Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • “Curt, Is Peterson still….”— In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian

    —“Curt, Is Peterson still….”—

    In the choice of grammars between: Aristotelian Scientist (description), Stoic Self Authoring (education and training), Platonist Philosopher (literature), and Abrahamic Theologian (Religion), Peterson cherry picks from each for support, but is narrative (what he argues with) is pure platonism (literature).

    My hope was that he would favor the scientific and stoic, but he pulls from each discipline as needed.

    My understanding of him (as well as most others) is that they lack the method of description obtained from (micro) economics (incentives).

    So they do their best.

    We should not expect perfection of an individual, but that he advances the cause. And instead we should expect that a field of individuals supply a range of arguments.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-14 09:20:00 UTC

  • THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAMMARS I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few wee

    THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GRAMMARS

    I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating.

    So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology.

    My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next.

    We’ll see.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 17:51:00 UTC

  • The Intellectually Honest Skeptic Asks, the Intellectually Dishonest Overconfident Demands.

    (I wish more people would simply ask questions, rather than try to debate me – very, very few people can participate in non-trivial debate – but then I don’t want to suppress, and instead I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my classroom so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education, the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)

  • The Intellectually Honest Skeptic Asks, the Intellectually Dishonest Overconfident Demands.

    (I wish more people would simply ask questions, rather than try to debate me – very, very few people can participate in non-trivial debate – but then I don’t want to suppress, and instead I want to celebrate, the male desire to learn through competition. The problem with learning through competition is understanding that you’re testing yourself, not the other. I run my classroom so to speak as a great game of king of the hill, because I understand that competition and heroism is how men are willing to ‘invest’ in their education, the same way that women are willing to invest by obedience and conformity. Men need a game – a proxy for war – to have the incentive to learn. This is why mixed-gender education is literally causing brain damage to men.)

  • The Only Time To Use A God Via Positiva

    In any dispute between two testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two tests of decidability: 1- Rationality (incentives) 2 – Parsimony (occam’s razor) If the incentive exist to fictionalize, and if fictionalism is defeated by parsimony, then the person is in fact lying. The only time to use a god is via positiva (poetic meaning and communication) but it cannot be used via negativa (truth or argument). The reason gods were necessary is intergenerational transfer. if gods were mortal they could not explain the long standing. A god is just a unit of measure of the intertemporal.

  • The Only Time To Use A God Via Positiva

    In any dispute between two testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two tests of decidability: 1- Rationality (incentives) 2 – Parsimony (occam’s razor) If the incentive exist to fictionalize, and if fictionalism is defeated by parsimony, then the person is in fact lying. The only time to use a god is via positiva (poetic meaning and communication) but it cannot be used via negativa (truth or argument). The reason gods were necessary is intergenerational transfer. if gods were mortal they could not explain the long standing. A god is just a unit of measure of the intertemporal.

  • The Importance of The Grammars

    I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating. So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology. My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next. We’ll see.

  • The Importance of The Grammars

    I’ve been fussing over the grammars for a few weeks, and it’s occurred to me that this idea is as important as testimonialism, because it provides a means of comprehending the very great difference between reasoning and calculating. So, while I sort of treated it as ‘groundwork’ for testimonialism, I think I’m going to lift it up to it’s own subject under or epistemology. My intuition was to move it under Vitruvianism in metaphysics because it’s a system of measurement of sorts and the discussion naturally flows from one idea to the next. We’ll see.

  • In any dispute between to testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two

    In any dispute between to testimonies regarding the same phenomenon, we have two tests of decidability:

    1- Rationality (incentives)

    2 – Parsimony (occam’s razor)

    If the incentive exist to fictionalize, and if fictionalism is defeated by parsimony, then the person is in fact lying.

    The only time to use a god is via positiva (poetic meaning and communication) but it cannot be used via negativa (truth or argument).

    The reason gods were necessary is intergenerational transfer. if gods were mortal they could not explain the long standing.

    A god is just a unit of measure of the intertemporal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 10:41:00 UTC

  • MATH DOES NOT EXiST IN REALITY, WE INVENTED MATH TO DESCRIBE REALITY, BECAUSE RE

    MATH DOES NOT EXiST IN REALITY, WE INVENTED MATH TO DESCRIBE REALITY, BECAUSE REALITY CONSISTS OF CONSTANT RELATIONS.

    Due to the limited number of operations available at various temperatures to various particles, and the consequential formation of patterns (symmetries, asymmetries) of constant relations at various scales (force, particle, element, molecule…) due to those limited operations, and the hierarchy of operations possible at different scales, we will easily identify certain consistencies across these scales the same way we will identify consistencies (symmetries) in mathematical fields.

    Math does not appear in what we study. The use of positional names, provides constant relations at scale independence, and primitive operations on positions (ratios), preserve those constant relations.

    Ergo, the universe consists of a limited number of fundamental rules the combinations of which at different temperatures and in different proximities produce deterministic (invariant) changes in state equilibrating frequency(energy) those differences as entropy.

    In other words, the universe, lacks intelligence and choice and as such is entirely deterministic (consisting of constant relations), and since positional names consist of nothing BUT constant relations we can use positional naming constructed of ratios, to produce scale independent general rules (descriptions) of those constant relations.

    Math is just another language made by man to describe the most trivially simple properties of an invariant choiceness universe.

    The ability to use math to describe the universe’s regularity is in and of itself evidence of the absence of choice in the universe and therefore evidence of the absence of any intelligence, and as such evidence of the absence of any ‘deity’.

    There is no evidence of anything in the universe other than random effects of deterministic changes in state producing entropy.

    That we can created math disproves a god.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-13 10:03:00 UTC