Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Proofs and Truths

    (important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.
    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Proofs and Truths

    (important summary) [W]hen we write a proof, we demonstrate that our testimony is existentially possible. Proofs demonstrate existential possibility. But they do not necessarily demonstrate uniqueness. So a proof does not say that this particular road led one to Rome. It merely says that it is indeed possible to arrive in Rome via this road. A truth claim would have to demonstrate that the only possible way to Rome is by this road, or to demonstrate that you had indeed taken this road using incontestable evidence that you had not taken others. This is the difference between subjective and rational and objective and empirical testimony. And when we construct proofs in Propertarian language, we do not make claims of uniqueness: truth; we make claims of possibility: proofs. We prove that our testimony is possible, but not unique. That proof requires that each step in the sequence of our proof is also subjectively testable as a rational operation by a human mind, given the incentives at his disposal. Propertarianism provides the fulfillment of hte promise of praxeology, without the error that such statements are true, only that they are not false. This corrects the Misesian half-success of praxeology by merging it with the Popperian half-success of critical rationalism: the evolution of knowledge by survival of criticism, to achieve the Hayekian half-success that liberty is only obtainable through rule of law; and merging them together with the expensive commons of high trust and truth telling into Testimonialism: the epistemology of Propertarianism. Liberty results only from truth in mind, utterance, and trial by jury, under the total prohibition of parasitism, forcing all men into production of goods, services and commons. The most precious, expensive, and scarce of commons being objective truth and truth telling itself.
    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Communication, Argument, and Proof

    —“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt

  • Communication, Argument, and Proof

    —“Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t really communicate. I construct arguments and proofs. My “managers” tell me to do that, and leave communication of it for others. And that seems to work best. There are already a few people that are better at communicating these ideas than I am.”—Curt

  • Kantian Rationalism vs Anglo Empiricism (This is a very complex topic so it’s in

    Kantian Rationalism vs Anglo Empiricism (This is a very complex topic so it’s insufficient for tweets. Sorry.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 18:06:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663055014840135680

    Reply addressees: @LordChaldon @ShaunWesleyWyrd

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663042804956962816

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663042804956962816

  • Two statistical values were invented to obscure, mislead, and deceive: “househol

    Two statistical values were invented to obscure, mislead, and deceive: “household income”, and “gun deaths”. (Fool bait).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 14:20:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662998047308292096

    Reply addressees: @conradhackett

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/662995675274067968

  • “Yeah, well, I am sorry to slay false gods with the false promise of liberty, Bu

    —“Yeah, well, I am sorry to slay false gods with the false promise of liberty, But that goes with the territory. Truth leaves no room for mercy toward lies.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 12:57:00 UTC

  • “You can very much ignore the truth, but it will lead to disastrous consequences

    —“You can very much ignore the truth, but it will lead to disastrous consequences, because your perception of the truth has no bearing on the actual truth.”— Tristan Powers

    (imperfect language but it does the job. 🙂 – cd)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 08:36:00 UTC

  • IMPORTANT IDEA OF THE DAY: TRUTH IS EXPENSIVE, BUT THE RETURNS WARRANT IT, AND M

    IMPORTANT IDEA OF THE DAY: TRUTH IS EXPENSIVE, BUT THE RETURNS WARRANT IT, AND MORALITY DEMANDS IT.

    It was very expensive to create settlements by prohibiting predation by the development of armies and professional warriors. But we obtained the ability to accumulate capital, and to create a division of labor.

    It was very expensive to create property rights by prohibiting parasitism through law and indoctrination. But we obtained the ability to create a market, money, and prices.

    It was very expensive to create literacy by creating printing and education. But we dramatically expanded human productivity, and demonstrated intelligence.

    It was very expensive to create scientific thought through a century of education. But we dramatically reduced transaction costs, increased human productivity, and increased demonstrated intelligence.

    It will be equally expensive to create TRUTHFULNESS – or, perhaps, restore truthfulness to the scientific era. And the gains will will obtain from truthfulness will be equal to if not surpass the gains we obtained from literacy.

    A truthful world is as hard for us to imagine as a scientific world was for religio-rationalists to imagine, as it was for the pre-literate to imagine the literate, as it was for the barbaric to imagine the urban.

    That something is an expensive commons to produce is not a criticism. It is a question of returns.

    Mankind must eventually make this transition. We can do it now, and free ourselves of the threats to our civilization – the civilization that invented truth. Or we can experience a peak beyond which we fail to pass, as did the Greeks and the Romans. As did the Byzantines and Persians. As did the Austrians and Spanish. As did the French and German. And let our civilization pass from this earth – disappearing, and becoming subject to peoples more barbaric than we.

    I am willing to die to save my civilization, my race, my people from another dark age, and to instead transform mankind from the merely rational and scientific to the truthful stage of evolution.

    This isn’t a cost I expect everyone to agree to bear. But it is a cost I know many of us are willing to bear – and to bear gladly and heroically.

    We can purge all forms of lies from this earth.

    And in doing so, transform man into gods.

    For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kyiv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-07 06:52:00 UTC

  • From the website: Elucidation on Ludwig Von Mises’s works (Praxeology and Human

    From the website: Elucidation on Ludwig Von Mises’s works (Praxeology and Human Action volumes)

    Mises: “Human Operationalism”, Not “Human Action”

    Sunday, January 18th, 2015

    He was that close.

    I have more important things to do with my life, but if I had the time I could rewrite his tome Human Action as Human Operationalism, and instantly reform the debate from one between science and pseudoscience in which he has been outcast, to one that unified all fields, and restored his position in intellectual history.

    Damn. He was SO CLOSE. So close. It’s taken me years. And in retrospect it’s tragic. Terribly tragic. He *almost* reformed economics and saved us from a century of destructive Keynesian policy.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-04 17:25:00 UTC