Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Yes, and I call it a period of pseudoscience, innumeracy, and sophism – the diff

    Yes, and I call it a period of pseudoscience, innumeracy, and sophism – the difference between Hayek, you, and I, is just historical analogy(him), category(you), and specific technique(me). We could say “Making Excuses” and still convey the same understanding.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:42:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180810567226990593

    Reply addressees: @PoseidonAwoke

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180784474109333504

    IN REPLY TO:

    @PoseidonAwoke

    @curtdoolittle I rewatched the Century of Mysticism vid last night (still brilliant). I will quibble with Hayek: It was a Century of Rationalism, where intuitions where simply rationalized into models without empirical/operational basis.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180784474109333504

  • WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT Important Piece Today. See our site propertarianism do

    WIN EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT

    Important Piece Today.

    See our site propertarianism dot com

    “Yglesias” Should be one of the first few posts.

    It will teach you how to win every single argument against the left.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-06 11:05:00 UTC

  • I don’t think you get it. I’m not undermining just postmodernism, or feminism, o

    I don’t think you get it. I’m not undermining just postmodernism, or feminism, or neoconservatism, or libertarianism, or christianity, or judaism, or islam. I’m undermining the means of LYING used by each of them and restoring Western Civilization:TRUTH,SOVEREIGNTY, RECIPROCITY.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 19:57:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180572843584737280

  • So like manythings, truth telling is just a tax. Truth Before Face, Before Gain,

    So like manythings, truth telling is just a tax. Truth Before Face, Before Gain, Before All, regardless of impact to the competence-dominance hierarchy is uniquely western. But it is the primary reason for our sovereignty, liberty, freedom, prosperity, and dominion over nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 17:14:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180531623151857664

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180531299766931460

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we are able to produce high trust commons, and the means by which we evolved that tradition is almost impossible to replicate without intentionally designing a legal system for it (which I did.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180531299766931460

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we are able to produce high trust commons, and the means by which we evolved that tradition is almost impossible to replicate without intentionally designing a legal system for it (which I did.)

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180531299766931460

  • because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of

    …because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of truth discovery by creating ambiguity such that lie is indistinguishable from ignorance, error, or natural limitations in judgement and prediction.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 17:12:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180531091465220096

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180530585619632128

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite People are amoral, and immoral or moral as suits their interests. People conspire ie, cheat, steal, harm and murder as suits their interests.We have just worked very hard to create institutions such that it doesn’t suit their interests. Lying is one of the hardest crimes to limit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180530585619632128

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Gyeff @MartianHoplite People are amoral, and immoral or moral as suits their interests. People conspire ie, cheat, steal, harm and murder as suits their interests.We have just worked very hard to create institutions such that it doesn’t suit their interests. Lying is one of the hardest crimes to limit

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1180530585619632128

  • HOW IS SUPPRESSING TRUTHFUL SPEECH NOT LYING? Gender, Race, Subrace, Culture, Cl

    HOW IS SUPPRESSING TRUTHFUL SPEECH NOT LYING?
    Gender, Race, Subrace, Culture, Class, Personality, Intelligence differences, and the use of markets to cooperate despite our differences while advancing as all of us, if we limit the reproduction of the bottom quintile – or LYING.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 15:39:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180507704747536387

    Reply addressees: @nytopinion

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180097787658153984

    IN REPLY TO:

    @nytopinion

    “Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?” https://t.co/tJQTFnBcOy

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180097787658153984

  • Thank you. (Western news media takes advantage of the fact that english is a low

    Thank you. (Western news media takes advantage of the fact that english is a low context high precision language, and languages in the muslim world are high context low precision – and they don’t translate very well. Add that germanic is testimonial and arabic allegorical and …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 15:21:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180503275000487936

    Reply addressees: @ragipsoylu @LizSly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180462737375268865

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ragipsoylu

    @LizSly This is a figure of speech. He means very soon.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180462737375268865

  • EVIDENCE OF THE PROMISE OF THE P-METHOD Michael Churchill made me aware today, L

    EVIDENCE OF THE PROMISE OF THE P-METHOD

    Michael Churchill made me aware today, Luke yesterday, Alain and Martin over the past month, bill over the past few years, that y’all are taking P and increasing the precision of knowledge across the spectrum by reorganizing the descriptions of observed human behavior into the paradigm – a paradigm contiguous and continuous with the physical sciences -and creating new insights by doing so and it’s f—king exhilarating, because it’s evidence of my underlying theory that P will be as influential in our understanding of the psychological and social sciences as empiricism was for the physical sciences, and that we will, if work work hard, bring about a revolution in thought and mankind just as great -and possibly more influential – than the physical consequences of furthering the Aristotelian program that we call ‘science’.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 11:14:00 UTC

  • TRUST IN IGNORANCE VS UNDERSTANDING IN KNOWLEDGE —“I just don’t trust him [Doo

    TRUST IN IGNORANCE VS UNDERSTANDING IN KNOWLEDGE

    —“I just don’t trust him [Doolittle]”—

    You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories.

    If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement.

    You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument.

    What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. To make matters worse we can speak in operational, pseudoscientific, historical, ideal(logical), sophomoric(philosophical) and occult (religious) terms at these same levels of complexity, which is why we have always had elites selling competing narratives and theories all of them.

    I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control.

    So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself.

    My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading.

    That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the Chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class.

    So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I.

    And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-05 10:00:00 UTC

  • I want a binding narrative too. I just want it to be non-false

    I want a binding narrative too. I just want it to be non-false.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 13:39:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180115219403755520