Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • 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. 😉

  • 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 1547766292 Timestamp) “Quod Verum Satis Est”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547766292 Timestamp) “Quod Verum Satis Est”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548005846 Timestamp) UM. YOU WANT A PROPHET, OR EQUIVALENT? SORRY. I don’t want to appeal to anyone. I don’t want to be popular. I don’t even want attention. I want to present a constitution that solves real problems, and then foment a revolt in order to demand their solution. I am unimportant. There is NO REASON people need to undrestand propertarianism any more than quantum mechanics or algebraic geometry, or the body of extant law and its reasoning. The intellectual work is for intellectuals and jurists in defense of that constitution. There is however, every reason for COMMON people to fight for a better life and the end to political conflict and social strife. I only need to convince some number of them that this will solve the problems that they face. Because only a small number who will fight is necessary.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548004848 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM FALSIFIES DOGMAS, IDEOLOGIES, PHILOSOPHIES, AND RELIGIONS. (worth repeating) Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM. YOU MIGHT THINK SCIENCE IS A POSITIVA. IT ISN’T. IT’S A NEGATIVA: A MARKET COMPETITION FOR SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548005846 Timestamp) UM. YOU WANT A PROPHET, OR EQUIVALENT? SORRY. I don’t want to appeal to anyone. I don’t want to be popular. I don’t even want attention. I want to present a constitution that solves real problems, and then foment a revolt in order to demand their solution. I am unimportant. There is NO REASON people need to undrestand propertarianism any more than quantum mechanics or algebraic geometry, or the body of extant law and its reasoning. The intellectual work is for intellectuals and jurists in defense of that constitution. There is however, every reason for COMMON people to fight for a better life and the end to political conflict and social strife. I only need to convince some number of them that this will solve the problems that they face. Because only a small number who will fight is necessary.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548003536 Timestamp) CRITICISMS OF THOSE UNABLE TO MANAGE FALSIFICATIONISM (MARKETS) —-“AFAIK, right now, you need more than motive (“incentive to deceive or defraud”) to prosecute.”—B Quimby You need harm and motive (incentive). You need an involuntary imposition of costs against a demonstrated investment of another(others) – harm. You need means, motive, opportunity. The current argument in legal reform, is that you also need intent or failure of due diligence in order to prevent the police, prosecutors, and judges from driving you to self incrimination. —“Your position would sound a lot stronger to me if you demonstrated awareness that your epistemological standard might be incomplete, and in spite of this, that you are willing to sacrifice truths that don’t fit said standard.”—B Quimby As far as I know propertarianism (in total) is epistemologically complete. That is in no small part because it is falsificationary (via negativa) not (false) justificationary (via positiva), and as such all via positiva (possibilities) are the result of free association and all ‘truth’s survival from competition. In other words, you dont need to excuse your possible worlds (imaginings) just warranty that you have performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, and deceit. —“Or, just demonstrate awareness that dogma can be harmful too, but that you are making a conscious choice to be dogmatic, b/c anything less will breed more harm.”— B Quimby Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548004848 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM FALSIFIES DOGMAS, IDEOLOGIES, PHILOSOPHIES, AND RELIGIONS. (worth repeating) Dogma requires a via positiva. Science and law are only via-negativas. Like many people, y’all want a religion or a philosophy instead of a science, logic, and law. I don’t do via-positivas like philosophy and religion. I just do via negativa: what is false and immoral. That leaves universes of non-false, non-immoral possibilities. The question is, why do you want false and immoral possibilities? Science(actions), logic(words), and mathematics (measurements) are not dogmas. THEY FALSIFY THEM. Propertarianism (vitruvianism, acquisitionism, propertarianism, testimonialism, and the algorithmic natural law) is not a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology or a but a science, logic, system of measurement, and body of law – and not a dogma. IT FALSIFIES THEM. YOU MIGHT THINK SCIENCE IS A POSITIVA. IT ISN’T. IT’S A NEGATIVA: A MARKET COMPETITION FOR SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547979567 Timestamp) DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? RELIGION VS IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY VS LOGIC VS MATHEMATICS VS SCIENCE (worth repeating) – A RELIGION consists of any set of ideas of justification which require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use. – AN IDEOLOGY consist of any set of ideas that agitate, motivate, or inspire achievement of political ends under majoritarian (monopoly) democracy. An ideology need not be internally consistent externally correspondent, or existentially possible. It need only motivate individuals to act in furtherance of policy. – A PHILOSOPHY consists of any set of internally consistent ideas of decidability which justify pursuit of personal preferences or group goods. – A LOGIC consists of any deflationary grammar of decidability that assists in the falsification by competition of one or more constant relations between states. (Note that one proves nothing logically other than internal consistency, because all premises of external correspondence are forever contingent.) – MATHEMATICS consists of a deflationary grammar of decidability consisting purely of competition between positional names under the preservation of ratios providing a single axis of decidability: position, but in N dimensions, providing commensurability between any set of positional relations of any number of dimensions. – A SCIENCE consists of any set of ideas that provide decidability independent of personal preference or group goods, by the systematic elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit, by the use of measurement and record of actions – demonstrations versus words. – NATURAL LAW of RECIPROCITY (Tort), was produced scientifically (empirically) by trial and error, through the resolution of disputes across personal preferences, group goods, norms, traditions, and intuitions, cumulating always and everywhere that decidability is provided by property, and property consists in the demonstrated investment of human action or inaction anything whether genetic, material, behavioral, or informational.