[Previous] Recording Setup | Home | [Next] Pre-Scripted Discussions

Open Discussion

This is an open discussion topic. Discuss whatever you want.

If you want a separate discussion just on a specific topic, find any post related to that topic and discuss there. Or ask me to create a new post for your discussion.

How do you find replies and new discssion to read? Use the recent comments link in the side bar. (Or use the Open Discussion link in the side bar and scroll down to the bottom.) Or leave this page (or the recent comments page) open in a browser tab and refresh it periodically (or use an auto refresh browser plugin). Or use the Comments RSS Feed. Or use website change notification software.

List of prior open discussions.

Learn about new blog discussion features including posting images.

Click here to scroll to the bottom of the discussion.

View only the latest 50 comments. This will make the page load faster. You can edit the URL to the number you prefer and bookmark it. This link also includes a "#latest" anchor to scroll down to the last comment, which you can remove if you don't like it. FYI, setting a comment number limit will work on any post if you manually add it to the URL.

Elliot Temple on July 23, 2018

Comments (30 of 925) (Show All Comments)

> Undoing Aging conference

I think if it's a proper noun (so "Undoing" and "Aging" are capitalized) then "conference" is part of the noun and should be capitalized too.

"Undoing" and "Aging" are both modifiers, not nouns. The thing is an undoing-aging-conference. And it is a proper noun, that's correct. So "conference" should be capitalized.

Anonymous at 1:53 PM on March 12, 2019 | #12001 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 9:25 PM on March 13, 2019 | #12004 | reply | quote


> Why some people says that the Austrian School of Economics isn't taken seriously in the academia?

Lots of reasons. A big one is because academia is a tool of the government which wants yesmen who support government control over everything (including the economy). It's complicated though, it's partly the other way around (government is a tool of the "intellectual and cultural elites").'

I recommend Mises's book on the anti-capitalistic mentality. https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality


I also replied to a comment:

> A lot of it is due to the unwarranted adherence to Karl Popper in the sciences, which is separate from contemporary philosophy of science where he is dismissed.

What are you talking about? He dedicated a book to Hayek, so he's certainly not spreading the message that Austrians should be ignored... He said little about econ (he did write a bunch of criticism of Marx though). And his philosophy of reason doesn't provide a reason to reject Austrian econ.

curi at 11:25 PM on March 13, 2019 | #12005 | reply | quote

BrekfastLibertarian replied condescendingly. I'll paste my reply to him in the next comment after this.


Popper had a negative influence on Hayek in terms of methodology.

Of course Popper's philosophy of science provides a reason to reject Austrian economics, we can't verify the human action principle without introspection (aka can't verify it), and it's not something that we believe is falsifiable (going off of Quine's definition of a priori justification.) You really must be kidding? Popper's methodology labels AE as pseudoscience!

Both Hoppe and David Gordon have spent time discussing this in the past, I would recommend listening / reading to both.

Hoppe: https://youtu.be/MWaGF4GZvTg

Gordon: https://mises.org/library/philosophical-origins-austrian-economics#4

curi at 2:46 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12006 | reply | quote


Popper's demarcation criterion was used to reject Marx, Freud and Adler as non-science. They claimed the authority and prestige of science but used different methods. And they claimed to have a lot of explanatory power but that was because they were compatible with everything (can't be refuted, actually not really saying anything).

None of this is an attack on non-science in general. Popper himself was a philosopher. He didn't think non-science, such as philosophy of science, was all, as a field, bad or dumb or whatever.

If something isn't empirically falsifiable, *you can still criticize it*. Popper advocated critical thinking, critical discussion, and all sorts of types of criticism besides the type "contradicted by an observation". That type of criticism is what stands out about science (meaning empirical science, not meaning all rational or organized thinking), but it's not necessary to learning.

Learning in general, according to Popper, follows a schema presented in OK: P1 -> TT -> EE -> P2.

I'll just assume you know what that means, unless you ask. As you can see, it's not specific to the (empirical) sciences. It's a general purpose evolutionary epistemology which explains how we, despite our fallibility, can learn incrementally via creating ideas plus error correction.

