prioristically deductive, rather than sympathetically testable. Instead, I focus on what he got RIGHT – the incentives of monarchs vs rentiers, and the structure of non-monopolistic formal institutions

    I think we can forgive popper his open door to experimentation, and take from him what we can: that GiVEN THE FRAILTY OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, COERCIVE GOVERNMENT IS NEVER MORAL and never can be.

    Popper’s prohibition on truth claims is a moral one. And given that Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe are all WRONG in the interpretation of truth claims of Praxeology, and the structure of economic science, we’ve simply proven that not only is Popper RIGHT, but Popper has told us how to correct praxeology. Or at least that is how i was able to understand how to correct praxeology.

    Unfortunately, other than Hans it’s not possible to find many libertarians smart enough to have this level of discussion with. And I suspect he won’t appreciate it much. 🙂

    I need to get hans off of this argument. He’s wrong. Plain and simple. Popper is an asset not a liability. The prohibition on piecemeal engineering is one that POPPER gave us, NOT Mises.

    We can never claim to know enough to forcibly use other’s money for theoretical ends. The content in our myths, habits and traditions is also more dense than our understanding of those myths, habits and traditions. We may know how to USE those traditions. But like any complex technology we may not have knowledge of their CONSTRUCTION. And we certainly cannot observe the totality of their externalities – any more than we can observe the totality of the externality of prices.

    That’s Popper’s gift to us. That was Hayek’s gift to us. Hayek and Popper were closer to the answer than Mises – who, by applying Weber and Poincare, correctly understood economic calculation, but failed to grasp that economic science was not a-prioristic, but entirely empirical. He confused our ability to sympathetically test any human action for rational incentives, with the ability to deduce anything meaningful from the necessity for rational action.

    Curt Doolittle

    Propertarianism

    Rescuing liberty from the ethics of the ghetto, one paragraph at a time.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-02 16:53:00 UTC