My Actifit Report Card: March 21 2022

Lots of writing, lots of walking today.

I feel good, because I’ve gotten back into exercise and had lots of opportunity to write. I finished listening to Mises’ Theory and History, which had some interesting stuff that made it into the book on libertarianism. It’s almost done now. Might re-listen to Theory and History while figuring out some stuff for the section on Austro-libertarian historical thought, especially the later sections because I understood them while listening but have had a hard time working from them now that I’m trying to write.

Spent a long time arguing with people on Twitter today because I mentioned preferring natural philosophy to science. This is somewhat of a category error, since natural philosophy is really a framework that can contain science, compared to the modern “science” of scientism which serves as a framework but rejects many epistemological methods.

The problem is that positivism, which is really what most people think of when they’re referring to science, is absolutely dreadful at coming up with useful ways to live and view reality. It’s not the worst thing ever, but it’s certainly not particularly productive for a happy and well-off society.

At least natural philosophy integrates everything together, which appeals to those of us who have an affinity for logical and rational processes alongside the empirical method.

Plus, honestly, most people who claim to be scientists suck. They’re bad at setting up experiments, and they’re really data-pushers. The problem is that they think they’re a lot smarter than they are, and many of them only claim to be average so that’s saying a lot.

The ability to appreciate greater frameworks of understanding–including the ability to see the universe as a gift from God set into motion in alignment with His will–is important to give some moral underpinnings and prevent a layer of hubris from slipping in.

Plus, the thing people keep whining the most about is the idea of falsifiability. Falsifiability is great in an experimental context, but it’s absolutely hogwash outside of it, and sometimes people think they’ve pulled off something great when they’re really not actually reaching what they aim at.

There is something to be said for quanta over qualia and a healthy skepticism of the information our senses and reasoning can provide, but if you don’t realize that it also applies to your ability to construct and operate within the confines of experimental apparatuses you’re really not worth much as a thinker.

Some of this comes from my background, which is pretty heavy in the social sciences (education, economics, etc.) alongside a little bit of the hard sciences like biology and chemistry. Not a lot of math, but I’m probably a standard deviation above average because my education was pretty strong and I’m the sort of high-performer who hates failing at anything.

I see a lot of people, especially in education, since it’s where I have my formal education and it’s a field that’s been ruined by politics (though hasn’t economics too?) make horrid tortured conclusions from data. Many people don’t understand that the experimental setup sucks, and that they’re measuring things they’re not accounting for, no matter how many times they get it explained to them.

This report was published via Actifit app (Android | iOS). Check out the original version here on actifit.io

Walking