TALEB AND DOOLITTLE (worth repeating) And Taleb is the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist, Boasian, Freudian, Frankfurt School, Postmodern pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism. And there are very few of us working on ending the 19th-20th century’s experiment with ‘new mysticism’. Taleb = truth in probability. (anti-innumeracy – numbers ) Doolittle = Truth is testimony. (anti-fictionalism – words )
Theme: Truth
-
Taleb and Doolittle
TALEB AND DOOLITTLE (worth repeating) And Taleb is the counter to Keynesian Probabilism, the same way I am counter to Marxist, Boasian, Freudian, Frankfurt School, Postmodern pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism. And there are very few of us working on ending the 19th-20th century’s experiment with ‘new mysticism’. Taleb = truth in probability. (anti-innumeracy – numbers ) Doolittle = Truth is testimony. (anti-fictionalism – words )
-
Operational Language Expressing Science:
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME —“Science is both the method of inquiry and the body of knowledge gained by that method’s application. A priori knowledge applies only to the abstract, once it interacts with the real world the test of any tool or paradigm is how effective it is in predicting and changing it. As there’s only one real world, any framework or method of inquiry that is effective in interfacing with it will approach the same results. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.”—Jason Johnson >Curt Doolittle ^ This is the most important argument really. Although I would refine it to say ‘there is only one most parsimonious (shortest) road to Rome.’
-
Operational Language Expressing Science:
OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE EXPRESSING SCIENCE: THE LEAST FALSE METHOD OF REACHING ROME —“Science is both the method of inquiry and the body of knowledge gained by that method’s application. A priori knowledge applies only to the abstract, once it interacts with the real world the test of any tool or paradigm is how effective it is in predicting and changing it. As there’s only one real world, any framework or method of inquiry that is effective in interfacing with it will approach the same results. All roads lead to Rome, as it were.”—Jason Johnson >Curt Doolittle ^ This is the most important argument really. Although I would refine it to say ‘there is only one most parsimonious (shortest) road to Rome.’
-
THE MARKET IS A CONSEQUENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY, RECIPROCITY, TRUTH, DUTY, AND THE IN
THE MARKET IS A CONSEQUENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY, RECIPROCITY, TRUTH, DUTY, AND THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY COMMON OF THE COMMON (Tort) LAW.
We create a market by creating sovereignty. we expand the market by incremental suppression of impositions of costs upon the investments made by others. We create private, corporate, and common assets. And we suppress impositions against them. The central problem of sovereignty is reduction of the lower classes that cannot survive in the CURRENT market order. In other words, we must genetically improve our distributions as we improve our productivity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:26:00 UTC
-
Christians Call It “testifying” Because It Sounds Better than “lying.”
Eli Harman June 14, 2017 · Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well. If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact. There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may. -
Christians Call It “testifying” Because It Sounds Better than “lying.”
Eli Harman June 14, 2017 · Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well. If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact. There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may. -
Eli Harman June 14, 2017 · Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds bet
Eli Harman
June 14, 2017 ·
Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well.
If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions
But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact.
There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-14 21:26:00 UTC
-
There is only one route out of the great deceits
I know, you are the kind of person who wants a supernatural, secular, or scientific religion. The law says that any religion that is not false, parasitic, predatory, or devolutionary, is a good religion. The problem is you think that religion requires falsehoods, because you have been immersed in an ocean of ‘forgivable, convenient,’ falsehoods. But that’s only because you haven’t researched the religions that aren’t false, and tried to develop a religion that likewise isn’t false. And the reason you must, is that the only means of eliminating bad religions is falsehood, parasitism, predation, and devolution. And if you preserve those falsehoods and ‘bads’ for your own you license the ‘bads’ of others. There is only one route out of the great deceits, of Abrahamic Pilpul and Critique: truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets, and as a consequence, transcendence.
-
There is only one route out of the great deceits
I know, you are the kind of person who wants a supernatural, secular, or scientific religion. The law says that any religion that is not false, parasitic, predatory, or devolutionary, is a good religion. The problem is you think that religion requires falsehoods, because you have been immersed in an ocean of ‘forgivable, convenient,’ falsehoods. But that’s only because you haven’t researched the religions that aren’t false, and tried to develop a religion that likewise isn’t false. And the reason you must, is that the only means of eliminating bad religions is falsehood, parasitism, predation, and devolution. And if you preserve those falsehoods and ‘bads’ for your own you license the ‘bads’ of others. There is only one route out of the great deceits, of Abrahamic Pilpul and Critique: truth, sovereignty, reciprocity, markets, and as a consequence, transcendence.