Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM. Possess

    INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM.

    Possession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, throu axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity.

    The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency.

    Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there.

    Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception.

    But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action.

    One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge.

    I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 12:06:00 UTC

  • The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism

    [I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.

  • The Irony Of Praxeological Apriorism

    [I]n retrospect, isn’t it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations? It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell. But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy. We lost a century. And we may have lost a century of our liberty because of it.

  • THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just

    THE IRONY OF PRAXEOLOGICAL APRIORISM

    In retrospect, isnt it ironic that not just a single thinker, but a group of thinkers have tried to construct a logic of rational action, and extend it into a logic of cooperation, and further into a logic of economics, by using a method of philosophical argument that is expressly not constructed of actions – operations?

    It is ironic. Its Ironic as hell.

    But when the irony ends we are left with a tragedy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 05:05:00 UTC

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • WORTH REPEATING : ARBITRARY PRECISION AND INFORMATION LOSS In mathematics, (intu

    WORTH REPEATING : ARBITRARY PRECISION AND INFORMATION LOSS

    In mathematics, (intuitionist mathematics), the requirement that we demonstrate all operations eliminates the possibility of the excluded middle – which is an unnecessary constraint upon mathematics. (This constraint is equivalent somewhat to computability in computer science.)

    However, in order to create mathematical statements in the form of general rules independent of scale, we divorce the statements from scale, maintaining only the relations themselves (ratios).

    By doing so – loss of context – we lose the information necessary to determine contextual precision. In other words, we no longer know that 1/64 of an inch is the maximum precision necessary for the given calculation. But in any application of the general statement to a given context we then regain the information necessary to make decisions.

    As such general mathematical statements are constructed with arbitrary precision that requires choice independent of context, or contextual application to supply the missing information.

    This problem of creating general statements independent of context is why it was necessary to transition number theory from geometry (infinite precision) to sets (binary precision). Thus reducing all mathematics to truth tables. And binary precision (set membership) is the reason why binary mathematics is so crucial to computation: we are always in a true or false state: a truth table that is universally decidable regardless of contextual precision.

    These discussions evolved in math as a war against mathematical platonism. And by applying the same principle to ethics the problem changes significantly since we never encounter the problem of arbitrary precision.

    In ethics, we do not have the luxury that physics does, in that information cannot be lost and all relations are constant. We are stuck with bounded but relatively inconstant relations.

    But we always can test the rationality of any economic statement that is reduced to a sequence of actions. ***And so we never encounter the problem of arbitrary scale and the insufficiency of information.***

    So when I speak of empiricism ( observation), operationalism (actions in time), and instrumentalism (reducing the imperceptible to the perceptible) it is in the context of ethics not mathematics and as such is not subject to the failure if operationalism and intuitionism to satisfy the needs of mathematicians.

    This is a revolutionary idea.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-12 02:55:00 UTC

  • Actually, the cure is better stated as mastery of general rules in a specializat

    Actually, the cure is better stated as mastery of general rules in a specialization rather than mere awareness of news.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-10 07:30:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/476265151629651968

    Reply addressees: @drkent @WebFugitive

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/476227761452089344

    IN REPLY TO:

    @drkent

    How the Internet, Dopamine and Your Brain are Ruining Your Potential (And What You Can Do About It): http://t.co/bUMimntVCj

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/476227761452089344