Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • WOMEN HAVE NO PLACE IN COMBAT

    https://www.vdare.com/posts/study-finds-women-dont-belong-in-combatOBVIOUS: WOMEN HAVE NO PLACE IN COMBAT

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 03:05:00 UTC

  • While you cannot intrinsically possess a right, you do intrinsically possess abi

    While you cannot intrinsically possess a right, you do intrinsically possess abilities. One of them that is the most decisive is violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-12 22:39:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.balancedandbarefoot.com/blog/the-real-reason-by-children-fidget

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-12 04:49:00 UTC

  • WORTH REPEATING : ARBITRARY PRECISION AND INFORMATION LOSS In mathematics, (intu

    WORTH REPEATING : ARBITRARY PRECISION AND INFORMATION LOSS

    In mathematics, (intuitionist mathematics), the requirement that we demonstrate all operations eliminates the possibility of the excluded middle – which is an unnecessary constraint upon mathematics. (This constraint is equivalent somewhat to computability in computer science.)

    However, in order to create mathematical statements in the form of general rules independent of scale, we divorce the statements from scale, maintaining only the relations themselves (ratios).

    By doing so – loss of context – we lose the information necessary to determine contextual precision. In other words, we no longer know that 1/64 of an inch is the maximum precision necessary for the given calculation. But in any application of the general statement to a given context we then regain the information necessary to make decisions.

    As such general mathematical statements are constructed with arbitrary precision that requires choice independent of context, or contextual application to supply the missing information.

    This problem of creating general statements independent of context is why it was necessary to transition number theory from geometry (infinite precision) to sets (binary precision). Thus reducing all mathematics to truth tables. And binary precision (set membership) is the reason why binary mathematics is so crucial to computation: we are always in a true or false state: a truth table that is universally decidable regardless of contextual precision.

    These discussions evolved in math as a war against mathematical platonism. And by applying the same principle to ethics the problem changes significantly since we never encounter the problem of arbitrary precision.

    In ethics, we do not have the luxury that physics does, in that information cannot be lost and all relations are constant. We are stuck with bounded but relatively inconstant relations.

    But we always can test the rationality of any economic statement that is reduced to a sequence of actions. ***And so we never encounter the problem of arbitrary scale and the insufficiency of information.***

    So when I speak of empiricism ( observation), operationalism (actions in time), and instrumentalism (reducing the imperceptible to the perceptible) it is in the context of ethics not mathematics and as such is not subject to the failure if operationalism and intuitionism to satisfy the needs of mathematicians.

    This is a revolutionary idea.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-12 02:55:00 UTC

  • REFORMING EDUCATION AGAINST THE WILL OF THE STATISTS Court case in California. S

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/06/california-judge-rules-tenure-laws.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MishsGlobalEconomicTrendAnalysis+%28Mish%27s+Global+Economic+Trend+Analysis%29ENTREPRENEURS REFORMING EDUCATION AGAINST THE WILL OF THE STATISTS

    Court case in California. Strangely a win. Ending tenure in the public interest.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-11 10:58:00 UTC

  • If I haven’t been riding on a motorcycle in many years, do I need a lighter star

    If I haven’t been riding on a motorcycle in many years, do I need a lighter starter bike, or do I just go with a 600-750 bike out of the gate, and trade up after a year?

    Remember. I drive like a grandmother. OK? No open road. No racing. Pure urban street stuff. Naked bikes. The luxury of feeling present in society, of easy social interaction in the city, and easy parking (particularly here in Europe).

    Thanks.

    ( Josh Brantley ? )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-11 07:35:00 UTC