Category: Epistemology and Method

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @KevinDMackay –“Q: CURT: “RE: aihinger’s Philosophy of “As I

    RT @curtdoolittle: @KevinDMackay –“Q: CURT: “RE: aihinger’s Philosophy of “As If” – How do fictions and fictionalisms relate to your work,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-16 12:47:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835661766191157567

  • I would need a little context for the question. I assume you mean for people and

    I would need a little context for the question.
    I assume you mean for people and goods?
    I would say it depends on who detects the information, for what purpose, who holds the information and who provides authentication, and how would we prevent their use and abuse of it all?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 20:15:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835049705933303950

    Reply addressees: @RussellJohnston

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835045133315981488

  • “Q: CURT: “RE: aihinger’s Philosophy of “As If” – How do fictions and fictionali

    –“Q: CURT: “RE: aihinger’s Philosophy of “As If” – How do fictions and fictionalisms relate to your work, and what do they imply?”— Kevin Mackay

    I wish I received more interesting questions like this one. lol.

    Well, you know, this is one of those cases where an author writes a book for what really amounts to a paper. ;). But he was a man of his time, and he probably should have more substantially limited his theory to that of philosophy (choice) and religion (wisdom).

    Now what he was defending, by criticizing the limits of the sciences at the time, was the use of wisdom, tradition, philosophy, and religion to solve questions.

    His point is that epistemically speaking, all presumptions, myths, narratives, histories, rules, theories, and even to lesser degree, scientific laws, carry at least the following information and consequence:

    1) an objective (a question that satisfies a purpose).
    2) a paradigm of decision making ( commensurability) for that purpose.
    3) a level of precision (error).
    4) a dense network of meaning (dimensions) within that paradigm that has, by the process of evolution of that paradigm, been useful for solving some set of problems within a set of presumptions, premises, and wants.
    6) Where the question being asked requires only the level of precision provided by the paradigm, where a paradigm like all applications of language consists and must consist of a system of measurement for the satisfaction of understanding, choice or decidabilty for some purpose.
    7) And where anything more ‘true’, meaning a much more precise paradigm of decision making, may remove the subjective content, bias, want, and preference that carries weight in many human understandings, decisions, and wants. Or worse would be incomprehensible and unusable by the individual because he or she lacks the requisite knowledge to employ it, or even interpret it’s outputs.

    So as in all things, the question is, are we seeking wisdom (religion-theology), choice (philosophy), truth (testifiable testimony), or decidability (science as I use the term: surviving both evidence and first principles) – which is merely a difference in a degree of precision as questions evolve from the general to the particular.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @KevinDMackay


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 20:13:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835049186137718784

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1835009606617088100

  • ontology results from epistemology. Yes to the rest

    ontology results from epistemology.
    Yes to the rest.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-14 10:48:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834907129339138060

    Reply addressees: @Archaic3one

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834734387910627590

  • It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead s

    It’s false, because of the statement of ‘unfounded premises’. We could instead say that any premise must be constructable from first premises – and if not we may not claim it is true. And that all arguments derived therefrom must satisfy the demand for infallibility in the context in question.
    What that means is that there are very few general rules in the universe, and that if premises can be constructed from first principles (effectively ‘laws’) then we can claim we testify truthfully.
    The problem with most philosophy is that it’s orgins are in mathematics and as such are statemetns about words instead of statements about evidence.
    The value of economics (neutral language) and law (demonstrated interest, imposition of costs, motive) are that they answer the questions that philosophical and theological discourse evades by every possible means – the truth.

    That’s the short version. I’m in the middle of something. If you need further clarification let me know.

    Reply addressees: @andrewkatz4


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-10 17:57:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833565396823379970

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1833559230441304206

  • DEFINING PROPAGANDA IN IDEOLOGY Propaganda: Propaganda is the systematic and del

    DEFINING PROPAGANDA IN IDEOLOGY
    Propaganda: Propaganda is the systematic and deliberate dissemination of information, ideas, or rumors to influence people’s opinions, attitudes, or behaviors in support of a particular cause, position, or political agenda. It often employs emotional rather than rational arguments and may present selective or distorted information.