Popper's acceptance of non-science included moral philosophy. WoP:

> I suggest, therefore, that a *new* professional ethics, fit not only for scientists, be based upon the following twelve principles.

Notice how he doesn't reject non-science or non-scientists. But the main point:

> I ask the reader to consider what I am proposing here as suggestions. They are meant to point out that, in the field of ethics too, one can put forward suggestions which may be discussed and improved by critical discussion, as Xenophanes and his successors, it seems, were among the first to discover.

Popper thinks his epistemology works *for ethics* because its focus is on critical discussion which can be done without empirical refutation. Economics is fine too. It's just not a "science" in a particular terminology designed to combat e.g. "scientific socialism", but not to attack all non-science (such as ethics, economics, or Popper's own work).

You bring up Hoppe, whose work on Popper is poor scholarship:


> Mises's own, entirely negative verdict on Popper can be found in his The Ultimate Foundation ofEconomic Science, p. 70.

This statement is factually false. Mises' verdict on Popper in that book is not on page 70, which contains a more minor point, nor is it "entirely" negative. Page 70 is the part where Mises complains about Popper's demarcation criterion. In his defense, Mises wrote that before C&R came out with its explanation of the demarcation criterion (which I explained above). Mises' primary verdict on Popper in the book is that Popper's epistemology is *correct* regarding the natural sciences, but doesn't apply to other fields (that's not an "entirely" negative verdict, it's actually quite positive in a huge way). This was written in 1962 before Popper had published developments of his epistemology beyond LScD.

For more on Hoppe and Popper see https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2017/12/02/hoppe-on-epistemology/

If you want to learn about Popper's ideas, please consult my guide for which selections to read (note that all recommend selections were published after Mises' comments on Popper discussed above): http://fallibleideas.com/books#popper

PS, re Gordon, that page appears to have a formatting error or typo rendering a key part unreadable:

> Now, consider this argument:

> p or q not-p

> q

Then it says:

> Once more, not-p should be falsifiable if p is, though Karl Popper has implausibly denied this.

Why is that implausible? Popper explained this. Gordon doesn't address Popper's reasoning, which I will now summarize: Consider "Zero swans are black" for p. You can empirically falsify that with one black swan. not-p is equivalent to: "At least one swan is black". You can't empirically falsify that. Observe 5000 white swans, or 5 trillion, and it could still correct.

curi at 2:47 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12007 | reply | quote


> However, their failure to adopt empiricism, made continued contribution difficult.

The comma after "empiricism" splits the subject (failure) and verb (made). It has no upside and due to the first comma it gives the appearance of creating a comma-delimited phrase. It's really bad.

Anonymous at 2:57 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12008 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 3:25 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12009 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 3:59 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12010 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 10:28 AM on March 14, 2019 | #12013 | reply | quote


I tried quoting Mises to show that Mises agrees with Popper on demarcation (except terminology) and the guy got dumb/mad/dishonest/irrational or something.

Dagny at 12:09 PM on March 14, 2019 | #12014 | reply | quote

Big scandal with bribery and cheating to get into colleges. Worth reading an article about what's going on. This one has a funny part:


> The couple's 19-year-old daughter, Olivia Jade Giannulli, is a freshman at USC.

> CBS L.A. reports she posted a video on social media last year in which she said she doesn't "really care about school."

> "I don't know how much of school I'm going to attend," she said in a video posted to her YouTube channel, which has over 1.9 million subscribers. "I do want the experience of game days, partying, I don't really care about school, as you guys know."

curi at 1:21 PM on March 14, 2019 | #12016 | reply | quote

Alan Forrester writes:


> Judgment: Tanett won’t debate or consider criticism. She hides her ignorance of CR by having no mechanisms for her errors to be corrected. Then she tries to teach misconceptions while lying that she’s an authority on CR. This contradicts CR and is immoral. https://conjecturesandrefutations.com/2019/03/16/lulie-tanett-vs-critical-rationalism/

Anonymous at 10:16 AM on March 16, 2019 | #12017 | reply | quote


> It's neat how different epistemologies have radically different answers to:

> - What people, animals and computers are

> - Animal sentience

> - The capabilities of children

> - What AGI will be + how to make it

> - Whether narrow superintelligence is possible.

