1.6-The Pattern of History · 3.5-Testimony

The Answer To The Peterson Harris Debate

UNSOLICITED OPINION – THE ANSWER TO THE PETERSON HARRIS DEBATE
(philosophy)(science)(truth)(decidability)(western uniqueness)

ABSTRACT
The current debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris over the constitution of truth propositions and whether or not they can be used as a means of decidability between frames of reference has raised the most important issue of our time to a discourse between public intellectuals who the citizenry might learn something substantial from.  However, both Peterson and Harris lack the vocabulary and arguments with which to resolve their conflict. In this short article, I’ve provided the terminology, argument, and judgement for both of their positions.

VIDEO HERE

SECTION I

1 – For the most ancient of reasons, by accident of geography, and accident of technology, the West alone relies on Sovereignty as its organizing principle (means decidability of last resort – or on archaic parlance: metaphysical value judgment.).

2 – Choosing Sovereignty requires natural law (perfect reciprocity) to resolve disputes (via-negativa).

3 – And conversely choosing Sovereignty requires markets in everything to organize cooperation. (via-positiva) (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, production commons, production of polities, production of group evolutionary strategies)

4 – Markets allow for cooperation on means despite different ends, given different abilities, different resources, and different specializations.

5 – The combination of Sovereignty, Natural Common Law, Markets in Everything, and the universal indoctrination of men into ‘reporting‘ testimony in militia service, allowed the west to adapt and evolve faster than the rest.

We (the West)  are not always first, but we are fastest at defeating the red queen. This is the origin of western man. Not Hegelian Literary ‘Spirit’ but a group evolutionary strategy for those who combined horse, bronze, and wheel to create a social, economic, and political order we call aristocracy on the Eurasian Plain, where agrarian production was widely distributed and difficult (prohibitively expensive) to organize into a central administration as did the flood river valleys. And where nothing – not language, not literature and law, not religion, or not class, not power, was conflated.

SECTION II

1 – Philosophies allow for the production of argument and decidability within a domain.

2 – The search for Truth seeks the production of argument and decidability regardless of domain.

3 – Deflationary truth allows us to construct truthful arguments regardless of domain.

4 – Deflationary, operational, and promissory (truthful) arguments can be warrantied for due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – as well as demand productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. Using this form of truth, it is extremely difficult for false argument to survive due diligence against all dimensions of the human ability to reason.

5 – Science is not a positive, but a negative research program: the means by which we warranty that we have eliminated ignorance, error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit from our speech.

6 – Ergo science when applied to both categorically deterministic (physical) and categorically dynamic (heuristic social / cognitive) disciplines functions as the means of decidability regardless of domain. i.e.: the discipline of science when sufficient in scope of due diligence, produces truth candidates regardless of a division of inter-temporal perception, experience, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. i.e.: where in a society of markets (choice) in everything.

SECTION III

1 – In each era of transformation the “truthful” eugenic aristocracy has been opposed by the dysgenic practitioners of deceit:

a) The Bronze Age Origin of heroism/paternalism/Aristocracy – the invention of oral authoritarian religion.

b) The Iron Age Origin of Reason – the invention of written, conflationary, authoritarian – scriptural religion as law, distributed by organize religion.

c) The Steel Age of Empiricism (bacon/locke/smith/hume/jefferson,) – was opposed by the invention of printed, argumentative rebellion: (Rousseau/Moral, Kant/Rational, Mendelssohn/Legal.)

d) The Age of Automation and the reformation of the social sciences ( Poincare, Maxwell, Darwin, Spencer, Menger, Durkheim/Pareto/Weber, Nietzche, and the Romanticists ) Was opposed by the invention of pseudosciences (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt School, Mises, Keynes, Rand/Rothbard, Strauss and The host of Postmoderns, and Macro Economists.)

2 – In each era, despite the fact that humanity is transformed by the aristocratic (martial), order, the opposition generally seems to ‘win’ through numbers. This causes anything from a stagnation to a dark age.

3 – The challenge of our time is the industrialization of lying made possibly by automation and media in the pseudoscientific era. Combined with the failure of the west to advance ‘science’ (Truthfulness) sufficiently to suppress the (desirable) lies.

4 – The solution to the industrialization of lying is the demand for warranty of due diligence in law, economics, and politics in the  information we bring to market – just as we require warranty of due diligence in the products and services we submit to the market (a commons).

5 – The returns on the suppression of the industrialization of lying by operationalism will be greater than the returns on the returns on the suppression of mysticism by empiricism. every lie or falsehood produces a friction against human reason, just as every atomic rule created a greater friction than was produced by the transformation to general rules (science).

