THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
Definitions: Science, Scientism, Pseudoscience, Pseudo-rationalism, and Literature.
THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Start with Camus’ question: to answer any question of choice, first answer the q
Start with Camus’ question: to answer any question of choice, first answer the question of why you do not commit suicide. This tends to prohibit you from cunning falsehoods. So, why do you not commit suicide?
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:27:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979424936715542529
Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979424154582691841
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/979424154582691841
-
Lies, are lies are lies and any excuse for lying is just an excuse and nothing m
Lies, are lies are lies and any excuse for lying is just an excuse and nothing more. Everyone excuses their preferred lie. Largely as a means of avoiding self improvement, rather than avoidance and escape.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:06:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979419515472826368
Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979415202767753216
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/979415202767753216
-
No it does not suffer the weaknesses of buddhism. It is a philosophy of action n
No it does not suffer the weaknesses of buddhism. It is a philosophy of action not escape. Man discovered many methods of mindfulness.We can easily measure the consequences of each.There is nothing good in Christianity that wasn’t there before it, and all that remains isn’t good.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 18:05:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979419292117716993
Reply addressees: @_Discouraged @LibertyGuy85 @ThomasEWoods @BobMurphyEcon @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979415202767753216
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/979415202767753216
-
Hyperbole is the technical basis of mythology, parable,general rule of arbitrary
Hyperbole is the technical basis of mythology, parable,general rule of arbitrary precision, and especially that most general rule of “the categorical imperative”: Do not that you would not have all others do. It is a magnifying glass by which we illustrate intertemporal outcomes
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 16:49:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979400061951062017
Reply addressees: @oldoddjobs @Outsideness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979398450012917760
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/979398450012917760
-
We speak in emotions because we have not reduced them to cause. The need we feel
We speak in emotions because we have not reduced them to cause. The need we feel always and everywhere is to reduce the effort of decidability. We call this mindfulness in some cases. Religion increases decidability and decreases costs of decisions. That is why it was successful.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-29 00:45:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979157534186622976
Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/979053702446309376
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/979053702446309376
-
Omg. Why was this (insert ridiculous post here) even posted? You need serious he
Omg. Why was this (insert ridiculous post here) even posted? You need serious help. So, let me help you:
DEFINITIONS
i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.
ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good.
iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit.
iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.)
ARGUMENT
(1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.)
(2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.)
(3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’).
(4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other.
(5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism.
(6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy.
(7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law).
Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy.
Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva.
Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-28 17:28:00 UTC
-
“YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND [INSERT DRUG OF CHOICE HERE]”— My answer is more parsimo
–“YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND [INSERT DRUG OF CHOICE HERE]”—
My answer is more parsimonious (simple).
Anthropomorphism provides an intuitive means of measurement.
Intuition provides a discount on costly reason, and more costly calculation.
Intuition that is not false is not only cheaper but often more accurate than reason, as one’s ability to reason declines.
Anthropomorphism, intuition, avoidance or reason and solution, and suspension of disbelief during the process (what we call ‘daydreaming on one end and occult on the other’, evoke the feeling of surrendering our will (reason) to the pack, and the burden of reason (being human).
This spectrum describes the beast(child), to the human(Adult) to the post-human(Wisened).
And access to the abiity to incurr such costs, is in itself a measure.
So, while I understand fire gazing, day dreaming,pondering, listening to the oral story (myth), story, novel, fantasy novel, I no longer enjoy the conflation of the fantasy novel with the pretense that such things exist, or that the dependence upon such things has literally served as a drug to manufacture inaction, incomprehension, denial of reality, and worst, the desruction of the ancient civilizations by that drug, and the dark agees of suffering that followed.
So while we can produce highs from excercise, from socialization, from study, and from success, we can also produce highs from the disciplined training of our minds and bodies to produce altered states that no other creature can produce. And further we can do so by chemical means, and now advanced chemical means, and more recently, direct neural stimulation (video games).
So, many things ‘feel good’ but the fact that they feel good physically, emotionally, or intellectually does not tell us whether or not that they are personally suicidal, interpersoanly, socially, politically, civilizationally or dysgenically.
Every drug user of every kind justifies his addiction and attempts to do so only confirm that addiction.
SOme humans require those drugs because they cannot obtain them by the means evolution provided us, or they are too lazy to do so: working with others to achieve existential transcendence rather than the illusory or experiential, that in fact harm the individual, lose his potential, denigrate his lineage, his people, and mankind.
It’s not that I don’t understand you see. It’s that I understand all too well, that we seek means of avoiding action by which we transform the universe into a garden for man.
Some of us transcend ourselves, our people, our civilization, and man into gods. Most of us resist it kicking and screaming all the while, physically, emotionally, intellectually.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-25 20:41:00 UTC
-
TRUTH(violence) CUNNING (trade) DECEPTION (misinformation)
TRUTH(violence)
CUNNING (trade)
DECEPTION (misinformation)
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-24 13:32:00 UTC