Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549908672 Timestamp) THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates. When associates fail he appeals to superiors When superiors fail he appeals to professionals When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders. When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics. When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics. When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics. When intuition fails one must appeal to logic. When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism. When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism. When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony. When religion fails, one appeals to reason When reason fails one appeals to philosophy When philosophy fails, on appeals to science When science fails, one appeals to testimony. And the opposite is true. Why? We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.

    • Curt Doolittle
    • The Propertarian Institute.

    PS by Bill Joslin Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1549908672 Timestamp) THE MARKET FOR DECIDABILITY When the ordinary person fails he appeals to associates. When associates fail he appeals to superiors When superiors fail he appeals to professionals When professionals fail the appeals to thought leaders. When instincts fail we appeal to familial ethics. When familial ethics fail we appeal to virtue ethics. When virtue ethics fail we appeal to rule ethics When rule ethics fail we appeal to outcome ethics. When intuition fails one must appeal to logic. When logic fails, one must appeal to empiricism. When empiricism fails one must appeal to operationalism. When operationalism fails one must appeal to limits scope and parsimony. When religion fails, one appeals to reason When reason fails one appeals to philosophy When philosophy fails, on appeals to science When science fails, one appeals to testimony. And the opposite is true. Why? We only have so much knowledge, and so much time, to satisfy the market for decidability in time for taking action.

    • Curt Doolittle
    • The Propertarian Institute.

    PS by Bill Joslin Incremental Disambiguation in one direction (from low to high investment)- Graceful failure in the other (from high to low cost) which explains why the later presents stronger incentives than the former.z

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550015417 Timestamp) CHANTING THE CORE 😉 Given: Any statement passes the tests of: – categorically consistent (identity) – internally consistent (Logically consistent) – externally correspondent (empirically consistent) – existentially consistent (operationally stated) – scope consistent (limits and full accounting) – rational (subjectively consistent – incentives ) – reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges) – with these warranties of due diligence, – within the limits of possible restitution, Therefore: – Any such display word or deed; – is free of imposition of costs, And Therefore; – free of retaliation. And Therefore; – it is truthful and moral. We can never know if a statement is true (“critical naturalism”). We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making. This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology: … “Testimonialism’: … … “The completion of the scientific method”, … … … or what some call … … … … ‘Critical Naturalism’.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550015417 Timestamp) CHANTING THE CORE 😉 Given: Any statement passes the tests of: – categorically consistent (identity) – internally consistent (Logically consistent) – externally correspondent (empirically consistent) – existentially consistent (operationally stated) – scope consistent (limits and full accounting) – rational (subjectively consistent – incentives ) – reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges) – with these warranties of due diligence, – within the limits of possible restitution, Therefore: – Any such display word or deed; – is free of imposition of costs, And Therefore; – free of retaliation. And Therefore; – it is truthful and moral. We can never know if a statement is true (“critical naturalism”). We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making. This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology: … “Testimonialism’: … … “The completion of the scientific method”, … … … or what some call … … … … ‘Critical Naturalism’.

