Be forewarned that MMT comes in for some criticism. I will leave to the reader to judge how valid it is.
Information Transfer Economics
The four failure modes of Enlightenment values
Jason Smith
Information Transfer Economics
The four failure modes of Enlightenment values
Jason Smith
See also
The Vineyard of the Saker (quite a bit about the paradoxes of liberalism)
Allen Yu
“ the racist economist/public choice theorist James Buchanan. It's pure "Enlightenment" rationalism — the same Enlightenment that gave us many advances in science, but also racism and eugenics.”
ReplyDeleteDarwin was not a scientist .. the science degree was awarded after Darwin... perhaps because of Darwin...
“ Randall Wray or William Mitchell (e.g.) simply never acknowledge any criticism is valid or accurate. Criticism is dismissed as ad hominem attacks instead of being acknowledged. If "successful" critical commentary (per the "rules") requires the subjects to grant you permission, any criticism can be shut down by a claim that the critic doesn't know what they are talking about.”
ReplyDeleteMMT uses philosophy/Platonist methodology with their critics then when they are criticized (which is fair play under that methodology) they jump over to the Science Methodology with Accounting identities, etc... so this is then interpreted by their critics as ad hominem attack “you don’t know what you are talking about”
This is due to MMT selectively/opportunistically abandoning the Platonist methodology and jumping over to Science when criticized... Their fellow platonists interpret that as an ad hominem...
You have to maintain consistency of methodology...
Why do you have such a hard time accepting that Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor from millions of years ago?
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about that thought?
You know, if they found DNA at a crime scene ( a Trump campaign office) and it had a 95% match to someone accused of the crime ( say Obama) he would be found guilty immediately and you would cheer that result. Our DNA matches a Chimpanzee 98.7%
You just can’t stomach the common ancestor evidence...... it repulses you for some reason....... strange. It literally drives you CRAZY to think about accepting that
We have the same carbon, calcium, magnesium, H2O, etc too... both eat bananas...
ReplyDeleteSO WHAT?
Then you guys complain when people cite Darwin to discriminate against people based on his old unscientific platonistic thesis...
ReplyDeleteCan’t have it both ways....
How does Darwin add any value? Predictive value?
ReplyDeleteLove how you claim Darwin wasn’t a scientist because he didn’t have a degree that said MS after it, “cuz those weren’t til after Darwin, MAYBE BECUZ OF DARWIN!” You are a hooot! It would be really funny if you did t actually believe your claptrap. You think you’ve found something profound
ReplyDeleteKnow who else did t have a BS or an MS? Isaac Newton father of physics and calculus, Euclid father of geometry.
You must get all your information from conservapedia
It biases you people against purpose and against creativity and towards inappropriate discrimination...
ReplyDeleteIt’s no value added...
What value has it added?
Periodic Table of Chemistry and discipline of Biochemistry were developed many decades later... after establishment of Science Degree...
The science methodology was not codified into a formal degree program (Baccalaureate of Science) in the academe until 1860... that’s when we started to train students under a formal science methodology...
ReplyDeleteThere were degrees awarded before that under the liberal arts/ Platonist methodology... this is the methodology Darwin was trained under... you START with a Thesis and dogmatically advocate for it... never test or adjust the thesis... just dogmatically advocate for it.., this is what the morons do we see it every day... this is how they have been trained to conduct themselves...
How do you have LEGAL racial segregation without Darwin in 1860? How? Never happen... how do you have LEGAL Jim Crow laws without Darwin in 1860? Would never have happened...
ReplyDeleteUh oh! Looks like trouble in Platonist paradise!
ReplyDeletehttps://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/one-third-biologists-now-question-darwinism/
There was an early “periodic table”with 23 elements in the late 1700s and they were divided in pretty insightful and clever ways but more and more were discovered, confirmed and as our measurements methods of discovery improved. And what does the time frame of Biochem discipline have to do with anything. Things will happen when it’s their time. The tools of discovery and the thinking tools weren’t readily available til late 1800s for Biochemistry to be a discipline
ReplyDeleteI’m biased against creativity! Wtf are you talking about? Purpose? Certainly against assigning purpose recklessly or prematurely or totally self assuredly. Another problem with purpose is .......whose purpose? I am totally against this human centric view that things have happened with us in “mind” or that we ARE a purpose, so to speak.
It is readily obvious that you get every bit of your scientific knowledge from sources whose prime goal is to poke holes in scientific mainstream. Guys who hate the idea of common descent, a possible non miraculous origin of life. They can’t accept that humans might not be super duper special and our origins can ONLY be explained by some god/spirit entity wishing it to be. That complexity CANT just emerge from simplicity........and that’s fine.
I know you’ll never do it because you can’t fathom learning anything from a Darwinist but you should read “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. The best overall text on Darwinian thinking and it’s power/utility At the very least you’d have to alter your criticisms because honestly Matt your objections don’t even rise to the high school level. You are not on a Masters level of understanding what evolutionary theory even argues any more.
This is the whole point of ID people. Argue a straw man of outdated Darwinist points, things that were “said” by Darwin as if biologists keep a copy of Ascent of Man around like Christians keep a Bible. Just get some young people to “question it”. It’s all a PR campaign, which btw.......
........ isn’t science
I’m not an IDer ... I never said I was an iDer...
ReplyDelete(I dont think ‘design’ is a scriptural term... could be wrong)
I’m just saying for purely matters of material systems production AND administration, employment of the science methodology super exceeds the employment of the Platonist methodology.... and thus the Platonist methodology should be banned from it in any way ...
I would include human healthcare as part of material systems administration/management ... our bodies are constructed out of materials...
ReplyDeleteYou look at any material problem we have and there is always a Platonist causing it... every time...
ReplyDeleteYou are an IDer. You just don’t know it. Doesn’t really matter if you self identify or not. All the arguments tactics etc are straight out of their playbook
ReplyDeleteAgain, the entire anti Darwin sentiment is driven by people who just can’t accept their children being taught that MAYBE everything here on earth is the result of a mindless process, not the result of some caring deity that thinks we are special. They are threatened by the answer you have to consider if you understand Darwin.
Most biologists don’t give one shit about the whole origin of life question, at least not to the degree that the antiDarwinists do, that is their raisondeetre.
How can a mindless process “create” minds!!??? How can purposeless processes relate purpose!!?? Good questions, but the answers to them absolutely are not....... THEY CANT. Jeremy Sherman and Terrance Deacon take on the purpose question and do a pretty strong job I think. They recognize the weakness in the arguments by some in the science community that there is no purpose. We know there is purpose, we feel it. Our purpose today is different from the purpose of our primate ancestors which was different form the purpose of their progenitors a million years previous but every living thing has a purpose. What,at its most basic, is purpose. That original purpose became our much different, widely divergent purposes of humans. Thinking that every human on earth has the same purpose is absurd.
Well your use of "purpose" here is a scriptural term... "design" i dont think is...
ReplyDeleteI only recognize scriptural terms in any of that side of things.. .. so I cant be an "IDer"... the "D" is for "design"...
The ID people are just platonists (or they are at least using platonism) in a dialectic exchange with other platonists... neither are scientists... or neither are approaching what is purely a material matter ( iow "exactly how were we created?") via the science method....
"Intelligent Design!" is a platonist statement of thesis... just like "we evolved from the apes by random chance mutation!"... methodologically they are equivalent statements...
Dariwn is "thesis" vs ID is "anti-thesis"... Its probably a waste of time... typical platonist circle-jerk...
They (ID people) should just stick to the science...