Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • TERMS: HYPERTHETICAL AND HYPOTHETICAL —“Thought experiments have done yeoman’s

    TERMS: HYPERTHETICAL AND HYPOTHETICAL

    —“Thought experiments have done yeoman’s work in philosophy ever since the tale of the ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic. There clearly is a place for them in testing our moral intuitions, yet they have been taken too far down the trolley track in contemporary ethical theory. At issue here is modality: the meaning of the possible for making sense of ethical life. Let me suggest two modes of the possible. One is the merely conceivable, which involves science fiction elements or extraordinarily rare circumstances, things that are not logically impossible or outright violations of the laws of nature. The other mode is the genuinely plausible, scenarios that are either actually possible (because they have happened) or feasible given a reasonable construal of existing realities. I would like to narrow the use of hypothetical to the latter set of plausible cases and coin a new term, hyperthetical, for the merely conceivable.”— Michael Philip

    Excellent reframing. I would suggest you take my approach of a minimum three points to make an argumentative line, and follow your own sentence structure: 1-Conceivable, 2-Plausible, and 3-Feasible. (I am going to steal it. thanks. )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-01 14:34:00 UTC

  • (Even though I consider Testimonialism as the completion of the critical rationa

    (Even though I consider Testimonialism as the completion of the critical rationalist program.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 10:08:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660397971457114112

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial @SanguineEmpiric @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659871607570042880

    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/659871607570042880

  • But I am not able to correct Popperians because the cultishness has gotten out o

    But I am not able to correct Popperians because the cultishness has gotten out of hand.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 10:08:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660397840347373568

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial @SanguineEmpiric @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659871607570042880

    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/659871607570042880

  • was the inspiration for my solution to the failures of Hayek, Mises, Popper

    … was the inspiration for my solution to the failures of Hayek, Mises, Popper.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 10:07:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/660397599200043008

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial @SanguineEmpiric @wargfranklin

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/659871607570042880

    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/659871607570042880

  • +ian drake Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosop

    +ian drake

    Science is, for ancient reasons, artificially separated from philosophy because while law and morality require justificationary reasoning, truth requires criticism; and survival from criticism leaves us with truth candidates. Science has evolved a methodology for cleansing error, imaginary relations, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our thoughts and words. Scientists are not calculators, but if they are indeed engaging in truth (science) then they must at some point make objective propositions.

    MY criticism of Lakoff, Chomsky and their ilk, is that they are practicing a long standing tradition of the Cosmopolitan enlightenment, which is to state a half truth in order to perpetuate a lie by means of suggestion. In the case of these immoral men, pseudoscience is the vehicle for their half truth. Because only pseudoscience can convey a half truth with the pretense of science.

    Of the various tests we subject our theories to, one is parsimony and its inverse: “full accounting”: weighing all consequences, not selecting consequences in a ‘ben franklin’ close (intentional selection bias, in order to create suggestion that overwhelms reason by appealing to intuition.)

    So when one practices the discipline of science, avoids parsimony, and avoids full accounting, one is not engaging in science but pseudoscience for the purpose of using suggestion to perpetuate a deception.

    The Cosmopolitans have a long history of half truths via pseudoscience: marx, freud, boaz, cantor, mises, and the frankfurt school. And their technique was adopted by the neo-puritans and feminists as socialism, keynesian economics, postmodernism, and political correctness.

    It has only been since about 2000 that science has begun to overthrow the deceits of these men. And I am quite confident that they will be remembered in history as what they demonstrate they are: pseudoscientists and propagandists with almost entirely political objectives.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-31 07:35:00 UTC

  • “Communication, Argument, and Proof are different things unfortunately. I don’t

    —“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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 10:38:00 UTC

  • PROOFS AND TRUTHS (important summary) When we write a proof, we demonstrate that

    PROOFS AND TRUTHS

    (important summary)

    When 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

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-30 05:23:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH? —“It sounds like you’re reco

    Q&A: “ARE THEIR ‘HIGHER’ PSYCHOLOGIES THAN TRUTH?

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    Well, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered.

    Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish.

    Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance.

    Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done.

    Liars all. Particularly to ourselves.

    So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-29 10:59:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHIES: SOME JUST GET OTHERS OUT OF THE WAY (choice words) Some philosophi

    PHILOSOPHIES: SOME JUST GET OTHERS OUT OF THE WAY

    (choice words)

    Some philosophies quell us in order to tolerate mundanity. Some philosophies inspire in order to create hope and motivate action in the face of reality. Some philosophies have no answers but inspire a search for them. Some philosophies have answers and inspire us to act on them. Some philosophies merely get those who lack inspiration out of the way of those who have it.

    Propertarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-27 04:27:00 UTC

  • Justification is logically limited to moral and Criticism to truth. 😉

    Justification is logically limited to moral and Criticism to truth. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 15:19:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/658664315025797120

    Reply addressees: @JasonKuznicki @libertarianism @CatoInstitute @GrantBabcock @ARossP

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/658621795910754304

    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/658621795910754304