Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE? Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of

    WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE?

    Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of philosophers is to integrate the findings of science into our system of -collection of- general rules, by which we agree upon a useful, beneficial, normative perception of the world we live in, and how we should act in it.

    So, I do understand that science, not philosophy, is the source of current knowledge.

    But we must understand what to value, and devalue and consider foul, and what to encode encode in law, not encode in law. Because while we may desire our preferences, the law describes the boundary beyond which our preferences may not pass.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:53:00 UTC

  • THE USE OF TERMS Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrum

    THE USE OF TERMS

    Use of words under normative definitions is pretty poor instrumentalism. What happens to tools when you leave them lying around for any idiot to use? Well, they fall victim to the tragedy of the commons – no one takes care of those tools. They abuse them, they misuse them, and they care not what happens to them. And they are rarely if ever suitable for precise work – ever again. But somewhere exist the original precise versions of these tools, or their offspring, that reflect the precision necessary of master craftsmen. These tools are suitable for precise work. So whenever possible its in your interest to find the precise terms – because the origins of terms was that they solved problems for their creators. It is the problems they solved that constitute their necessary functions, not the various uses and abuses and misuses, that the common man as put them through in opening his barrels, cans and bottles. However, we must also keep in mind that dishonest men and well intentioned fools craft tools of deception that are equally precise. And again, is the problem that they solve with their deception that we must discover, not what they intended us to deduce from it. This is the operational approach to language: to discover the problem solved by the statement, not the intention of the author.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 11:05:00 UTC

  • THE VALUE OF CRITICISM – AND LAUNDRY. 🙂 One of the ways you can test whether yo

    THE VALUE OF CRITICISM – AND LAUNDRY. 🙂

    One of the ways you can test whether you are seeking justification for preferences or truth, independent of your preferences, is the degree of criticism you seek. If you’re searching for truth, finding good criticism is like finding a new source of good data. It’s something to be celebrated with excitement. Unfortunately, like good data, good criticism is rare. But in my little world, I see criticism as helping me – as cooperation. As reduction of my labor. As something I do not have to think about, and is therefore off my work load. Or as something I never would have thought of without the help of critics. The problem with criticism, like data from any form of instrumentation, is that it’s loaded and framed by the provider, and unlike instrumental data, to which we applied bias both in the construction of the instrument, and in the interpretation of data, the provider of that criticism is often not only engaged in bias, but either acting as a vector for a lie, or lying himself. The difficulty one faces in celebrating criticism is found only after the rather tedious and often frustrating work of determining whether or not the criticism just includes error and bias, as does all data, but whether or not it includes vectors for lies, or lies. Laundering criticism is dirty painful and socially unpleasant work, and that is why many avoid it. But you either have to do your laundry, or someone has to do it for you

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-05 01:14:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE Because no one else does it. And no one else do

    TRUTH IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

    Because no one else does it. And no one else does it because it’s expensive.

    And so telling the truth is the highest tax we can pay for our civilization.

    Germanic westerners pay the highest normative taxes in the world — by far.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 11:01:00 UTC

  • POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG (is this then, a refor

    POPPER HAD IT BACKWARDS – WESTERNERS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG

    (is this then, a reformation of Criticial Rationalism? )

    Popper had it backwards and was a Platonist himself. The problem is not in the discovery of “the nature of things”, but to eliminate the anthropogenic bias endemic to all human thought whether to our reason, memory or perception.

    Telling the truth is easy. It’s not telling a lie, acting as a vector for a lie, or failing to grasp that our intuition lies on behalf of it genes, or errs because of cognitive

    limitations during our evolution that is the problem.

    Had popper and Russell and others understood that it is not the mind of God that was philosophy’s task, and that scriptural interpretation was the method they were applying by the study of language, and instead, they had sought as did science, to remove error, rather than the verbal chimera of truth, the socialists and feminists and Keynesianism may have been unable to destroy western civilization.

    WESTERNERS HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG: TRUTH.

    And in an attempt to seize power from the state, we adopted justification.

    And that was our failing.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-03 10:18:00 UTC

  • You know, writing about what you CAN experience, analogies to experience, and th

    You know, writing about what you CAN experience, analogies to experience, and that which you cannot experience is really difficult…. All language is analogy to experience, so try to talk to the blind and deaf about color and sound requires layers of analogy all of which are open to misinterpretation and error… sigh…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 17:22:00 UTC

  • TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN To some degree, we are confused: the scient

    TEACHING US TO SPEAK THE TRUTH AGAIN

    To some degree, we are confused: the scientists developed the method of truthful speech out of necessity AND out of a lack of malincentives. The problem that other disciplines face is that either the externalities produced are somewhat limited, such as the use of mathematical platonism, or the incentives to lie are greater – far greater – than any incentive to tell the truth: such as in politics, law, advertising, the academy in general, or for public intellectuals.

