Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • What Are The Best “what Comes After Postmodernism” Essays?

    Restoration of Modernism, and extension of Modernism to include Operationalism, Intuitionism, Instrumentalism, and Performative (or Testimonial) Truth.  Repudiation of Platonism, Pseudoscience, Verbalism, and Social Construction. Repudiation of Universalism. Repudiation of Democracy. Return to Nationalism. 

    Its already happening.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-what-comes-after-postmodernism-essays

  • How Can One Determine When Subjective Reasoning Might Be Preferable To Objective Reason?

    This question is not necessarily coherent, since subjective reason is a non-sequitur. If you mean, “When is intuition more useful than reason?” then that is a question currently addressed by Kahneman and Haidt.  Intuition is very powerful, but not logical or observable.  Reason is very weak, but observable.  And they inform one another.  However, any concept of truth is determined by reason.  Any concept of preference by intuition. And we lie to ourselves whenever possible in an effort to conflate the two.

    https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-determine-when-subjective-reasoning-might-be-preferable-to-objective-reason

  • What Are The Best “what Comes After Postmodernism” Essays?

    Restoration of Modernism, and extension of Modernism to include Operationalism, Intuitionism, Instrumentalism, and Performative (or Testimonial) Truth.  Repudiation of Platonism, Pseudoscience, Verbalism, and Social Construction. Repudiation of Universalism. Repudiation of Democracy. Return to Nationalism. 

    Its already happening.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-what-comes-after-postmodernism-essays

  • CAN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PEOPLE WHO DEVELOPED SCIENCE HAVE A DANGEROUS GAP? (Ye

    CAN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PEOPLE WHO DEVELOPED SCIENCE HAVE A DANGEROUS GAP? (Yes)

    If you had told me that western philosophy contained such a catastrophic hole that we could be nearly destroyed by ideas even worse than monotheism, I would have told you to write science fiction novellas.

    It turns out it’s true.

    We treat truth and universalism as normal. But when our knowledge exceeded human scale, we adopted platonic truth, and at the very same time, the continentals and cosmopolitans swamped us with pseudoscience.

    The european new right is wrong. We don’t need a religion. We don’t need to return to religion.

    We just need to speak the truth.

    And speaking the truth, it turns out, isn’t a philosophical proposition that is open to interpretation. You can either give an operational description or you can’t.

    The truth is, that we’ve been poisoned as seriously as we were when Justinian closed the greek schools, and imposed middle eastern mysticism upon us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-07 09:40:00 UTC

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • How Do Scientists And Inventors Benefit From Subjectivity And Intuition?

    NOT BENEFIT, BUT DEPEND

    Scientific investigation is not logical but intuitive, because it is conducted by free association.  Because formal logic has attracted unmerited attention in the 20th century, the importance of the scientist in the ‘decidability’ (which is the correct term, believe it or not) between possible avenues of exploration has been lost.  There is no such possible logical means of deciding how to investigate – other than perhaps the relationship between cost and content falsified.  But even this proposition is impossible to decide logically, since the domain of possible solutions is limited only by the general knowledge of the scientist and his or her capacity for free association (identification of possible patterns – which we tend to reduce to IQ.)

    In other words, it’s is not that they benefit from it, it is that they DEPEND UPON IT.

    https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-and-inventors-benefit-from-subjectivity-and-intuition

  • A logical statement, in formal language statement is not semantically bound (cor

    A logical statement, in formal language statement is not semantically bound (correspondent with reality); it is an axiomatic argument and is merely internally consistent. The only information present is that stated in the axioms.

    A statement in informal language *is* semantically bound (correspondent with reality). There is more information present in informal languages than in formal languages.

    A statement in normative ‘natural’ language is not logically bound, or semantically bound, but merely a matter of useful communication – short hand. There is information outside of the statements necessary to interpret them.

    A statement in colloquial language consists of a mixture of natural and analogical symbols neither logically, correspondently, nor normatively bound. There is both information and structure outside of the statements and structure necessary to interpret them.

    Operational language is an informal language (correspondent with reality) bound not internally, but by existence. It is a higher standard than natural langauge.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 11:58:00 UTC

  • THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS If you’re making a “CAN’T” ar

    THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 03:43:00 UTC

  • END THE LIES: TRUTH, NOT GUILT

    END THE LIES: TRUTH, NOT GUILT

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 02:00:00 UTC

  • Truth – Defense Against The Dark Art Of Playing A Sucker

    Truth – Defense Against The Dark Art Of Playing A Sucker

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-05 01:58:00 UTC