Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • THE ONLY EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE ANARCHY IS CONSTRUCTED BY NOMOCRACY – WHEREIN NO

    THE ONLY EXISTENTIALLY POSSIBLE ANARCHY IS CONSTRUCTED BY NOMOCRACY – WHEREIN NO ONE RULES BECAUSE EVERYONE RULES.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 04:09:00 UTC

  • IS A THEORY GOOD BECAUSE IT IS USEFUL, OR BECAUSE WE FEEL IT IS TRUE? And is it

    IS A THEORY GOOD BECAUSE IT IS USEFUL, OR BECAUSE WE FEEL IT IS TRUE? And is it truthful because we can defend it, or because we cannot falsify it?

    (slightly tricky question)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 03:59:00 UTC

  • YES, MY POINT OF VIEW (MY VALUES) ARE WESTERN: SCIENTIFIC. BUT THAT IMPLIES BIAS

    YES, MY POINT OF VIEW (MY VALUES) ARE WESTERN: SCIENTIFIC. BUT THAT IMPLIES BIAS AND RELATIVITY NOT TRUTH. SO WHY AM I SO INTERESTED IN TRUTH?

    (h/t Karl )

    My point of view *IS* western; meaning: scientific. That is correct.

    Operations named can indeed be used as narrative for meaning. That is correct. Although that says nothing about the truth of the meaning inferred from the operations..

    Other cultures do not use rule of law, as such do not require logic in decision making. Yet liberty is only logically possible under rule of law. Other cultures don’t desire liberty. They desire consumption (as do most people in our culture as well). At present, liberty is a cultural preference of aristocratic civilization. But that just means that aristocratic civilization is scientific in function.

    I don’t generally make moral arguments except for ‘fun’ – I make AMORAL arguments. That’s the beauty of this logic: it’s not loaded. So, if one seeks to use this logic to create any possible political order, one can do so. But one need not (and cannot) resort to deception to do it.

    What isn’t obvious is that if you use this logic you can create non-monopoly social orders in a heterogeneous polity assuming that the rulers (monarchy) persists in maintaining rule of law, common organic law, property en toto, decide-able by the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchange.

    Unlike unlimited free-associationists (advocates of the heroism of science) I am not interested in furthering free association – I don’t think it can be furthered. I’m only interested in preventing bias, propaganda and deceit. I am not even that concerned with error.

    Just as christianity was used to destroy western religion and thought, pseudoscience as used to destroy western law and thought.

    Rule of law is our religion. Virtue is our religion. Nature is our religion. Commons are the produce of our religion. And truth is our most precious commons.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-26 03:54:00 UTC

  • There is a big difference between adding empirical content and removing imaginar

    There is a big difference between adding empirical content and removing imaginary content.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 16:37:00 UTC

  • Things are complicated when your premises are false. Explanatory power is an awe

    Things are complicated when your premises are false.

    Explanatory power is an awesome test.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testi

    OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testimonial truth and operational criticism that complete the suite of criticisms that we call ‘science’.

    Just riding high today. Sigh.

    I wish I could talk to Popper. He would have understood. Hayek probably not, but Popper for certain.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • ERROR IN UNDERSTANDING: OPERATIONALISM IS CRITICISM, NOT JUSTIFICATION —“Opera

    http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Operationalism.pdfTHE ERROR IN UNDERSTANDING: OPERATIONALISM IS CRITICISM, NOT JUSTIFICATION

    —“Operational definitions were a neo-Machean development that connected with the positivism of Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism failed, with the failure of operational definitions being just one of multiple and multifarious failures of Logical Positivism more broadly.”—

    The tragedy is that operationalism failed.

    The depth of this tragedy is one of the great intellectual failures of human History.

    Operational definitions test the existential possibility of our premises.

    All those great minds failed.

    And the twentieth century was an age of pseudoscience because of it.

    What could we have done without a century of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, freudian psychology, Boazian anthropology, Keynesian justification of theft, Rawlsian deception, Cantorian sets, and the pseudoscientific attacks on physics? Would philosophy have been lost had we saved it with operations? I think so.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FAILURE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 11:50:00 UTC

  • I need some Eli Harman today. Love you man

    I need some Eli Harman today.

    Love you man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:20:00 UTC

  • I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths. I judge the ara

    I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths.

    I judge the arational expression of agreement with falsehhids; and the rational justification of falsehoods, and the pseudoscientific justification if falsehoods.

    But increasingly I judge the incomplete use of due diligence in truth claims.

    Which is novel.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:19:00 UTC

  • EducationWP

    Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when looking at its layout. The point of using Lorem Ipsum is that it has a more-or-less normal distribution of letters, as opposed to using ‘Content here, content here’, making it look like readable English. Many desktop publishing packages and web page editors now use Lorem Ipsum as their default model text, and a search for ‘lorem ipsum’ will uncover many web sites still in their infancy. Various versions have evolved over the years, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose (injected humour and the like). There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which don’t look even slightly believable. If you are going to use a passage of Lorem Ipsum, you need to be sure there isn’t anything embarrassing hidden in the middle of text. All the Lorem Ipsum generators on the Internet tend to repeat predefined chunks as necessary, making this the first true generator on the Internet. It uses a dictionary of over 200 Latin words, combined with a handful of model sentence structures, to generate Lorem Ipsum which looks reasonable. The generated Lorem Ipsum is therefore always free from repetition, injected humour, or non-characteristic words etc. The standard chunk of Lorem Ipsum used since the 1500s is reproduced below for those interested. Sections 1.10.32 and 1.10.33 from “de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum” by Cicero are also reproduced in their exact original form, accompanied by English versions from the 1914 translation by H. Rackham.