Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Are the Logics Falsificationary or Justificationary in Precedence?

    Feb 8, 2020, 1:18 PM Given the Human logical facility Given the Human grammatical facility Given the Logics of free association(justification), the logics of language (internal consistency – inference), and operational logic (existential possibility – demonstrated); Given possibilities for decidability of nonsensical, undecidable, sufficient for action, truth candidate, tautology, falsehood. Are the logics falsificationary or justificationary in precedence?

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Eliminating the Verb to Be (copula). Is It Required?

    Feb 8, 2020, 6:54 PM

    —“Is failure to use ePrime in P an error? Why/not?”—Jonathan Besler

    Brandon Hayes: No; you can speak truthfully without speaking operationally. Curt Doolittle: Also. You can falsify another’s speech by translating it to operational prose. Again, like many things, once you learn the form you will identify when people are lying, and how they are lying, and gain the ability to explain how they are lying – including why they might be. And if someone questions the truth of your statements you can expand them to the fully operational form and demonstrate that you were merely exercising convenience. Just recall that lying in P means you failed due diligence – you don’t need to intend to. Its like transferring stolen property. You were involved and participated in the crime because you failed due diligence. Edit

  • Improving Parsimony of The Claim that All Theories Are Eventually Falsified

    Feb 11, 2020, 12:19 PM Better way of saying it. There is one most parsimonious paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P’ or ‘testimony’).

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of 1) Science, 2) Logic, and 3) Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of 1) magic(physical), 2) idealism(verbal), and 3) the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

  • Improving Parsimony of The Claim that All Theories Are Eventually Falsified

    Feb 11, 2020, 12:19 PM Better way of saying it. There is one most parsimonious paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P’ or ‘testimony’).

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of 1) Science, 2) Logic, and 3) Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of 1) magic(physical), 2) idealism(verbal), and 3) the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Re: “I Never Err”

    Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • Re: “I Never Err”

    Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • Propertarianism -> Vitruvianism: “Man is the measure of all things to man.”

    Propertarianism -> Vitruvianism: “Man is the measure of all things to man.” https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1263843665006510080