Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • September 23rd, 2018 5:43 AM —“Curt Doolittle: where does morally consistent

    September 23rd, 2018 5:43 AM

    —“Curt Doolittle: where does morally consistent fit into truth and meaning?”— Scott Claremont

    categorically consistent (properties)
    Internally consistent (logical)
    externally correspondent (empirical)
    existentially consistent (operational)
    rationally consistent (rational choice)
    reciprocally consistent (reciprocity or “morality”)
    scope consistent (stated limits and fully accounted)
    and coherent (consistent cross all those dimensions) reciprocal = moral. (or more precisely, irreciprocal = immoral, since anything not immoral is either amoral or moral) These are not statements of proof, but tests of falsification.
    The inclusion of rationality and reciprocity is necessary for falsification of the social sciences, and law and economics in particular.

  • THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM) by William Empson 1 – The first typ

    THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM)

    by William Empson

    1 – The first type of ambiguity is the metaphor, that is, when two things are said to be alike which have different properties. This concept is similar to that of metaphysical conceit.

    2 – Two or more meanings are resolved into one. Empson characterizes this as using two different metaphors at once.

    3 – Two ideas that are connected through context can be given in one word simultaneously.

    4 – Two or more meanings that do not agree but combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the speaker.

    5 – When the author discovers his idea in the act of writing. Empson describes a simile that lies halfway between two statements made by the author.

    6 – When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author.

    7 – Two words that within context are opposites that expose a fundamental division in the author’s mind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-22 10:39:00 UTC

  • September 22nd, 2018 10:39 AM THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM) by Wi

    September 22nd, 2018 10:39 AM THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM)
    by William Empson 1 – The first type of ambiguity is the metaphor, that is, when two things are said to be alike which have different properties. This concept is similar to that of metaphysical conceit. 2 – Two or more meanings are resolved into one. Empson characterizes this as using two different metaphors at once. 3 – Two ideas that are connected through context can be given in one word simultaneously. 4 – Two or more meanings that do not agree but combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the speaker. 5 – When the author discovers his idea in the act of writing. Empson describes a simile that lies halfway between two statements made by the author. 6 – When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author. 7 – Two words that within context are opposites that expose a fundamental division in the author’s mind.

  • September 22nd, 2018 10:39 AM THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM) by Wi

    September 22nd, 2018 10:39 AM THE SEVEN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY (CONFLATIONISM)
    by William Empson 1 – The first type of ambiguity is the metaphor, that is, when two things are said to be alike which have different properties. This concept is similar to that of metaphysical conceit. 2 – Two or more meanings are resolved into one. Empson characterizes this as using two different metaphors at once. 3 – Two ideas that are connected through context can be given in one word simultaneously. 4 – Two or more meanings that do not agree but combine to make clear a complicated state of mind in the speaker. 5 – When the author discovers his idea in the act of writing. Empson describes a simile that lies halfway between two statements made by the author. 6 – When a statement says nothing and the readers are forced to invent a statement of their own, most likely in conflict with that of the author. 7 – Two words that within context are opposites that expose a fundamental division in the author’s mind.

  • “One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way i

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 18:45:00 UTC

  • AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION,

    AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE

    We can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not.

    No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility.

    Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony.

    As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.)

    Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 11:46:00 UTC

  • LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS (worth repeating) We tend to think

    LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS

    (worth repeating)

    We tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge *IF* not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 11:11:00 UTC

  • September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM —“One of things that led me to follow you and the

    September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

  • September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM —“One of things that led me to follow you and the

    September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

  • September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLA

    September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.