Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/a-chit-chat-on-truth-objective-truth/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 23:18:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265059684005883904

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott

    Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.

    1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it. 2) define truth. This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).

    —“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott

    ^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. ) I can speak truthfully. (adverb) You can speak truthfully. (adverb) What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)? When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully? A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation. A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed. All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent. One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits. There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony. So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’. If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective). So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits. So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’. Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Štěpán: WHEREAS; 1. The universe exists. 2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist 3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns. The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence. AND WHEREAS; 1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism). 2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists. 3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them. THEREFORE We therefore must invent: (a) a means of naming and describing them, (b) a means of discovering them. (d) discoveries of each of them (b) a means of continuously improving them. AND; 1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism) 2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism) 3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions. THEREFORE; And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.

  • A Chit Chat on Truth Objective Truth

    Jan 12, 2020, 4:08 PM

    —“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott

    Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.

    1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it. 2) define truth. This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).

    —“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott

    ^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. ) I can speak truthfully. (adverb) You can speak truthfully. (adverb) What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)? When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully? A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation. A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed. All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent. One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits. There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony. So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’. If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective). So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits. So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’. Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Štěpán: WHEREAS; 1. The universe exists. 2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist 3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns. The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence. AND WHEREAS; 1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism). 2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists. 3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them. THEREFORE We therefore must invent: (a) a means of naming and describing them, (b) a means of discovering them. (d) discoveries of each of them (b) a means of continuously improving them. AND; 1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism) 2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism) 3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions. THEREFORE; And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.

  • Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —Ja

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM

    “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —James Dmitro Makienko

  • Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —Ja

    Jan 17, 2020, 9:46 AM

    “Thou shalt not lie – That is what P boils down to.” —James Dmitro Makienko

  • Mathiness

    Mathiness https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/mathiness/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 21:14:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265028478237396992

  • Math Is Just a Language with A Very Limited Vocabulary: Position and Operation

    Jan 22, 2020, 8:50 AM Math is just a language like every other, consisting of referents (arbitrary categories), nouns (referrers, names of each instance of that category) verbs (operations) and agreement (true/false), but it has only one subject: positional relations, with only one property of its names (position). Because of this singularity of content (name: position, action: operation) and scale independence (positional names), this ‘language’ we call mathematics, with which we produce statements (sentences), that we call well-formed (unambiguous), using the ‘grammar’ ( rule of continuous recursive disambiguation) of that language of positional names (math), and then modify (change) by operations (transactions) that preserve the constant relations (ratios), and therefore agreement (truth), we can describe any unambiguous set of constant relations humans can reference. As such if we cannot describe a given set of relations with some degree of mathematical precision, by some form of proxy, then we cannot claim to make truth (agreement, agreeable) statements about it. (Working on demarcation between pure mathematics and applied mathematics).

  • Math Is Just a Language with A Very Limited Vocabulary: Position and Operation

    Jan 22, 2020, 8:50 AM Math is just a language like every other, consisting of referents (arbitrary categories), nouns (referrers, names of each instance of that category) verbs (operations) and agreement (true/false), but it has only one subject: positional relations, with only one property of its names (position). Because of this singularity of content (name: position, action: operation) and scale independence (positional names), this ‘language’ we call mathematics, with which we produce statements (sentences), that we call well-formed (unambiguous), using the ‘grammar’ ( rule of continuous recursive disambiguation) of that language of positional names (math), and then modify (change) by operations (transactions) that preserve the constant relations (ratios), and therefore agreement (truth), we can describe any unambiguous set of constant relations humans can reference. As such if we cannot describe a given set of relations with some degree of mathematical precision, by some form of proxy, then we cannot claim to make truth (agreement, agreeable) statements about it. (Working on demarcation between pure mathematics and applied mathematics).

  • A Discussion on The Scientific Method as “Bayesian”

    A Discussion on The Scientific Method as “Bayesian” https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/a-discussion-on-the-scientific-method-as-bayesian/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:47:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264991612901392384

  • A Discussion on The Scientific Method as “Bayesian”

    Jan 24, 2020, 9:01 AM

    –“Bayesian”–

    This is a good start. Now I know the paradigm your working from and its limits. We have a long way to go. But smart folk will get there. My job is to (a) get you to operationalize bayesian learning instead of using it as a ‘magic word’. And once we are there, (b) to forgo the discipline’s self congratulatory presumption of its innocence, and demarcate between science, pseudoscience, and deceit. (c) and then to articulate the means by which we warranty against pseudoscience and deceit. The rather (humorous) framing is the presumption of innocence and positive intention or positive bias of the fields. And while the grammars (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) of the physical world are relatively simple, as we move from physical to biological, to economic, to legal, to cognitive and rational the problem increases in complexity, as well as opportunity for malfeasance.