  • Rules of Discourse

    February 12th, 2019 5:25 PM

    RULES OF DISCOURSE

    1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL (“How can you restate that as an intellectually honest question?”) 2 – DON”T DEMAND OR GSRRM US INTO EDUCATING YOU. (“We only respond to intellectually honest questions asked in good faith”.) 3 – YOU WILL NEED TO READ A LOT. SORRY. READ DON’T ASK. (“We cannot repeat long chains of logic for everyone. You must do the work on your own. If you can ask a specific question we will answer it providing it only takes a few minutes.”) 4 – EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS IN OUR OVERVIEW (“It’s a lot of material, and a lot of reading, and it’s pretty much all there. P is like any other system of ‘calculation’ and it takes time to learn.”) 5 – IF IT’S TOO HARD WE GIVE CLASSES (THAT COST) (“If the reading is too much for you, then you will have to consider the classes. Classes reduce our cost of teaching you by batching you together, and let us ensure that you understand the material.) 6 – IF YOU THINK WE ARE WRONG, YOU WILL 100% EITHER BE IMMORAL OR INCOMPATIBLE, MISUNDERSTAND, OR BE WRONG. “P IS TIGHT.” (“The only criticisms of P that we know of are (a) that it is a purely via-negativa system of thought and as such, it is up to you to supply ideology (power), philosophy (strategy and choice of good), religion(conformity), and Government (means of constructing the commons”.), (b) that some of you are still silly enough to believe any option other than revolt is possible, or that revolt won’t be successful – albeit costly.) 7 – HISTORY IS HISTORY BUT DEPENDENCY IS A CONTINGENCY Just because one thing follows another, or shares properties with another, does not mean that they share the causality you advocate.  As in all things, other than the trivial, the chain of evidence, including knowledge, means, motive, and opportunity are necessary.  We are rapidly approaching that period where the general trend of history as we exited the ice age is both rapid, continuous, and obvious, with the paleolithic, bronze, and abrahamic dark ages the only significant impediments to continuous expansion of human understanding. 8 – REASON IS REASON AND REASON ALONE Philosophy serves as a bridge between the Religious and the Scientific.  Unfortunately, the way philosophy is taught and practiced, and the way logic is taught and practiced, the professors, teachers, practitioners, and students are seemingly unaware that it evolved from textual interpretation and NOT from scientific observation, and that the logics are not closed, and no non-reductive argument is closed, without appeal to the empirical, operational, voluntary, reciprocal, and complete.  In other words, most philosophy is sophistry and merely another step up from astrology, numerology, scriptural interpretation, legal pilpul and justification, and pseudoscience.  In other words, if you cannot argue BOTH with logic AND with cases, then you are probably lying. 9 – FAITH IS FAITH, AND ONLY FAITH, IT IS NOT TESTIMONY AND IT CANNOT BE One does not debate with faith. If you debate from a position of faith you are violating the law of testimony. You can call upon faith for wisdom that has survived generations of testing. You can call upon faith to limit yourself and what you will tolerate from others.  You cannot however engage in testimony, argument, debate, or discourse using any PREMISE dependent upon faith. So faith is a PREFERENCE and for some it is a GOOD but it is not a TRUTH and to claim so is to lie. WE BAN FOR 1 – Wasting our time by GSRRM, Intellectual dishonesty, disrespect of the person, badgering, meming, non-argument We give only one or two warnings. We do not need to be popular with people who waste time, rely on GSRRM, are intellectually dishonest, badger, meme, and engage in non-argument. Why? We are the only answer you have. It’s just going to take you a while to understand that.