6 – Definition of PSEUDOSCIENCE: Followers know that I use a rigorous definition of what constitutes scientific speech and therefore truthful speech. My use of the term ‘pseudoscience’ refers to the addition of or subtraction of information that must be complete but unloaded in order to render decidability across contexts. Scientific speech requires due diligence against subtraction(cherry picking) and addition (loading, framing, overloading). To perform due diligence of truthfulness requires we test each possible dimension of speech.

1 – categorical consistency – Identity – non-conflation
2 – logical consistency – internal consistency, non-contradiction.
3 – empirical consistency – external correspondence – falsification
4 – existential consistency – operational language – consistency.
5 – reciprocity-consistency – moral reciprocity of Property in Toto.
6 – scope consistency – full accounting and specified limits.

These questions are easily testable in a court of law. Any essay, article, paper, contract, or constitution may be written in these terms. The intuitionist/operationalist movements failed (unfortunately) because they were discovered in categorically static math, logic, and physical science, where they are of less utility, but neither discovered nor applied in heuristic and therefore categorically dynamic sciences, where they are necessary: law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy.

What I have tried to briefly suggest here is that grammar and terminology alone are nearly sufficient to reverse the industrialization of lying in law, economics, politics, and group evolutionary strategy. (See research on EPrime for example).  And that extension of the involuntary warranty of due diligence that we currently apply to products and services can be extended to all market, commons, and political speech.  We are saturated with lies and falsehoods, and they are cheap to produce and expensive to defeat. This is the reason for the success of the era of pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism, and outright lying.

SECTION IV

1 – In the second great transformation (the ancient world) we developed three attempts at decidability with different appeals to coercive decidability: Supernatural (religious) Mythic and Theological, Ideal/Supernormal(Platonic) Literary, and Demonstrated(existential) Historical. The Supernatural attempts to solve the problem of authority by appeal to a superhuman deity. The supernormal by appeal to ideals or utopias. The historical, by appeal to demonstrated existence: survival from competition. It is the sovereign, existential, that survives competition that comprises the uniqueness of western thought: we preserve the right to choose: sovereignty – for there is no authority among sovereigns.

2 – Peterson’s conflation in the literary (Platonic) tradition is anti western and unnecessary. It is the competition between conflationary narrative analogy, and deflationary operational criticism that assists us in identifying truth candidates. All civilizations that practice conflation stagnate. Literature is sufficient for the loading and framing and experiential without resorting to truth claims. Conflation of the good, true, and beautiful is a literary technique, and is helpful if not necessary for the immature or unable mind. But only if the mind is also taught how to truth test conflationary statements such that the true, the good, and the beautiful can be tested, so that the citizenry can distinguish between truth and lie, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. It is through this method of conflation that the culture wars were conducted.

3 – Harris‘ cherry-picks in the pseudoscientific tradition, fails to account for changes in state of the full scope of capital, and the lost opportunities for productive voluntary exchange. (This will take some explaining – outside of the scope of this paper.) Most frequently he gives parasitic action a pass if he agrees with it. Humans accumulate capital, and humans cooperate to accumulate capital more readily. And humans evolve cooperative social orders to accumulate capital even more rapidly – by the production of commons. Harris’ presumed ‘goods’ are cosmopolitan, destroy accumulated intergenerational capital, and produce eugenic outcomes that over time destroy the possibility of not only choice, and prosperity, but of transcendence (evolution). Reality is not kind. There are no free rides. And that is an uncomfortable, scientific, truth. We must continue to defeat the red queen.

CLOSING
Science (truth) rarely tells us what we desire, it merely gives us power to choose that which is desirable in fact over that which is desirable in pretense, or that which is a mere deception.

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

(BTW: One or two years ago Harris issued a challenge as to whether morality could be scientifically expressed. I lacked the time (or inclination) to do so, but it can be (easily and thoroughly and irrefutably). And it is just as dehumanizing as the work of Darwin and Copernicus.)

3.5-Testimony · Moritz Bierling

A Sentence isn’t false. The Speaker States a Falsehood.

(Bill Joslin – December 17 at 9:38pm)

There is sooo much in this small conversation!:

Curt Doolittle: A sentence does not speak. A speaker speaks a sentence. A sentence is not false. the speaker’s statement is false.

Curt Doolittle: now you understand why we say ‘is true’ rather than “i promise” – to deceive.

Moritz Bierling: Yeah, you’re borrowing objectivity for your personal statement.

Curt Doolittle: I tend to, and I try to encourage others to, think about the information that is present and the information that is missing, and the incentives to remove information. or claim information exists that does not.

We are somewhat vulnerable because the means by which we transfer meaning (substitution) is also the means by which we deceive (false substitution)

3.5-Testimony

Truth Telling (Witness).

