My Fundamentals
From Huben's Wiki
(Created page with "This is a page about the fundamentals of my thinking. It is inspired by John Nerst's [https://everythingstudies.com/2018/07/16/30-fundamentals/ 30 Fundamentals], which descri...") |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
* holdings are privately, coercively enforced freedoms | * holdings are privately, coercively enforced freedoms | ||
** all holdings eliminate some freedoms of others, which is why they need enforcement | ** all holdings eliminate some freedoms of others, which is why they need enforcement | ||
| − | * legal rights (including property) replaces private enforcement of holdings by state enforcement | + | * legal rights (including property) replaces private enforcement of holdings by social (usually state) enforcement |
** coercion creates holdings and rights | ** coercion creates holdings and rights | ||
** efficient because reduces deadweight protection costs | ** efficient because reduces deadweight protection costs | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
** accumulation of wealth is only possible because of coercive holdings or legal rights | ** accumulation of wealth is only possible because of coercive holdings or legal rights | ||
* individuals are a legal fiction: human organisms exist as parts of a society | * individuals are a legal fiction: human organisms exist as parts of a society | ||
| − | ** a preference for recognition of individuals besides the dominant | + | ** a preference for recognition of individuals besides the dominant individuals |
** interdependence in development, security, commerce, etc. | ** interdependence in development, security, commerce, etc. | ||
** holdings and rights are societal concepts | ** holdings and rights are societal concepts | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
#2 introduces the idea of validity, which I consider the basic measure of knowledge | #2 introduces the idea of validity, which I consider the basic measure of knowledge | ||
| − | #3 "Natural-language claims instead have varying degrees of validity.” I consider this perhaps the most fundamental statement we can make. It is the major premise of science, IMHO. I do not like calling anything truth: I don’t think there is ever a reason to. Not even in mathematics: there, “truth” also implies conditional upon acceptance of premises. For example, 1+1=1 is a true statement for sets. 1 set + 1 set = 1 set (assuming + means union.) It is difficult to call anything a fact, because all language is theory laden. What we really need to do is discuss using statements with agreed upon known degrees of validity and known exceptions. | + | #3 "Natural-language claims instead have varying degrees of validity.” I consider this perhaps the most fundamental statement we can make. It is the major premise of science, IMHO. I do not like calling anything truth: I don’t think there is ever a reason to. Not even in mathematics: there, “truth” also implies conditional upon acceptance of premises. For example, 1+1=1 is a true statement for sets. 1 set + 1 set = 1 set (assuming + means union.) It is difficult to call anything a fact, because all language is theory laden. What we really need to do is discuss using statements with agreed upon known degrees of validity and known exceptions. When validity approaches 100%, we call it truth. (As opposed to "When validity approaches infinity, we call it truth.") |
#4 Validity IS quantifiable in physics. That’s why science uses significant digits, and searches for limits of applicability of theories. For example, knowing that quantum mechanics and special relativity conflict. Exceptions to validity are easily enumerated for more complex ideas, such as market failures in free-market theory. What you call maps, I call models — and all models have limits. None can be called facts. Measurements cannot even be called facts: just approximations of facts with known significance. I call them observations instead. | #4 Validity IS quantifiable in physics. That’s why science uses significant digits, and searches for limits of applicability of theories. For example, knowing that quantum mechanics and special relativity conflict. Exceptions to validity are easily enumerated for more complex ideas, such as market failures in free-market theory. What you call maps, I call models — and all models have limits. None can be called facts. Measurements cannot even be called facts: just approximations of facts with known significance. I call them observations instead. | ||