  • Rules of Discourse

    February 12th, 2019 5:25 PM

    RULES OF DISCOURSE

    1 – ASK IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, AND BE RESPECTFUL (“How can you restate that as an intellectually honest question?”) 2 – DON”T DEMAND OR GSRRM US INTO EDUCATING YOU. (“We only respond to intellectually honest questions asked in good faith”.) 3 – YOU WILL NEED TO READ A LOT. SORRY. READ DON’T ASK. (“We cannot repeat long chains of logic for everyone. You must do the work on your own. If you can ask a specific question we will answer it providing it only takes a few minutes.”) 4 – EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IS IN OUR OVERVIEW (“It’s a lot of material, and a lot of reading, and it’s pretty much all there. P is like any other system of ‘calculation’ and it takes time to learn.”) 5 – IF IT’S TOO HARD WE GIVE CLASSES (THAT COST) (“If the reading is too much for you, then you will have to consider the classes. Classes reduce our cost of teaching you by batching you together, and let us ensure that you understand the material.) 6 – IF YOU THINK WE ARE WRONG, YOU WILL 100% EITHER BE IMMORAL OR INCOMPATIBLE, MISUNDERSTAND, OR BE WRONG. “P IS TIGHT.” (“The only criticisms of P that we know of are (a) that it is a purely via-negativa system of thought and as such, it is up to you to supply ideology (power), philosophy (strategy and choice of good), religion(conformity), and Government (means of constructing the commons”.), (b) that some of you are still silly enough to believe any option other than revolt is possible, or that revolt won’t be successful – albeit costly.) 7 – HISTORY IS HISTORY BUT DEPENDENCY IS A CONTINGENCY Just because one thing follows another, or shares properties with another, does not mean that they share the causality you advocate.  As in all things, other than the trivial, the chain of evidence, including knowledge, means, motive, and opportunity are necessary.  We are rapidly approaching that period where the general trend of history as we exited the ice age is both rapid, continuous, and obvious, with the paleolithic, bronze, and abrahamic dark ages the only significant impediments to continuous expansion of human understanding. 8 – REASON IS REASON AND REASON ALONE Philosophy serves as a bridge between the Religious and the Scientific.  Unfortunately, the way philosophy is taught and practiced, and the way logic is taught and practiced, the professors, teachers, practitioners, and students are seemingly unaware that it evolved from textual interpretation and NOT from scientific observation, and that the logics are not closed, and no non-reductive argument is closed, without appeal to the empirical, operational, voluntary, reciprocal, and complete.  In other words, most philosophy is sophistry and merely another step up from astrology, numerology, scriptural interpretation, legal pilpul and justification, and pseudoscience.  In other words, if you cannot argue BOTH with logic AND with cases, then you are probably lying. 9 – FAITH IS FAITH, AND ONLY FAITH, IT IS NOT TESTIMONY AND IT CANNOT BE One does not debate with faith. If you debate from a position of faith you are violating the law of testimony. You can call upon faith for wisdom that has survived generations of testing. You can call upon faith to limit yourself and what you will tolerate from others.  You cannot however engage in testimony, argument, debate, or discourse using any PREMISE dependent upon faith. So faith is a PREFERENCE and for some it is a GOOD but it is not a TRUTH and to claim so is to lie. WE BAN FOR 1 – Wasting our time by GSRRM, Intellectual dishonesty, disrespect of the person, badgering, meming, non-argument We give only one or two warnings. We do not need to be popular with people who waste time, rely on GSRRM, are intellectually dishonest, badger, meme, and engage in non-argument. Why? We are the only answer you have. It’s just going to take you a while to understand that.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550083548 Timestamp) by Luke Weinhagen TOLERANCE – (via negativa) the capacity to endure continued subjection to something (my adds: externalizes costs, ignores limits, passive state, imposed externally, waives agency) FORBEARANCE – (via-positiva) patient self-control; restraint; the action of refraining from exercising a legal right, a response or enforcing the payment of a debt/cost. (my adds: carries costs, imposes limits, active state, self imposed, applies agency) Above – “tolerance of the current condition” is a great example of the ambiguity tolerance allows. Who is responsible for the current condition? Who imposed a cost and who is carrying that cost? Alternative – “In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their forbearance of your shortcomings.” Explicit in who is costing and who is covering costs. The alternative also reminds the men who fight of their responsibility for what is and to reiterate their responsibility in asserting limits upon that forbearance.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550083548 Timestamp) by Luke Weinhagen TOLERANCE – (via negativa) the capacity to endure continued subjection to something (my adds: externalizes costs, ignores limits, passive state, imposed externally, waives agency) FORBEARANCE – (via-positiva) patient self-control; restraint; the action of refraining from exercising a legal right, a response or enforcing the payment of a debt/cost. (my adds: carries costs, imposes limits, active state, self imposed, applies agency) Above – “tolerance of the current condition” is a great example of the ambiguity tolerance allows. Who is responsible for the current condition? Who imposed a cost and who is carrying that cost? Alternative – “In absolutes you are governed by men who fight and their forbearance of your shortcomings.” Explicit in who is costing and who is covering costs. The alternative also reminds the men who fight of their responsibility for what is and to reiterate their responsibility in asserting limits upon that forbearance.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550151623 Timestamp) METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’. I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve. The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them. The rest is just fictionalism. Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is. EPISTEMOLOGY Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law. GRAMMARS Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550151623 Timestamp) METAPHYSICS: “FITTING” You see, you start with the supply side error of ‘fitting’ and tell me what the unicorn of metaphysics ‘is’. I start with the demand side and ask what problems are you supposedly trying to solve. The answer is that there exist only the material with potential to know, the experiential, memory of experience, and the products of our actions with the potential to know them. The rest is just fictionalism. Why: because the scale of free association is ‘exciting’ just as hallucinogens are exciting, and for the same reasons So if you mean you want to engage in experiential fictionalism I understand it as a form of entertainment. But that’s all it is. EPISTEMOLOGY Experience > Free association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law. GRAMMARS Deflationary < descriptive < ordinary > narrative > Inflationary > Conflationary Don’t confuse ‘Philosophy’ with ‘literature’. Fantasy literature exists in every field. It’s just that we are honest about literary fiction and dishonest about literary fictional-ISM (occult, pseudoscience, idealism, sophism.)