[N]ow, let us say in scenario (a) you observe a traffic accident. In scenario (b) you are standing outside of a building and hear noises inside. In scenario (c) you report on a stress test you performed. In scenario (d) you propose a theory of the behavior of a set of gasses under pressure. In scenario (e) you propose a solution the explanation of a particular trade cycle.

Giving witness in these cases, and in all cases, requires giving a sequential record of OBSERVATIONS, containing the information observed, without the addition of imaginary and hypothetical content.

Now, why is it that we rely upon all sorts of physical **instrumentation**, to extend our perception, improve our memory, reduce that which we cannot perceive to an analogy to experience which is open to perception and **comparison**? Why is it that we rely upon all sorts of conceptual **instrumentation** to test our own thoughts and perceptions: experience, reason, math, and logic? Because our memories are reconstructed from fragments every time, and because it is extremely difficult for us to compartmentalize memories – our minds evolved to do just the opposite, which is why we can construct generalizations of similar phenomenon much better than we can (like chimps) remember past events.

So truthful testimony is recitation of observation of differences which we call measures in terms which if repeated wold lead to the same conclusion.

In other words, the operationalists in all fields failed, (Poincaré being first, Brouwer, Bridgman, Mises being the first in each specialty) for the same reason that I am having a bit of difficulty making this very important point: that we do not know if you speak the truth, and you do not know if you speak the truth, if you cannot convey your argument as an extant (real and possible) construction of physical and mental operations, producing changes (or not) in state according to independent scales (measures), which if repeated would produce the same result.

Meaning: that operationalism is a MORAL AND ETHICAL constraint. And the assumption of moral and ethical conduct in fields of inquiry rapidly expanding beyond human scale, was an artifact of the past. Poincare, Brouwer, Bridgman and Mises were all trying to express in necessary terms that which was ethical and moral. Like ‘free speech’ at human scale (where the cost of speaking and publishing are high) the threat only emerged when the population involved and the problems involved expanded such that ‘honor’ (threat of outcast) was not sufficient a moral boundary. The same is true for political speech in mass market period after 1870, and accelerated with radio, television, and the internet: honor has no operational meaning because there is no peer group to ostracize anyone using norms. Instead, at scale, just as we require laws at scale, and the market at scale, or we require relativity at scale when the speed of light matters to the calculation versus the instantaneous perceptions we make use of at Newtonian scale, our political institutions, and moral and ethical institutions, lagged behind our technological means of publishing falsehoods.

[W]e educated folk with our high mindedness (smart people bias) argue that the market corrects the truth over time. But this isn’t demonstrably true – and we have a lot of data to prove it. That is because negative information and lies spread faster than positive information and truths. The reason is that negative information that we can cheat with spreads faster than positive information that prevents us from cheating. It is much more expensive and lower incentive to produce truths and falsehoods because they are cheaper to construct and distribute faster. So just as in the market for goods and services, we see market failure, in the market for truth and fallacy we see market failure. People in both the market for goods and services and the market for truth and fallacy, commit fraud for personal gain.

The small scale response, the human scale response (solution), is to rely upon an authority to set rules. The catallatic response (solution) is to define the conceptual commons as a community property, to which all of us are owners, and allow all individuals to bring suit against what we believe to be fraud.

This does not require people who bear witness to speak the truth, which as we know from both popper and our examples above, is impossible, because causal density in all observations is a long exhausting chain. But it requires that we bear good witness. We cannot be held accountable for err if we bear true witness.

If I have a sport camera and record an accident, that does not mean it is ‘true’ in the sense that all the causal information is present. It means that I can bear witness with it.

And, that is speaking truthfully.

(ALSO: I think it might be obvious now how theorizing can be intentionally performed as a means of distorting the truth, and furthermore for the purpose of outright lying. We cannot assume that the scientist much less the ordinary man, and certainly less, those who seek power to alter the state of affairs by other than market means, are honest. This is a fallacy that is embedded in the act of argument: we assume the other person is honest. Because in history, the only reason not to stick a pointy metal object into someone, is when, like family members, they are honest with you. )

Now, I try to refrain from throwing out my theory until I can support it pretty thoroughly. But at this point, it should be pretty clear from the above paragraphs that I have pretty much put the problem of the 20th century to bed.

I didn’t realize the severity of impact that the cosmopolitans had on western civilization precisely because we did not understand the uniqueness of our truth-telling culture, or that we assume aristocratic truth from others, and that those who sought status in our culture also had to demonstrate aristocratic truth.

But one can blame one’s aggressors (germans, french, jews) or one can blame one’s self (anglos) for failing to look into the mirror and solve the problem.

I solved the problem. Too late maybe. But I solved it.