This contradicts TCS. The TCS view is that there are no other parenting philosophies. Parents do stuff and then their philosophy is tacked on second as a rationalization, rather than them deciding what to do based on philosophy.

Anonymous at 10:53 AM on March 16, 2019 | #12018 | reply | quote

This is false, mean, and self-contradictory.

Anonymous at 11:03 AM on March 16, 2019 | #12019 | reply | quote

Regarding cost plus payments to government contractors:

Excerpt From: Ludwig von Mises. “Bureaucracy.” Apple Books.

> [Suppose] The contractor spends some money with the intention of reducing costs of production. If he succeeds, the result is—under the cost plus a percentage of cost method—that his profit is curtailed. If he does not succeed, the government does not reimburse the outlays in question and he loses too.

Cost-saving innovation is lose/lose under cost plus!

curi at 12:16 PM on March 16, 2019 | #12020 | reply | quote

I think government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote. (It's not permanent. They can vote again if they quit, retire, or get fired.) What do you think?

Dagny at 4:10 PM on March 16, 2019 | #12021 | reply | quote

> I think government employees shouldn't be allowed to vote. (It's not permanent. They can vote again if they quit, retire, or get fired.) What do you think?

Disenfranchising public school teachers, cops, and soldiers (among others) doesn't seem like a realistic reform.

I'd like to temporarily disenfranchise welfare recipients, but even that won't happen.

We can't even get people to support idea that *new immigrants* shouldn't be welfare cases even though that's the law.

Anonymous at 5:19 PM on March 16, 2019 | #12022 | reply | quote

Yeah, welfare recipients should be included too. Not every program handing out even a dollar, and not social security or medicare (too universal), but some clear cases like food stamps or subsidized housing.

If the government is giving you money, you shouldn't be deciding on government policy. It's a conflict of interest: it's in your interest to vote to give yourself more money.

I'd be happy to start with just people who work for the government more directly: politicians, clerks for government agencies, stuff like that.

Dagny at 5:39 PM on March 16, 2019 | #12023 | reply | quote

As long as the government is small, it doesn't make that much difference if government workers don't vote, and the system makes sense: the 95% entrusting the 5% with power but the 95% making the decisions.

As the government gets bigger, this policy takes away the vote from a lot more people, but it's also a lot more needed. If you entrust 30% of the population with power over the other 70%, that's a lot more dangerous. Corruption, abuse and tyranny are larger concerns. And the government employees can form a political alliance with only 30% of the regular citizens and win votes against the wishes of 70% of the regular citizens.

Dagny at 8:41 PM on March 16, 2019 | #12024 | reply | quote

Choice of words in "Best Optimum Batch Size"

Page 45 of Goldratt's *Theory of Constraints* has a graph titled "Best Optimum Batch Size". A few thoughts on the choice of words in that title:

1. "Optimum" is a noun, but it's being used here as an adjective. If it's meant as an adjective, I think it should be "Optimal".

2. I think "Best Optimal" has a redundant word. According to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optimal :

> Definition of optimal

> most desirable or satisfactory

I think "Best Batch Size" or "Optimal Batch Size" would have been better.

Josh Jordan at 4:42 PM on March 17, 2019 | #12027 | reply | quote

> 1. "Optimum" is a noun, but it's being used here as an adjective. If it's meant as an adjective, I think it should be "Optimal".

"Optimum" can be an adjective

Anonymous at 4:54 PM on March 17, 2019 | #12028 | reply | quote

Anonymous at 6:39 PM on March 17, 2019 | #12030 | reply | quote

Choice of words in "Best Optimum Batch Size"

> "Optimum" can be an adjective

Ah, I missed that. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/optimum-vs-optimal :

>> ... optimum and optimal are both options when you want an adjective.

Josh Jordan at 7:10 PM on March 17, 2019 | #12031 | reply | quote

>In an interview with MSNBC on Thursday, Harris said it was "outrageous" that Vice President Mike Pence will not have one-on-one meetings with women - a critique that exaggerated a long-ago Pence comment that he does not dine one-on-one with a woman other than his wife.

