Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • The Work of The Creative Theorist

    It is just as hard to deny allies the familiar safe grounds of self destruction than to move them to unfamiliar grounds of survival. Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentioned fools of otherwise good character, refuge in the familiar but self destructive. In this way we move people into new choices as much by denying them defection as we do by presenting them with opportunities for persistence.

  • The Work of The Creative Theorist

    It is just as hard to deny allies the familiar safe grounds of self destruction than to move them to unfamiliar grounds of survival. Unfortunately the work of the creative theorist includes denying well intentioned fools of otherwise good character, refuge in the familiar but self destructive. In this way we move people into new choices as much by denying them defection as we do by presenting them with opportunities for persistence.

  • Technically Speaking, It’s Pilpul I Have a Problem with

    Um, technically speaking it’s Pilpul I have a problem with regardless of whether it’s in religion, philosophy, traditional law, argumentative rationalism (Pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, propaganda, or any other form of falsehood prose. The reason is that I understand that all deceptions are created by the same technique(s). And that just as the greeks invented reason on a scale previously impossible, the rabbis took the greek technique and invented lying on a scale previously impossible. And that this technique is extremely dangerous both in religious (christianity and islam) and pseudoscientific (marx,freud,boas, cantor, mises, rothbard), and pseudo rational (rousseauian , kantian, postmodern) forms. So I want to prevent another abrahamic dark age whether created by christianity and islam in the past, or marxism, postmodernism and multiculturalism in the present. Because we are extremely susceptible to these forms of lies.

  • Technically Speaking, It’s Pilpul I Have a Problem with

    Um, technically speaking it’s Pilpul I have a problem with regardless of whether it’s in religion, philosophy, traditional law, argumentative rationalism (Pseudo-rationalism), pseudoscience, propaganda, or any other form of falsehood prose. The reason is that I understand that all deceptions are created by the same technique(s). And that just as the greeks invented reason on a scale previously impossible, the rabbis took the greek technique and invented lying on a scale previously impossible. And that this technique is extremely dangerous both in religious (christianity and islam) and pseudoscientific (marx,freud,boas, cantor, mises, rothbard), and pseudo rational (rousseauian , kantian, postmodern) forms. So I want to prevent another abrahamic dark age whether created by christianity and islam in the past, or marxism, postmodernism and multiculturalism in the present. Because we are extremely susceptible to these forms of lies.

  • ( I don’t have the luxury of holding onto ideas I hold dear. That’s my job. Trut

    ( I don’t have the luxury of holding onto ideas I hold dear. That’s my job. Truth knows no mercy. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:51:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993156419133362176

  • ( I don’t have the luxury of holding onto ideas I hold dear. That’s my job. Trut

    ( I don’t have the luxury of holding onto ideas I hold dear. That’s my job. Truth knows no mercy. )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 11:51:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31543373_10156337078467264_87776141

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/31543373_10156337078467264_8777614105805586432_o_10156337078462264.jpg IF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE

    This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.

    And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.

    Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.

    Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.

    We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.James SantagataIf we are talking Psychohistory in Asimov’s Foundation series, is Doolittle the Mule? – Claire.May 08, 2018 12:37pmCurt DoolittlelolzMay 08, 2018 1:28pmCurt DoolittleI had to look that up…May 08, 2018 1:29pmJames Santagatalol. It was compliment, just to clarify. :DMay 08, 2018 1:54pmCurt Doolittlelol… i still had to look it up…. ;)May 08, 2018 1:55pmNicholas Arthur CattonJust going through the first interview.

    I actually think there lot of value came of the dislocated nature of this conversation. It made for more diverse range associations, and Propertarianism by analogous description by Curt than is usual in a more methodically curated conversation.

    If Clare is willing to accept that she may not get clearer on the topic herself, she is surely giving other prop fans insight and angles and associations that arent the standard. It broke beyond the preaching to converted and had the live flavour or an AMA.

    It was Good stuff.May 09, 2018 5:50pmCurt Doolittlewell saidMay 09, 2018 7:13pmIF YOU CAN’T CALCULATE IT, IT’S JUST AN EXCUSE

    This is part of a list of interview questions an interviewer took from reading just one article. And that’s just one. That’s not on any of the other major topics I cover.

    And scanning that list, you don’t have to wonder why I say “It requires a great deal of knowledge to hold discussions on any of these topics” and very, very, few people have the requisite knowledge to do so.

    Yet we are all convinced of the value and veracity of our opinions. You don’t find people claiming knowledge of anything calculable, but you find people claiming knowledge of everything intuitable.

    Hence why I’ve made speech, ethics, morality, politics, and law, commensurable and operationally calculable, so that we can end the cognitive bias that every idiot’s opinion is worth anything other than the choice of his favorite flavor of ice cream.

    We make excuses. That’s what thinking and reasoning do. If you aren’t calculating you’re making an excuse. Because you can’t do otherwise. You evolved to make excuses, not to calculate. Intuition substitutes what you can’t calculate. In this way evolution provides us with the confidence to act probabilistically, despite our profound fallibility – and we don’t give up except by suicide.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 10:48:00 UTC

  • The Difference Between Debate, Negotiation, and Prosecution

      SERIES: Intelligible > imaginable(believable) > reasonable > rational > justificationary > logical > calculable > tautological. 1) On can rely on intuitionism and start with reason in order to construct calculation, or one can start with logic explain calculation (transformation of inputs into outputs), and devolve calculation into increasingly incommensurable (deflated, inflated, conflated, fictionalized) categories, until we define the unintelligible. 2) We can start optimistically with an attempt at negotiation and therefore cooperation, leaving open one’s choice of preference, or we can start pessimistically with prosecution and therefore and therefore a threat, leaving decidability (Truth) as the only means of escape. 3) In the market and in philosophy we can choose, in law and the court we cannot, because if you cannot testify to it – which is what empiricism is reducible to – you cannot defend yourself from prosecution with it. So as I write natural law, I don’t negotiate, I prosecute.

  • Intuitable and decidable are two very different things

    Intuitable and decidable are two very different things.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 15:55:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/992794868698304513

  • Intuitable and decidable are two very different things

    Intuitable and decidable are two very different things.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 11:55:00 UTC