    Key characteristics of propaganda:
    – Intentional and strategic
    – Aims to shape public opinion or behavior
    – Often simplifies complex issues
    – May use emotional appeals over factual arguments
    – Can involve repetition of key messages
    – Omits or distorts contradictory information

    Relationship to ideology:
    Ideology is a system of ideas, beliefs, and values that shape how individuals or groups understand and interpret the world. Propaganda is often used as a tool to promote, spread, or reinforce specific ideologies. The relationship between propaganda and ideology can be described as follows:
    – Promotion: Propaganda is frequently used to promote and disseminate ideological beliefs to a wider audience.
    – Reinforcement: It can reinforce existing ideological views among adherents, strengthening their convictions.
    – Simplification: Propaganda often simplifies complex ideological concepts to make them more accessible and appealing to the masses.
    – Opposition: It can be used to criticize or undermine competing ideologies.
    – Mobilization: Propaganda can motivate people to take action in support of an ideology (e.g., voting, protesting, or fighting for a cause).
    – Framing: It shapes how people perceive events or issues through an ideological lens.
    – Legitimization: Propaganda can be used to justify or legitimize actions or policies based on ideological grounds.
    – Recruitment: It can attract new followers to an ideology by presenting it in an appealing or persuasive manner.

    In essence, propaganda serves as a powerful communication tool for spreading and reinforcing ideological messages. While not all ideological communication is propaganda, and not all propaganda is tied to a cohesive ideology, there is often a close relationship between the two. Propaganda leverages ideological frameworks to craft its messages, while ideologies often rely on propaganda techniques to gain traction and influence.

    Separating Philosophy and Ideology:

    Scope and purpose:
    Philosophy: Aims to understand fundamental truths about existence, knowledge, values, reason, and the nature of reality. It seeks wisdom and understanding. Ideology: Focuses on a set of beliefs about how society should be structured and governed. It aims to guide political and social action.

    Approach:
    Philosophy: Encourages questioning, critical thinking, and continuous revision of ideas.
    Ideology: Often presents a more fixed set of beliefs and aims for consistency within its framework.

    Flexibility:
    Philosophy: Generally more open to revision and contradiction.
    Ideology: Tends to be more rigid and resistant to fundamental changes.

    Ultimate goals:
    Philosophy: Pursuit of truth and understanding, often for its own sake.
    Ideology: Typically aimed at achieving specific social, political, or economic outcomes regardless of truth.

    Importance before and after democratic government:

    Before democratic government: Philosophy was crucial because:
    It provided a framework for understanding the world and humanity’s place in it.
    It offered tools for critical thinking and questioning authority.
    It explored ideas of justice, virtue, and good governance that influenced rulers and thinkers.
    It wasn’t constrained by the need to appeal to a broad electorate.

    After democratic government: Ideology became more prominent because:
    Mass participation in governance required simpler, more actionable ideas.
    Political parties needed coherent platforms to attract voters.
    It provided frameworks for organizing society that could be debated and chosen by the populace.
    It offered narratives that could mobilize large groups of people towards common goals.

    Reasons for this shift:
    Accessibility: Ideologies are often more accessible to the general public than complex philosophical arguments.
    Actionability: Ideologies provide clearer roadmaps for political action, which is crucial in a democratic system.
    Identity formation: Ideologies help form group identities, which is important in democratic politics.

    “Ideology served to dumb down ideas for mass nitwittery.”

    -CD

    Reply addressees: @TeaPainUSA


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-08 14:15:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832784900434378752

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832560506160214416

  • Q: “A trivial question if I may, your examples of paradigms are Arithmetic, Math

    Q: “A trivial question if I may, your examples of paradigms are Arithmetic, Mathematics, Algebra, Calculus…etc. What’s Mathematics here? If Arithmetic is just operations on numbers and algebra is just operations on variables, what’s the intermediate paradigm between them?”

    A: Great question.
    There isn’t a universally recognized, distinct mathematical subdiscipline that fits precisely between arithmetic and algebra, despite it’s the phase of education where we teach mathematical reasoning.

