Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • You’d think so but you can’t falsify it. I go through this all the time. Many th

    You’d think so but you can’t falsify it.
    I go through this all the time. Many things you’d think wouldn’t survive set testing(idealism), survive operational testing(realism).
    Turns out, just FYI, oddly enough, that everything in the universe can be (obviously) reduced to first principles, and, reductively there is just one, and from it one general principle by which all matter and behavior evovles.
    The universe isn’t smart. It just does what’s possible at every given combination of complexity.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 22:07:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635039864088416262

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635038106826203137

  • WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT? Thankfully truth isn’

    WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT?

    Thankfully truth isn’t a matter of opinion or approval. I’m not quite sure where the vast majority of people developed the rather otherwise eccentric opinion that many ignorant opinions, or many disapproval, somehow relevant to an empirically stated inescapable truth.

    Most Women and those effeminate men have the habit of confusing their approval with truth, and disapproval with falsehood.

    In fact, other than failing the NAXALT/AXALT test, and use of certain vocabulary, it’s the easiest means of determining the sex (of the brain) of the individual.

    Your opinion, approval, and disapproval only matter in the context of the search for agreement between the parties in the discussion.

    In matters of decidability, for the determination of sufficient truth or falsehood, reciprocity or reciprocity, they’re absolutely positively irrelevant.

    And in most cases substitution (fraud) of approval/disapproval for truth/falsehood constitutes lying, denying, and deception, and undermining the true and the good.

    ie: you’re unethical, immoral, or criminal.

    ( … Now wasn’t that a fun little bit to read. 🙁 … )

    -Curt

    Reply addressees: @blunted_affect @Mathilduhhhh @FrailSkeleton

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 19:05:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634994049928003594

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634980187095064576

  • WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT? Thankfully truth isn’

    WHY IS YOUR OPINION, APPROVAL, AND DISAPPROVAL IRRELEVANT?

    Thankfully truth isn’t a matter of opinion or approval. I’m not quite sure where the vast majority of people developed the rather otherwise eccentric opinion that many ignorant opinions, or many disapproval, somehow relevant to an empirically stated inescapable truth.

    Most Women and those effeminate men have the habit of confusing their approval with truth, and disapproval with falsehood.

    In fact, other than failing the NAXALT/AXALT test, and use of certain vocabulary, it’s the easiest means of determining the sex (of the brain) of the individual.

    Your opinion, approval, and disapproval only matter in the context of the search for agreement between the parties in the discussion.

    In matters of decidability, for the determination of sufficient truth or falsehood, reciprocity or reciprocity, they’re absolutely positively irrelevant.

    And in most cases substitution (fraud) of approval/disapproval for truth/falsehood constitutes lying, denying, and deception, and undermining the true and the good.

    ie: you’re unethical, immoral, or criminal.

    ( … Now wasn’t that a fun little bit to read. 🙁 … )

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 19:05:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634994050137825280

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634980187095064576

  • (improvement) All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premis

    (improvement)
    All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premises (examples) and stated examples, and using incompete sentences, that rely on suggestion (inferences).

    It’s almost impossible to lie using operational language in compete sentences, forming complete transactions of change in state, absent the verb to-be, in promissory form.

    All sophistry, in particular in that discipline that teaches sophistry (philosophy) relies on set rather than operational logic, and most importantly, failse the test of universal grammar: a requirement for continuous recursive disambiguation.

    Might be dense.
    Set logic failed.
    That’s why the analytic project failed in the 60s.

    Reply addressees: @MiTiBennett

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 14:05:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634918585347743744

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634833146243088384

  • (improvement) All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premis

    (improvement)
    All lies are constructed by inconsistencies between implied premises (examples) and stated examples, and using incompete sentences, that rely on suggestion (inferences).

    It’s almost impossible to lie using operational language in compete sentences, forming complete transactions of change in state, absent the verb to-be, in promissory form.