>"I think that's ridiculous," Harris said. "The idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have a meeting with the vice president of the United States is outrageous."

Dems are never not lying.

Pence's rule is that he won't have DINNER ALONE with a woman not his wife, not that he won't have "a meeting." If Harris had said "The idea that you would deny a professional woman the opportunity to have dinner alone with the vice president of the United States is outrageous", her position would sound way dumber to lots of people. But that's what Pence's policy is, and here Harris is using vague wording about "the opportunity to have a meeting" to fool ppl about the content of Pence's policy. very vicious and nasty!

Anonymous at 8:34 PM on March 17, 2019 | #12032 | reply | quote

I answered a comment about DD and LT:


Yes the problem with bad "CR" people, or bad intellectuals, is larger than Tanett. It includes David Miller:


The CR FB group:


And, sure, DD:


And Jordan Peterson, and, more generally, *lack of paths forward*:


Yes, DD and LT choosing not to explain why they left the TCS/FI community is bad. Even if they'd never been involved it'd be bad to dismiss it without sharing any reasoning (no paths forward, inactive/passive/closed mind, no way for error correction to happen). But as major participants it's much worse.


DD and LT are very different cases, though. You say "He is behaving like Tanett." but I disagree.

DD studied CR a lot, effectively. DD has accomplishments like books that contribute to CR. LT has never studied CR much, never learned that much about it, and has no accomplishments. DD tweets a mix of good and bad tweets, and the bad ones usually aren't super bad. LT tweets pretty much purely awful tweets. DD is not attempting to attack or undermine FI on purpose or directly, he just ignores it, whereas LT actually is trying to have a negative effect on FI. DD's tweets are not especially socially manipulative – less than average for an intellectual – but LT's are extremely socially manipulative. DD's tweets are also less dishonest than average while LT's are much more dishonest than average.

DD, as a philosopher, could be viewed sorta as retired after a productive career (and, yes, retired people are allowed to continue to tweet about their field and do some minor things), whereas LT gave up early on and now is lying about it and trying to build a fake career.

curi at 9:37 AM on March 18, 2019 | #12033 | reply | quote


> Nigel Lawson, long-time No. 2 to Margaret Thatcher, wrote a short but pointed letter to The Spectator last week. He said that Lord Kerr, the British diplomat who drafted Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that Britain invoked to leave the Union, told him that he had drafted it specifically so that it would be very difficult for any country to leave.

> He was certainly successful in this aim: for the philosopher-kings of the EU do not want any damned-fool population getting in the way of the implementation of their wisdom.

> This view accords perfectly with the founders of the “European project” over 60 years ago; they wanted to eliminate messy politics through neat, clean administration.

> Britain has been thoroughly humiliated by the whole episode, but history has no end, and Yugoslavian-style wars of secession may yet, in the distant future, occur.

Anonymous at 5:15 AM on March 19, 2019 | #12034 | reply | quote


> A novel such as Camp of the Saints could not be published today. Even before it appeared, in July 1972, France’s National Assembly unanimously passed the Pleven Law against “incitation to racial hatred.” But in those early days, this novel law was not rigorously enforced, and Raspail’s book got in under the wire. Every few years, the scope of the Pleven Law is expanded or its penalties increased—usually by unanimous vote of the Assembly.

> Out of curiosity, Raspail separately consulted two lawyers who specialize in such matters, and they each found more than 300 lines spread over several chapters that would likely be found in violation of the law if newly published today.

Anonymous at 7:43 PM on March 19, 2019 | #12037 | reply | quote

GWBush's PressSec talks about Iraqi WMDs


Anonymous at 8:40 PM on March 19, 2019 | #12039 | reply | quote

> GWBush's PressSec talks about Iraqi WMDs

> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1108182597983703041.html

i see a bunch of ppl flaming him on twitter but haven't seen any factual disputes so far sigh

Anonymous at 8:42 PM on March 19, 2019 | #12040 | reply | quote

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)