Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • PILPUL(Via Positiva) and CRITIQUE (Via Negativa) Once you see it you can’t unsee

    PILPUL(Via Positiva) and CRITIQUE (Via Negativa)

    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 20:16:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/999383507028889600

  • THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the

    THE WAR ON NOTICING THE TRUTH

    —“Once you see it you can’t unsee it. Hence the ubiquitous war on noticing in general . The time and resources expended to keep people from seeing the obvious are truly astounding.”— Edgar Braintree

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:29:00 UTC

  • Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law. Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European G

    Pilpul and Critique vs Science and Law.

    Semitic Grammar (Excuses), vs European Grammar (Warranty)

    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:18:00 UTC

  • PILPUL(Via Positiva) and CRITIQUE (Via Negativa) Once you see it you can’t unsee

    PILPUL(Via Positiva) and CRITIQUE (Via Negativa)

    Once you see it you can’t unsee it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-23 16:15:00 UTC

  • AMHARIC (ETHIOPIAN) IS THE MOST CONFLATIONARY (POETIC) LANGUAGE (MEANS OF SUGGES

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/amharic-straussian-language.htmlSEMITIC AMHARIC (ETHIOPIAN) IS THE MOST CONFLATIONARY (POETIC) LANGUAGE (MEANS OF SUGGESTION)

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/amharic-straussian-language.html

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-22 15:13:00 UTC

  • AMHARIC (ETHIOPIAN) IS THE MOST CONFLATIONARY (POETIC) LANGUAGE (MEANS OF SUGGES

    https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/amharic-straussian-language.htmlSEMITIC AMHARIC (ETHIOPIAN) IS THE MOST CONFLATIONARY (POETIC) LANGUAGE (MEANS OF SUGGESTION)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-22 15:13:00 UTC

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • Scientism Is Shaming Unless You Mean Positivism – I Don’t. I Do Testimonialism.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood. As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases. We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act). Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration). No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference. Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

  • The folly of that argument is that there exists a continuous stream of people (g

    The folly of that argument is that there exists a continuous stream of people (generations) approaching that point in their development of understanding, seeking anchors of decidability, and all future decisions will be weighted by those anchors. We keep ideas alive.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:51:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998546734845517825

    Reply addressees: @OldBookClub @KalishJantzen

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998517673825718273

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/998517673825718273

  • SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    SCIENTISM IS SHAMING UNLESS YOU MEAN POSITIVISM – I DON’T. I DO TESTIMONIALISM.

    —“I may be mistaken here, but your thinking on economics, identity politics, making choices, is based on Scientism.”—Mark Goodkin

    Well, that’s just name calling unless we can operationalize that as a test of truth, contingency, or falsehood.

    As far as I know we continuously converge on increases in precision using logical and physical instrumentation (science), and we reorganize our network of categories, relations and value judgements (and narratives) in response to those increases.

    We do this because increases in precision (particularly those above and below human scale) increase our agency (ability to act).

    Only a justificationist (which is false) prioritizes representation (meaning) over action (demonstration).

    No matter what we understand or how we understand it, our actions produce decreasingly divergent consequences or not. It’s true that we have a psychological bias to prefer fixed answers because it lowers the cost of constant reorganization but the evidence is that we are extraordinarily successful at increases in parsimony and the result of that parsimony is convergence on marginal indifference.

    Choice on the other hand (preference and good) are something else. Generally speaking we have found that increases in agency (truth) have produced greater choices with higher returns, while we have also found that philosophy(justificationary rationalism) has produced profound delays and horrors – not the least of which was the Rousseau> Kant> Marx/Freud/Boas> Lenin/Trotsky> Keynesian > Neocon/Libertarian/Postmodern series. That’s before we go back to theological – which is the deadliest information system ever invented by man, and second only to malaria and the great plagues.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-21 12:27:00 UTC