    All sophistry, in particular in that discipline that teaches sophistry (philosophy) relies on set rather than operational logic, and most importantly, failse the test of universal grammar: a requirement for continuous recursive disambiguation.

    Might be dense.
    Set logic failed.
    That’s why the analytic project failed in the 60s.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 14:05:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634918585456787458

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634833146243088384

  • I think they work out the same. We can science both Truthfulness (testifiability

    I think they work out the same. We can science both Truthfulness (testifiability) and Lying (untestifiability).
    And once you study lying a bit, you realize how much we are saturated with lies every day of our lives.
    It’s pretty hard to speak truthfully. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 02:06:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634737478908166147

    Reply addressees: @BrianHatano @pmarca

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634736652169154560

  • (on lying) We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might thi

    (on lying)

    We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might think your intentions matter. But they don’t.

    Whether you win the debate is determined by the audience. Whether you misled the audience is determined by the audience. Whether you lied is determined by the jury. So, make sure when you speak, the jury will agree you didn’t lie.

    We learn the moral lesson against lying that’s discovered in legal custom: in crime it MIGHT require you had motive and intent. But in tort it only matters that you caused a harm, regardless of intent. In other words, you can lie intentionally, or by a failure of due diligence. Meaning you can lie by enthusiasm or incaution by your own words, or you can unknowingly transmit a lie you obtained from someone else by failing due diligence against ensuring you’re not lying.

    It took about eight years (a phd worth of time) to ‘science’ lying, whether intentionally, irresponsibly, and ignorantly. Because believe it or not, some cultural traditions and some ideas in cultures teach you to lie.

    So the lesson is. It doesn’t matter your intentions. It only matters whether you failed due diligence against the transmission of a falsehood – regardless of whether it’s legal, whether it’s ethical, whether it’s moral, or whether a matter of manners.

    (Sarcasm: Under tort, all leftists are guilty. 😉 )

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 01:11:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634723794500608002

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634719369300172808

  • (on lying) We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might thi

    (on lying)

    We teach the tradition of ‘not lying’ and do it poorly. You might think your intentions matter. But they don’t.

    Whether you win the debate is determined by the audience. Whether you misled the audience is determined by the audience. Whether you lied is determined by the jury. So, make sure when you speak, the jury will agree you didn’t lie.

    We learn the moral lesson against lying that’s discovered in legal custom: in crime it MIGHT require you had motive and intent. But in tort it only matters that you caused a harm, regardless of intent. In other words, you can lie intentionally, or by a failure of due diligence. Meaning you can lie by enthusiasm or incaution by your own words, or you can unknowingly transmit a lie you obtained from someone else by failing due diligence against ensuring you’re not lying.

    It took about eight years (a phd worth of time) to ‘science’ lying, whether intentionally, irresponsibly, and ignorantly. Because believe it or not, some cultural traditions and some ideas in cultures teach you to lie.

    So the lesson is. It doesn’t matter your intentions. It only matters whether you failed due diligence against the transmission of a falsehood – regardless of whether it’s legal, whether it’s ethical, whether it’s moral, or whether a matter of manners.

    (Sarcasm: Under tort, all leftists are guilty. 😉 )

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @pmarca

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-12 01:11:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634723794295062528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634719369300172808

  • If you can afford the eight bucks for long form, then pay it. It takes more char

    If you can afford the eight bucks for long form, then pay it. It takes more characters than a tweet allows to make the statements you’re trying to, and operational language necessary to state them with clarity is wordy. You have demonstrated enough talent in one day that it…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-11 19:30:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634638060804616194

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634635297605713920

  • TRUTH LEADS TO LOVE While anyone who works in my discipline long enough is force

    TRUTH LEADS TO LOVE
    While anyone who works in my discipline long enough is forced to slay every sacred cow, cherished myth, and sacred taboo with exceptionless intellectual honesty, resulting in bouts of disappointment, the end result is a deep love of mankind – the miracle that…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 22:42:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634323981787357185