    There are some concepts and areas of study that serve that objective:
    – *Pre-algebra*: This is often considered the transition between arithmetic and algebra. It introduces concepts that prepare students for algebraic thinking.
    – *Number theory*: While this is a vast field that extends far beyond the arithmetic-algebra bridge, its elementary concepts often serve as a stepping stone between these areas.
    – *Mathematical reasoning and problem-solving*: These skills, while not a distinct branch of mathematics, are often developed in the transition from arithmetic to algebra.

    More importantly in my work I disambiguate and demarcate arithmetic and mathematics for important reasons: I base it on the cognitive processes involved and it is both practical and profound:

    *Computation vs. Calculation:*
    Computation: Relies primarily on rote memorization and application of learned procedures.
    Calculation: Involves mathematical reasoning and deeper understanding of concepts.

    *Demarcation between Arithmetic and Mathematics:*
    Arithmetic: Aligns more with computation, involving memorized facts and procedures.
    Mathematics: Extends into calculation, requiring reasoning and conceptual understanding.

    *Implications for Machine vs. Human Capabilities:*
    Computational reducibility: Tasks that can be efficiently performed by computers, often arithmetic in nature.
    Mathematical reducibility: Problems that benefit from human intuition, creativity, and reasoning.

    *This distinction is profound and has significant consequences:*

    *Educational Approach:*
    Our method likely encourages students to move beyond mere memorization and into deeper mathematical thinking, fostering problem-solving skills and conceptual understanding.

    *Cognitive Development:*
    By emphasizing the difference between computation and calculation, you’re helping students develop higher-order thinking skills essential for advanced mathematics and many other fields.

    *Technological Context:*
    This approach acknowledges the reality of widespread computing power while highlighting the continuing importance of human mathematical reasoning.

    *Future-Proofing Skills:*
    As AI and computing continue to advance, the skills that distinguish human mathematical ability from machine computation become increasingly valuable.

    *Interdisciplinary Applications:*
    The reasoning skills developed through this approach to mathematics are transferable to many other domains that require critical thinking and problem-solving.

    This teaching method offers a nuanced and valuable perspective on the transition from arithmetic to broader mathematics. It provides a clear rationale for why students should move beyond basic computation and develop deeper mathematical reasoning skills.

    This approach aligns well with modern educational philosophies that emphasize understanding over rote learning, and it prepares students for a world where computers can handle most routine calculations, but human insight and reasoning remain crucial for solving complex, novel problems.

    *Therefore:*
    In discussing the educational sequence in Mathematics, I use:
    |Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Mathematics > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc

    Technically we could use “Mathematical Reasoning”:
    |Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Mathematical Reasoning > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc

    Or we could use “Pre-Algebra”:
    |Mathematics|: Arithmetic > Pre-algebra > Algebra > Geometry > Trigonometry > Pre-calculus > Calculus > Statistics > Analysis … etc

    I just use the simplest sequence possible. 😉
    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-07 19:42:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832504786023075840

  • RT @curtdoolittle: STOP THE HATE – OF ADULTS The hatred by the infantilized for

    RT @curtdoolittle: STOP THE HATE – OF ADULTS
    The hatred by the infantilized for the adult, empirical, scientific truth and its advocates be…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-06 15:16:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1832075327977275420

  • Your tendency to drill down until all differences are exposed (normal for most i

    Your tendency to drill down until all differences are exposed (normal for most intellectuals) vs my tendency to trace origins so that all causes are exposed (relatively unique).

    I think there is something to do here with my emphasis on the values, logic, and metaphysics implied by the grammars and your emphasis on the resulting variation in those applications.

    I think we run into this difference all the time.

    I would say that you are correct in that I should start with the abrahamic to marxist series but insert the leninist (and related) movements before the rest of the marxist sequence I use in the charts.

    That’s probably smart.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-01 20:24:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830341098390306816

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1830327120318341521

  • RT @curtdoolittle: Truth is not relative

    RT @curtdoolittle: Truth is not relative

    RT @curtdoolittle: Truth is not relative. https://t.co/gvNhlNFcfK


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-30 11:51:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829487105585906162