Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE ELSE DOES IT (guaranteed to ma

    TRUTH IS A VERY EXPENSIVE NORM – THATS WHY NO ONE ELSE DOES IT

    (guaranteed to make people angry)(sketch)

    —HIERARCHY—

    -TRUTHFUL-

    GERMANIC EUROPE (non-ideological)

    ANGLO/AMERICAN (ideological optimism)

    INDIA (utopian idealism and justification)

    -DECEPTIVE-

    JEWISH (circumstantial truth, dual ethics, framing and overloading: pseudoscience and pseudorationalism and informational asymmetry)

    CHINA (creative lying, obscurantism, and delaying, lying as buying time, avoiding conflict, accumulating strength.)

    -DECEITFUL-

    RUSSIA (outright lying and cheating, non-contractual, lying as strength,)

    ISLAM/ARAB (denial of reality, deceit and aggression, lying as heroic.)

    I need a third dimension because India and SE Asia are hard to fit in a stack.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 16:23:00 UTC

  • FAME AND INTELLECTUAL INCENTIVES We gain fame by inventing new tools. We do not

    FAME AND INTELLECTUAL INCENTIVES

    We gain fame by inventing new tools.

    We do not gain fame by inventing new prohibitions.

    Maybe no one invented Propertarianism and Testimonialism before, because the central problems they faced were advancement of utility rather than constraint of falsehoods.

    You can see Hibert didn’t understand his own arguments.

    He doesn’t help us expand the knowledge of mathematics, he just tells us how to ensure that we haven’t erred.

    But you know, the 20th century has a lot of pseudoscientific

    If math is no longer correspondent, it is just a language game.

    Or stated, if math is not used in measurement it is just a puzzle, not a problem.

    While I am trying to create rule of law for heterogeneous polities, I am doing so largely by prohibiting falsehoods. The central problem we face today, is the conflict between authoritarian leftism of diverse polities, and egalitarian libertarianism of homogenous polities. Just as the enlightenment problem was one between the authoritarian state-church mysticism, and the egalitarian rational emergent middle classes. Just as the late roman problem was one between the totalitarian christians of the eastern empire, and the egalitarian stoics and pagans of the western empire. Just as between the establishment and the philosophers in athens. This battle seems never to end.

    I have a vision of a future where Testimonialism is so fully integrated into our language, that the transformation from our current language is as monumental the transformations from mystical, to religious, to rational, probabilistic, and to scientific language.

    At that point, no one remembers (or cares about) the invention of Testimonialism and Propertarianism. They live it every day. They care only about the constitution that makes government of a heterogeneous population possible.

    If a man has a reason to not be remembered, I would love to not be remembered for that reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 09:01:00 UTC

  • TRUTH DEFINITIONS Added: Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, un

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/UPDATED TRUTH DEFINITIONS

    Added:

    Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).

    Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants).

    Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.

    Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.

    Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 04:55:00 UTC

  • TECHNIQUE: JUSTIFICATION (MORAL) AND CRITICISM (AMORAL) You can Justify your sta

    TECHNIQUE: JUSTIFICATION (MORAL) AND CRITICISM (AMORAL)

    You can Justify your statements (as moral) if I trust you, and Criticize your statements (as scientific) if I don’t – or more importantly, if I cannot. Or worse, if it is not a matter of honesty but a matter of error and bias.

    A jury cannot tell the truth of things, it can only determine if you acted rationally given the information at your disposal (operational test of believability of testimony given one’s of incentives), and whether your testimony corresponds with the testimony of others.

    The intellectual disciplines, whether hard science or lacking hard science, all operate by the same process: testimony (publishing).

    Justification (positive tests) evolved out of moral justification: adherence to norms and rules and assumptions.

    Criticism (negative tests) evolved out of scientific criticism: tests of the limits of norms, rules and assumptions.

    Justification is understandable for those things at human scale that we can sympathetically test by experience, and Criticism is necessary for those things we cannot sympathetically test, are not at human scale, and we cannot sympathetically test by experience.

    This is because in matters of morals and norms we are chiefly looking for malfeasance: deceit.

    And in matters of science we are chiefly looking for error and cognitive bias.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-18 02:02:00 UTC

  • NUMBERS ARE NAMES OF ANALOGIES, NOT REFERENTS I can make up a name but it points

    NUMBERS ARE NAMES OF ANALOGIES, NOT REFERENTS

    I can make up a name but it points to nothing other than itself.