    So what we have done is created an asymmetry of incentives by our incorrect, inappropriate, and morally mistaken advocacy of free speech.

    It is not that we must possess free speech, it is that we are prohibited from bringing a verbal, written, and conceptual product to the market for the consumption of ideas, without requiring that we warranty that good, in an attempt to insure that we do not harm ourselves through excessive warranty.

    However the jury is in on this matter, and instead of spending two centuries defining truthful speech under the limits of law of warranty, we have spent two centuries learning how to improve our lies. And we have, as evidenced by the pseudoscientific efforts of the marxists, and pseudoscientists, and pseudo-rationalists, dramatically improved our ability to lie.

    But since the cause of this continuous improvement of the technology of lying is something we know, and we know how to fix, then there is little stopping us from fixing it.

    All we need to do is return to treating speech as a product and the commons as property, and one may not pollute the commons any more than one may pollute the land.

    It will take very little time, less than two generations, to teach people to speak the truth again.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:18:00 UTC

  • THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSI

    THE INCENTIVES THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF THE ACADEMY TO PRODUCE TRUTHFUL PROPOSITIONS

    There are categories of problems you cannot solve within the academy. The academy is hostile to many of them. Just as the church was hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. Just as the state is hostile to categories of problems and the ideas that solved them. In the case of the church and the state, they have adopted the mantra of entrepreneurial class without grasping its limits: we must serve customers, however we may not produce externalities. Both academy and state, which possess international rather than regional scope seek the best customers, whereas church as local franchises sought the best deals on behalf of their investors (consumers).

    This contradiction of incentives was caused by the enlightenment fallacy of the island people (the British – my people) and is why they divorced from the german civilization.

    It was a very profitable means of suicide.

    We cannot look at the anglo value system as ‘good’, we can only look at the anglo empirical methods in philosophy, science, commerce, and law as good. The german method is false,but the values are ‘good’. The cosmopolitan values and method are bad and false.

    CULTURE………..STRATEGY……………..METHOD……..

    British………………False(Suicidal)…………True (ratio-empirical)

    German……………True(Optimum)…………False (rationalism)

    Jewish……………..False(Cancerous)……..False (pseudoscientific)

    The problem is that the germans, once conquered, adopted enough of the British strategy, and the jewish strategy, while they have been occupied in the postwar anglo era, that they are acting suicidally as well.

    The only way to fix this problem is to re-nationalize liberalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 05:06:00 UTC

  • Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ri

    Ridicule alone is merely an admission of incompetence. Competence followed by ridicule will get you hurt, but at least it is not dishonest. Competence without ridicule will not get your hurt, and is honest, and allows you to resort to violence if the other party attempts to disengage via dishonesty, incompetence, or ridicule.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 11:36:00 UTC

  • I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements,

    I am, as is anyone, burdened by the necessity of creating universal statements, but that within any universal statement tolerating a distribution. This is necessary for the construction of general rules of communication.

    I have had numerous death threats, and been asked to run for office frequently, and I’ve had people stalk me, and I see nothing special about women with the same problem.

    Women are a dead weight in battle and thats the evidence and the evidence is in – women get men killed.

    The value women provide in any conflict is the provision of supplies, staffing the work force, and providing care taking – and losing their sons.

    But there is no equal to the loss of life and limb. So no, this is a statement that has no merit.

    Nature produces many more males than females for precisely this purpose and under stress females produce more males, and under prosperity more females.

    We evolved this way. Men are where nature experiments and we are disposable. ON the other hand possibly because we know we are disposable, we are highly sensitive to politics – so that we cannot be easily disposed of.

    Women on the other hand evolved to make sure they were safe enough to care for their offspring even if their off spring are harmful to the population (see the stats on mothers defense of serial killers and criminals vs fathers)

    So my point is that we feel what our genes instruct us to feel, and our words are just negotiations.

    The family and one vote per family neutralizez the use of government to conduct war between the genders.

    I think this is one of the insights I have tried to provide. And I will never convince women that their offspring are ugly, stupid, and a terrible additoni to the gene pool, and net drain on humanity. I mean, can you imagine women actually looking at their children that way?

    I cannot imagine not. Women used to expose their children if they could not care for them without self harm. Now they don’t need to expose them, just let others pay for them.

    The cost of this is being paid by men who will now see their old ages in poverty, and loneliness.

    Anyway, that is why men will fight. to the death, or why other men will conquer any group that manages to succeed at the feminist program.

    It’s suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-01 08:09:00 UTC