photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54114819_10157056551607264_366004875

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54114819_10157056551607264_3660048753148035072_n_10157056551602264.jpg From @[506159294:2048:Skye Stewart]

—Idealism is the gateway drug for shit thinking in philosophy.”— CD

I want a T-shirt 😜Josh JeppsonMany physicists are philosophical Idealists because they’re honest enough to admit the model cannot be the model builder. Here was one such physicist:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691119643/Mar 18, 2019, 8:48 PMCurt DoolittleMany mathematicians are mathematical idealists. They’re wrong, but outside of their god awful effect on physics it doesn’t much matter.

That said, their effect on physics has been pretty ‘costly’.

And their affect on education even worse.

Imagine if we taught math operationally?

Everyone would ‘get it’. It’s fucking simple.

Math: how to break stuff into measurements. duh.Mar 19, 2019, 5:44 PMJosh JeppsonI still don’t understand how you’re exactly using the words ‘measurement’, ‘test’, and ‘calculation’.

I went through your site yet again (obviously have been there many times over the years), reading through what related articles I could find as well as reading through your glossary. I couldn’t find as precise of definitions for those three words as I would need to philosophically understand and agree with your worldview.

The most I saw ‘calculation’ defined as was ‘a deliberate process of transforming inputs into outputs’, which doesn’t philosophically tell me much (let’s already get into this ‘deliberate’ ‘process’, let’s get into intentionality and theory of language).

I studied analytic chemistry at the graduate level and am very familiar with the level of rigor you’re grasping for epistemologically. However, I would never dream of thinking one could build law and analyze morality through such science, so I’d like to see how you’re using operationalism to do so, these operations in practice.

So far, it looks like only high-level reference, with no low-level demonstration.Mar 19, 2019, 9:02 PMCurt Doolittlecalculation is correct. test i don’t think needs clarification other than testing the dimensions i state in testimonialism. Measurement: any standard of commensurability by any possible dimension of perception, that can be subjectively tested by human perception, as a means of overcoming limits to perception and preventing bias and error. Mathematics consists of nothing other than tests of positional (constant) relations, using positional (unique) naming, providing universal commensurability at scale independence.

I don’t think you understand. see hayes’ post today or pisarro’s comment.Mar 19, 2019, 9:35 PMCurt Doolittleit’s not any more possible for reciprocity to be false than it is for one’s choice to be irrational. We can always explain. Since we can both parties face zeno’s challenge of moving halfway toward one another to the point of marginal indifference, or retreat.Mar 19, 2019, 9:38 PMJosh JeppsonCurt Doolittle What does it mean to test the categorical consistency of a name, though? How do humans construct shared names and shared meaning? Is it just the case that you don’t have such inquiry as an ambition, but are only concerned with the scientific portion of the moral deliberative process?

I think you’re correct insofar as the scientific portion, but then wonder what innovations you think you could be providing over what is already known to science and pragmatist law (unloading claims has obviously been known of and done for as long as humans have had declarative language).

I know your ambitions aren’t that, but are trying to claim morality can be evaluated through declarative constructs like evolutionary theory, so I want to get to how you believe that is possible.Mar 20, 2019, 12:02 AMCorey HarmsI NEED this on a shirt.Mar 21, 2019, 2:32 PMFrom Skye Stewart

—Idealism is the gateway drug for shit thinking in philosophy.”— CD

I want a T-shirt 😜