    I can make names that correspond to counts of something or other.

    (bait)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-17 03:14:00 UTC

  • WHICH DO YOU RELY UPON? NAME: – – – – UNIQUE IDENTIFIER FOR A REPEATABLE SEQUENC

    WHICH DO YOU RELY UPON?

    NAME:

    – – – – UNIQUE IDENTIFIER FOR A REPEATABLE SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS

    DESCRIPTION:

    – – – – ACTOR (OPERATIONS / INTENTIONS)

    – – – – EXPERIENCER (EXPERIENCES / ASSUMPTIONS OF ACTOR)

    – – – – OBSERVER (OBSERVATIONS / ASSUMPTIONS OF ACTOR / EXPER.)

    ANALOGY:

    – – – – P.O.V. Actor, Exp, Observer, or Conflated?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 06:16:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS. Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is

    PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS.

    Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is a test of existential possibility. It just says something is possible. That’s all it tells you. But just as a proof in math helps you grasp very complex processes, a proof in human action allows you to grasp very complex processes.

    Propertarian proofs are not much harder to write than mathematical proofs. There are a very limited number of operations, and a very limited number of categories of property to consider.

    Within a year or two I will be able to teach people how to write praxeological ‘proofs’, to either test if something is possible, or challenge whether something is possible.

    At that point, psychology will be limited to the study of cognitive biases, and economics will be divided into deceptions (disinformation by policy) and truths (institutional improvements in the means of cooperation).

    And we will be able to demonstrate how to write strictly constructed law free of judicial activism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:59:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”

    [O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

  • Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”

    [O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

  • Yes. We *Can* Demand People Warranty Their Statements for Truthfulness.

    CURT—“Why can’t we demand that people warranty the truthfulness of their statements?”—

    RICHARD—“because truth is determined, if at all, by debate and testing, and what cannot be stated while untested is unlikely to receive the scrutiny needed to determine its truth or falsity.”—

    [T]his is not true. TRUTHFULNESS, in all walks of life, not only in the physical sciences, is the result of performance of due diligence: criticism of our testimony. The act of laundering imagination, fantasy, bias, error and deception from our testimony. Justification is false. There are no non-trivial complete premises. We can criticize our extant understanding as thoroughly as possible, but we can never know if we are informationally complete.

    Testimony is unnatural to man. Which is why westerner’s are unique in its construction as a norm: it’s prohibitively expensive.
    Analytic truth (the case you use in your statement above), is impossible to know for other than tautological and trivial statements.

    —”No, I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.

    But mere honesty is not truthfulness in any case.

    My guess is that you have no clear idea even of what analytic truth means, Curt. “—-

    —-David McDonagh mcdonagh_d@yahoo.co.uk

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    2) Truthfulness exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit, and that one has performed due diligence against imagination, bias and error.

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that complete.

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context).

    REGARDING SNARKY DAVIDISM
    –”…what analytic truth means”–

    What meaning people normatively derive from the term, and what meaning (content) is necessary for the term to correspond to the testimony given using it, are two different things. So, on order to put forth a substantive criticism – you would actually have to put forward a criticism. 😉

    But in an effort to assist you in your journey: the word ‘is’ must refer to existence if one is not engaging in conflation; and ‘truth’ can only exist as testimony (promise). Any other use of the term ‘true’ is an analogy that we must test for internal consistency given the context of its use.

    “The ball is red” = “Having observed the ball, I promise you that if you observe the ball, you will also perceive that it appears red.”
    This is the only existentially possible operational definition. “The ball Is red” is an expression of verbal brevity.
    OR more generally “is” = “I promise that subject to the same observations you will percieve what I testify that you will”

    So:
    –” I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.”–
    is an excellent example of how the term truth is misused.

    Translates to (and can only translate to):
    “I was talking about the degree of criticism I had performed in my due diligence of my premises, and therefore the scope of diligence I must perform upon my deductions from those premises”.

    As far as I know I am one of the best people living and working on this subject.

    Cheers.

    DEFINITIONS: TRUTH, TRUTHFULNESS, AND HONESTY http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/ DUE DILIGENCE 

    NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/