Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • 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…/

  • Scientific and Libertarian vs Mythical and Authoritarian: The Burden of Thought.

    (religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking.  But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason.  Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Scientific and Libertarian vs Mythical and Authoritarian: The Burden of Thought.

    (religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking.  But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason.  Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle

  • THREE CLASSES AND THREE CHOICES: SCIENTIFIC NOBILITY, UTILITARIAN (DECEITFUL) PU

    THREE CLASSES AND THREE CHOICES: SCIENTIFIC NOBILITY, UTILITARIAN (DECEITFUL) PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL, MYSTICAL PRIESTHOOD.

    (religious trigger warning)

    Kant was still a Christian`, arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics.

    We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy.

    What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events.

    The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases.

    So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction.

    Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level.

    (Spoken as a Catholic myself.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-05 07:43:00 UTC

  • Due Diligence Necessary For the Warranty of Truthfulness

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

    (Ed: Note: Updated June 26 to reflect addition of warranty #5.)


  • Due Diligence Necessary For the Warranty of Truthfulness

    [D]ue Diligence necessary for Warranty that our Testimony is Truthful.

    1) Have we achieved identity? Is it categorically consistent?

    2) Is it internally consistent? Is it logical? Can we construct a proof(test) of internal consistency?

    3) Is it externally correspondent, and sufficiently parsimonious? Can we construct a proof (test) of external correspondence.

    4) Is it existentially possible? Is it operationally articulated? Can we construct a proof (test) of existential possibility? And is it free of imaginary content when we articulate it as such?

    5) Is it limited? Do you know it’s boundaries (falsification)

    6) Is it fully accounted? Do we account for all costs to all capital in all temporal and inter-temporal dimensions? (Have we avoided selection bias?) Can we construct a proof (test) of full accounting? (Is information lost or artificially gained?)

    7) Is it morally constrained? Does it violate the incentive to cooperate? (Meaning, are all operations productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of negative externality of the same criterion?)

    If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.

    Source: Curt Doolittle

    (Ed: Note: Updated June 26 to reflect addition of warranty #5.)


  • This is one of the great unsolved philosophical problems of the 20th century: Du

    This is one of the great unsolved philosophical problems of the 20th century: Due diligence in one’s criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 09:21:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606390194686803968

    Reply addressees: @TCJUK @paulmromer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606073461837070336

    IN REPLY TO:

    @TCJUK

    Mathiness: not just a problem of economics, but across science http://t.co/GD9zZjUiLa @paulmromer

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606073461837070336

  • @paulromer #mathiness I set out to debunk libertarian justificationism. I did no

    @paulromer #mathiness I set out to debunk libertarian justificationism. I did not expect to solve the problem of ‘mathiness’ by doing so.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 09:18:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606389452299247617

  • @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Ope

    @paulromer #mathiness Law and Morality: justificationary. Science: critical. Operational definitions warranty against: error, bias, deceit.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:45:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606381185464455168

  • @paulromer #mathiness Posts on operational definitions as tests of existential p

    @paulromer #mathiness Posts on operational definitions as tests of existential possibility. http://www.propertarianism.com/?s=operationalism

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-04 08:41:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/606380309769265152