Month: July 2014

It isnt. It isn’t widely considered a great book. Through at least Chapter 15 it is a work of pseudoscientific philosophy, and from 15 onward is adequate.  Mises’ reputation like that of most Jewish authors has been the subject of extravagant but unworthy promotion by Jewish Anarchists and a small number of third-tier academics who attempt to sway the unsophisticated […]

[K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold […]

[P]oincaré rejected the later foundational work of Cantor, saying that —“There is no actual infinity, the Cantorians have forgotten that, and they have fallen into contradiction. It is true that Cantorism rendered services, but that was when it was applied to a real problem whose terms were clearly defined, and we could walk safely. Logisticians as Cantorians have forgotten. (Poincaré […]

[P]oincaré rejected the later foundational work of Cantor, saying that —“There is no actual infinity, the Cantorians have forgotten that, and they have fallen into contradiction. It is true that Cantorism rendered services, but that was when it was applied to a real problem whose terms were clearly defined, and we could walk safely. Logisticians as Cantorians have forgotten. (Poincaré […]

[A]re Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us? interesting… Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution. From James Santagata [I] wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance […]

[I]f one had to be insured to issue public speech (sort of like homeowners insurance – everyone had it) then we would rapidly evolve classes in making public speech, which would demonstrate how to witness (truth telling). (Heinlein suggested something of this order.) Now some speech advocates theft, and some does not. Some purports to convey truths, and some does […]

[W]ith private property rights, universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule? Well, a lot of commons, […]

[W]ell, I guess I’m not done. Macdonald and Duchesne explain what happened, who did it, and how they did it, even why they did it. But neither of them explain why we were vulnerable to it, other than we are less group-ish than other peoples with higher trust, (probably because of outbreeding.) So our outbreeding created trust, which allowed us […]

[T]he reason you are conquered is that you are weak enough to be. Why are you weak enough to be conquered? Fix what is wrong with your civilization, rather than criticize your attacker. Understand why you are weak enough to be attacked. We failed because we are altruistic. Not entirely, but more than anyone else. Our high trust has a […]

[M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist […]

[M]isesian / Rothbardian / Hoppeian attempt to capture the credibility of classical liberal Austrianism by means of Cosmopolitan critique. Instead, it was just another pseudoscientific attack on western civilization. Just like Marx, Freud, Frankfurt, and Postmoderns: a sustained attack on the ethic of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. And we were fooled into thinking that it was from just the socialist […]

—“if you produce an operational definition then you can be shown to have spoken truthfully, (given witness) even if the truth content of your theory cannot be determined to be true – ever. Moreover, that if you do not produce an operational definition of your argument, then we cannot tell you are speaking truthfully or whether you are engaging in […]

[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary […]

[T]he problem with specialization in any set of ideas is that if we construct our self-esteem, our status, or our income upon that edifice, we defend it as dogma, in defense of our self esteem. Humans defend ideas all the time, regardless of whether they are true, and usually because they are emotionally useful. Abandoning ideas is just as necessary […]

(worth repeating) From my notes…. –“An operational definition is produced by defining a process of operationalization and recording the results of operating that process; in order to define a variable, term, or object in terms of a set of tests needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity or quality. Operational definitions define changes in state as those operations necessary […]

(worth repeating) From my notes…. –“An operational definition is produced by defining a process of operationalization and recording the results of operating that process; in order to define a variable, term, or object in terms of a set of tests needed to determine its existence, duration, and quantity or quality. Operational definitions define changes in state as those operations necessary […]

(probably a little difficult for most but possibly profoundly useful) —“But we can claim that our theory is true and often do so. In fact, the idea that we cannot do so is itself a theory which, if true, cannot be claimed to be true.”— [O]f course, I didn’t make that claim. I only claimed that we can test if […]

[I] see two constant themes of late when I try to discuss truth: (a) conflation of testimony to one’s knowledge (Speaking Truthfully) and description of correspondence(Truth) (b) the false assumption that most people are not only justifying, but are in fact lying. It is one thing for the philosophy of science to correct errors, but I am not so interested […]

Link: The Copenhagen Interpretation [A] profoundly good example of the problem philosophers face in reducing that which we cannot sense and perceive without instruments to analogies to experience which we can. As I struggle with the cultural conflation of truth with strategic good, assumed as metaphysical property of reality, and reconciling this with the requirement for ethical testimony, which can […]

(important piece) –“We can speak about truth even without a warranty, and we don’t mean truthlike or agreed to be true, just plain true.”—Bruce [Y]es, but how do we know you are speaking truthfully? How do we prevent pseudoscience? Or are you, like free speech advocates, saying that the damage that is done by error is less than the good […]

—“[A]ll arguments put into the marketplace of ideas function as conceptual goods – products for our use. Now since we are producing goods we do have the ability if not the necessity to provide consumer protection. This is all that operationalism does for us. It doesnt say you’re doing good (telling the truth) it tests whether or not you are […]

[K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold […]

The problem I have with this table, is that I’m not sure that the european side is true. Because hunter-gatherer and cattle-raider are two different things. And I think our unique ethic comes from cattle raiding.