Refuting Some Criticism

Sep 06, 2016 9:34am

—“Your first principles so far are nothing more than presuppositions and you have a lot of actual philosophical work to do if you are going to persuade deep thinkers, you can brush that aside by saying you’ve done the work and it’s in some writing that I haven’t seen yet but I’ve followed your writing for years now and these basic issues have simply not been addressed.”—

Here is how I translate your … lack of criticism:

Curt’s restatement:

—“Until you produce examples of how to criticize a theory categorically, logically, empirically, operationally, morally, with full accounting, limits and parsimony, then I can’t understand and apply it.”—

Now realistically, scientists in the physical sciences already do everything except testing for morality(the universe can’t ‘choose’ so to speak), and social scientists do not practice operationalism and full accounting, and rarely ‘limits’. Full accounting in nature requires we account for energy, and full accounting in social science merely requires we account for the full life cycle cost to all affected forms of property. Operationalism is covered as fully as it needs to be in these fields and even fantasy literature contains attempts to write in e-prime (existentially consistent prose).

So just as libertarians foolishly constrain the scope of property to the intersubjectively verifiable, social science, economics, politics, and law, foolishly constrain scientific criticism to physicality, and fail to extend those same criteria (for historical reasons) to their fields of social science, by requiring that not only goods and services meet conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market, but that INFORMATION and LEGISLATION and LAW meet those conditions of warranty before they are tested in the market.

Now, I make no pretense that I leave work to the audience. And that it requires a great deal of knowledge to grasp much of what I discuss. But operationalism in economics and social science exists (praxeology), and tests of existential possibility (e-prime) and it’s practiced or at least discussed in the literature of the other sciences and logics. Even the pseudoscience we call psychology has – over the past few decades – adopted ‘operationism’ as a method of escaping it’s pseudoscientific basis, and they now explicitly reject the Freudian methods. So we see experimental psychology (the study of error, bias and limits) and cognitive science, and cerebral chemistry answering the questions of psychology, and therapy continuing to help people with ‘training’ cognitive and behavioral errors, but not ‘curing’ disease and developmental disorders.

So, I do not think I need to cover categorical, logical, and empirical consistency nor the use of each for falsification. Critical rationalism provides the argument for parsimony. Full accounting in social science required only the articulation of property-in-toto. Philosophy easily corrected by combining the scientific and epistemic fields under one amoral language.

So, as far as I know I am combining what is necessary and practiced in the physical sciences with propertarian language in the social sciences. I don’t think that the problem I am trying to solve by articulating it is in the six dimensions of testimonialism. It is that through the use of those dimensions we can modify the social sciences and institutional applications of them (law) such that we can procedurally enforce due diligence and involuntary warranty on information (speech).

So just as we warranty PHYSICAL goods (products) and warranty SERVICE goods(actions), we can also warranty INFORMATION goods (speech).

So in law, we can impose warranty of due diligence on information as well as physical and action goods.

And of COURSE I expect as much resistance to the performance of due diligence on informational goods as we have seen in the resistance to warranties of due diligence on service goods, physical goods, and the first good: property.

People want to profit from the market at the lowest cost to themselves that’s possible. Its easy to understand.

But in the information era, the greatest damage has been done by pseudoscience and deceit, just like the greatest damage to society in the ancient world was done by mysticism.

So given that we have increased the production capacity of information (and misinformation) we must regulate information as we have regulated goods and services.

So this is what I hope to communicate.

I don’t feel it is my responsibility to teach anything other than full accounting using propertarianism, and to reframe praxeology as a test of existential possibility in social science. Everything else is actually known and people can go discover it on their own.

I don’t know why I must teach what I consider (and others) basics of the philosophy of science. In fact, it’s these people that are the audience I am interested in reaching.

If that makes me lazy that’s one thing. But it doesn’t make me a pseudoscientist, and it certainly doesn’t make my utterances false. 😉


Leave a Reply