    —“Bayesian updating is done by individuals. Market competition takes place in groups of individuals. So these are disjoint processes from the off, and there is no contradiction to both of them operating to some extent, and both of them being necessary.”—

    Correct. (a)Personal learning, and personal survival of hypotheses. (b)And the market competition in personal learning, and the market survival of hypotheses under frictions of the investments and malinvestments of the individuals in advancing and defending their propositions. Now, what is the difference between “bayesian updating” and ‘learning’? Or is this terminology an attempt (pseudoscientific) to use an analogy as an appeal to scientific authority? For example, in computer science the value of bayesian systems is that they are better at ‘accounting for’ a large number of very small changes. So just as double entry accounting increased our ability to perceive and measure otherwise incommensurable aggregates to measure profit and loss, Bayesian learning is yet another improvement upon accounting that does not require we limit ourselves to the commensurability provided by money and prices. We can use any categories (identities) that we want. In the publication of scientific papers (which doesn’t have a good record) and books (which do have a good record) we are clearly within the limits of human introspection. But we rapidly lose the possibility of introspection in neural networks. So you just mean ‘learning’, where learning is always and everywhere produced by the process of exposure to information > free association > hypothesis > survival (or return) > weak theory > survival(or return) > strong theory or ‘law’ (or return) > revision(falsification)

    —“Bayesian updating is necessary so individuals are able to change their plausibilities consistently based on new evidence, without which knowledge creation would be impossible.”—

    So we account for change both positively reinforcing and negatively falsifying.

    —” secondary effects of the “market competition” “— AND —” nothing to do with the evidence”—

    And in case of the replication crisis in the social sciences; or in the case of the entire field of economics despite its financial literacy producing income statement outputs without the context of balance sheet constants; or in the case of physics losing generations to Bohr’s and Cantor’s (somewhat Einstein) re-primitivism of mathematics in physics. And of the fields only physical science grasping and integrating the Operationalist revolution that failed to take hold in every other science during the twentieth. Mathematical sciences have produced harmful externalities. The physical sciences are not innocent but other than physics produced the fewest externalities. The psychological and social sciences are arguably harmful if not reversing the gains made by the physical sciences. And economics is all but a desert of failure only another generation of mathematics will solve. So. The foundation of my criticism is that the presumption of innocence in the sciences is a falsehood. And that the harm by externality has cost us at least a hundred million dead. And the harm of sociology, psychology, economics and mathematics together have created a crisis as vast as that of the late empire. Conversely that the principle problem with the physical sciences is underinvestment given the increasing cost of experiments given the increasing differences between inquiry and human scale of sense perception. CLOSING So, yes, scientists learn by attempting to discover that which is not known by use of logical and physical instrumentation in tests of trial and error. The question is, when you make your claims what due diligence do you use? When taking and publishing (testifying to) measurements you only report facts. When publishing theories what are you testifying to? And what demarcates what is testifiable (publishable) and not? And as complexity increases (as we move from continuous physical relations where state cannot be stored and no ‘choice’ can be made, to continuous behavioral relations where state can be stored in memory and choice can be made) what criteria do you use to determine whether your statement (promise) is not the result of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading and framing, suggestion and obscurantism, the fictionalisms, or outright denial and deceit? Consistency, completeness, parsimony: Meaning: Realism, Naturalism, Operationalism, Parsimony, and categorical, logical, empirical, operational consistency, within stated limits – and where psychology is involved, rational choice by incentive to acquire, maintain, or prevent loss, within the limits of knowledge and bounded rationality. This is the other side – the via-negativa defense against the immoral – of the scientific coin so to speak, where exploration – the via-positiva – is the moral. So what is universal in the scientific method? Well, that we learn through free association and incremental survival (darwinian falsification) by continuous exposure to competition, resulting in the positive reinforcement of explanatory power, and the negative reinforcement of failures of explanatory power (or deceit, or fraud, or incompetence), at the individual, interpersonal, and market levels of complexity, where our careers are punished for false promise of truthful testimony that we contribute to that market, and our careers are rewarded (somewhat) for promises of truthful testimony that we contribute to the market, that provide either new opportunity for investigation, new explanatory power, or new falsification of priors. So. the lesson? COMPLETENESS – FULL ACCOUNTING provides a very different understanding of science than does cherry picking and virtue signaling. Cheers