Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.

    • John Mark

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547572164 Timestamp) IN DEFENSE OF THE DEMAND FOR DUE DILIGENCE IN PUBLIC SPEECH, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE SPEECH. by John Mark (must read) (central argument) 1 – It is too difficult to teach Bullsh-t detection to masses of people with heavy biases and an avg IQ of 85-105 (depending on the nation). Half or more of the population (below 105-106) cannot tell what is true or not even if they try. The solution is not teaching; it won’t work. The solution is punishment. (Law) 2 – Allowing lying allows left-instinct people to rally using lies and false promises. It’s a Dangerous thing to allow. Too dangerous. 3 – Most people will have to refrain from making public pronouncements about matters which they have not done due diligence. This would be wonderful. 4 – You only have the “rights” you & your friends can defend. If someone wants to defend their “right” to be wrong, they are fighting in favor of lies against truth. (I will not be joining that team.) 5 – “More free speech” has failed. Because lying is faster, cheaper, easier than telling the truth. There is a world of difference between what the Left does (arbitrary, enforcing lies) & what we propose (scientific, enforcing truth). “The way most people want to live”…the left wants to pretend lies are true; the Right benefits from truth and wants the results of truth. The Right is better served by enforcing truth (punishing lies) than by allowing lies or “free speech” (aka lies winning). 6 – There would be more court cases for a while and then as people figure out what the consequences of their actions will be, the # of cases will drop significantly.

    • John Mark

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547570431 Timestamp) WE HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF TRUTH —“I think this is the fatal flaw of propertarianism. It’s an unnecessary step to go this far if you already have parasite proof governance.”–Daniel It is not a bug or a flaw but a feature and it is by design. No, we have a higher standard of ‘lying’ – higher standard in that in matters of the commons you lie for having not done due diligence, not by intention. We are testing whether you performed due diligence, against harm, not whether you intended to harm. The purpose is to prevent both the originator of the lie and the propagators of the lie, just as we prevent the thief, and those who profit from the works of the thief. We are extending the defense of property from goods and services to information. This is necessary because desirable lies and harmful information spreads faster and more cheaply under industrialized distribution of information than true and beneficial information. And it is by desirable lies that the first abrahamic dark age of the abrahamic religions, and the Jewish, Muslim, Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, attempt to create the second abrahamic dark age, have been created, and spread – lies.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547483001 Timestamp) NORMIE VERSION OF “WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM?” (via Bill and Curt) Propertarianism is a method – it’s the completion of the scientific method, and that scientific method applied to EVERYTHING – including language, psychology, social science, economics, politics and group competitive strategies. So while propertarianism consists of the completion of the scientific method, what results from that scientific method, is scientific law, and scientific government, which makes it possible for us to cooperate in the post industrial era. And the benefit of scientific law and scientific government is that it ends parasitism and deceit in politics economics and law, and provides scientific solutions to the conflicts of politics economics and law. In the broader historical sense, propertarianism completes the greco-anglo empirical program to complete the sciences, and to eliminate bias, wishful thinking, deception, superstition, idealism, and pseudoscience from the the public discourse that we call ‘the informational commons”.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547573280 Timestamp) Yes, it is more work to speak truthfully. It is more work to produce that engage in theft, and more work to engage in theft than parasitism. With every increase in the incremental suppression of parasitism by ‘means I can get away with because the exchange is voluntary’ those people who create parasitism object. When you disagree with me all you are saying is that you want to preserve your means of parasitism, or your means of exporting costs to the commons, just like any other thief or fraud.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547593771 Timestamp) We don’t ask you to ‘believe’ in anything. We ask you to apply the method and refrain from causing harm to the physical, institutional, and informational, both private and common. And we’d prefer it if you also did your duty and demanded the same of others. It is a method that will change you first before you change your environment and you begin to change others. You will make it your own. And once the lightbulb goes on the world will be a much more simple and understandable place.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547589911 Timestamp) —“The information stream is one of our commons, as is a water source. It should be treated the same. Once you see that, everything falls into place. You don’t dump toxic wastes in it (lies). You don’t dump unknown products in it (speech lacking due diligence). Doesn’t matter if the polluter intended to cause damage, we simply don’t tolerate it.”—Vengefül Bobmoran

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547577090 Timestamp) HOW CAN PEOPLE USING THE SAME METHOD MAKE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS? —“I’ve noticed some followers have slight disagreements. Is this because they are getting it wrong? Or what? Example, I’ve heard Eli explain that he disagrees that Christianity is the optimum cooperative strategy. I mean, either it is or isn’t, right? How can different people using the method ever disagree or contradict?”– by Curtus Maximus Short answer: First, People who should know better, still get Darwin and Einstein wrong – every day. And second, we are all arguing a field of possibilities rather than just the central proposition – that field is a means of providing due diligence against your misunderstanding by deduction, inference, and free association. In other words we differ largely in which error we are trying to stop you from making (many), not in the central thesis (one). Long answer: we are in that phase where we are applying the method to everything, but have not yet covered all the cases nor examined the consequence of the application of our judgements. At this point we will naturally have some ‘calculating’ to do. In the example you gave, I say that christianity teaches (contains, not is) the optimum cooperative strategy WITHIN a group. This is just a general rule and it’s not possible to debate it. We can say that (a) it is a very bad way of teaching that rule, (b) teaching it that bad way produces terrible consequences, (c) teaching that rule without limiting to kin is suicidal. Eli is the most sophisticated person we have at the economic analysis of cooperative behaviors. There just isn’t anyone better at it. And he has such a head start that it will be hard for anyone to catch up with him. But, when he’s making those statements I don’t know the context so I don’t know which of the points (a,b,c) he’s making. Eli’s method is extremely pejorative. He uses that method to render extremely intolerant (weasel-proof) judgements because he’s not letting you come to your own ‘weasel-word’ conclusion. I tend to want you to come to your own conclusion so that you ‘own it’. So I will leave the doorway for weasel-words open in order to iteratively trap you so that you come to the conclusion on your own. (it’s socratic – and as you can see over the past few days, it’s what I’m doing with you.) Usually, when reading Eli, I can simply look at the context (argument he’s refuting) and define what he’s saying. But I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with him. It’s pretty hard to. So in the sense of judgement, Eli will give the LIMIT test of the argument. Where I will tend to describe the general rule. I suspect that any difference we have is in this difference between medians and limits. Bill will use a more sensitive approach. and if you watch john mark he’s probably becoming the best of us so far in completely answering the question. So you know, in ‘manly terms’ eli=well done, curt=medium, bill-medium rare, and John Mark = Rare. 😉