Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Humans Swim in a Sea of Testimony

    TESTIMONYby Bill Joslin [H]umans swim in a sea of testimony. Any information we gather beyond local and immediate scale has been gained through the testimony of others. Because this is akin to the air we breathe we often overlook the drastic impact that testimony plays in nearly all of our decisions, choices, and actions. If given a truly sincere analysis in this vein, the very foundations of our personal realities may be shaken to a degree that I can only describe as akin to the fear of death. Coupling this realization with the fraud that our memories often play on us (memory just being self-testimony), the importance of operationalism (in thought and deed) and self-authoring based upon operationalism becomes paramount and weighed second only to our instinct to survive (because information remains a critical component to our ability to survive) …which is why testimonialism receives such resistance… it cuts through the denial of our ignorance which we like to cover with a venier of certainty. …oh how deeply we rely upon our trust in others and oh how we like to hide this fact from ourselves…

  • Demarcation

    [I] think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Demarcation

    [I] think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete. Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice. The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice. In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Perceivable Dimensions https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/perceivable-dimensions/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:36:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179857777679851521

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • Perceivable Dimensions

    Again. Dimensions.

    1. Logic = Constant relations of sense perceptions.

    2. Identity =(NAMES)

    – Internally consistent, not inconsistent, sets of properties – Constant Relations between collections of properties.

    1. Sets = (LANGUAGE)
    2. Science = (OBSERVATIONS)
    3. Operational = (ACTIONS)

    – Internally consistent (constant, consistent relations), Relations, , .) – Constant relations between collections of references – Empirical, externally correspondent, correlative – Constant Relations between collections of references and reality – Operationally consistent or operationally possible Causation – Constant Relations between collections of references, actions, and reality in time.

    1. Rational (reasonable) = (RATIONAL INCENTIVE)
      (choice)

    2. Reciprocity = (RECIPROCAL INCENTIVES)
      (cooperation)

    This is the full set of dimensions of causality that humans can perceive and compare in order to decide. Each depends upon the one before it. From Eric Danelaw

  • P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements

    P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/p-we-operationalize-the-series-not-the-elements/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 20:14:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179852143274188800

  • P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)The Methodology:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • P: We Operationalize the Series Not the Elements

    P: WE OPERATIONALIZE THE SERIES (Statement) NOT THE ELEMENTS (Evidence)

    —-“Your proclamation as being scientific is also interesting considering the most interesting of your formulations are extrapolations (grammar “word->word”, non-operational, but well condensed.”— Twitter

    (That’s a great question. Very few people have the insight to ask it.)The Methodology:Disambiguation by Enumeration, Serialization and Operationalization. Serialization provides empirical evidence of the spectrum in a given language, even if some terms must be disambiguated. We operationalize the constant relations expressed in the SERIES, not the elements. So if I list the truth spectrum, identify its constant relations, and state them operationally, I have completed the method. (It’s just like geometry, three points make a line, lines are unambiguous). Which is why you see me using geometry in everything. It’s a higher (less ambiguous) standard of measurement. Or said differently, geometry constitutes the most complete grammar we have, and sets are a means of producing ideals and sophism. Or better: all language is measurement. The question is only the precision of the measures. P is the most precise n-dimensional language we have.

  • We must only know whether we are using the sufficient degree of precision for th

    We must only know whether we are using the sufficient degree of precision for the question, whether we lack information for, or are ignorant of, further precision, or whether we are obscuring greater precision for dishonest purposes. Theology uses all three – unfortunately.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 11:33:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179721114756505600

    Reply addressees: @undercoverhere1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @undercoverhere1 It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @undercoverhere1 It’s just a degree of precision:Analogy (wisdom) for broad, Virtues for less broad, General Rules for narrower, Law for narrower, science for narrower, and math for narrowest. This range allows us graceful increase and decrease in precision – or dishonestly, to obscure precision.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179720554208739330