Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • What Is The Difference Between An Ideology And A Belief?

    Terrible answers. Here is the correct one.

    Belief and Faith, because of our theological heritage have been conflated quite intentionally. So we have to deconflate (disambiguate) them before we can answer the question.

    A belief or reported preference refers to that which you report (state) that you understand to be True, and honestly think you will or do, act as if is True. (whether or not you actually act as such is something different.)

    A demonstrated preference refers to what we do regardless of what we believe, say we believe. This is why social sciences and psychology were pseudosciences and economics was necessary to stop them from spreading pseudoscience: people demonstrate preferences when they vote or purchase things, and they report, and say they believe very differently from how they vote or purchase. Hence we use only indirectly produced information to test people’s demonstrated preferences, and nearly all surveys are to large part meaningless on anything that someone would virtue signal (Google “Virtue Signaling”).

    An article of Faith requires we preserve belief (act as if true) something that is contrary to the evidence in order to preserve the value of acting in accordance with Wisdom Literature in order to achieve desirable ends, even when we don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect. In economic terms faith allows us to buy cheap options on achieving a personal or collective good, and renders one’s plans and actions invulnerable to rational and scientific persuasion. That is their value. It turns out that faith in others is the optimum strategy for producing high trust cooperation. That was just a theory until we proved it in the past century.

    An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. Ideologies need not be rational or consistent, and are less vulnerable to criticism if they are not. Ideology is the result of our change to (limited) democracy.

    A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. The domain of philosophy is individual preferences, and interpersonal good.

    A logic provides a grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) for the testing (criticism) of sets of constant relations for internal consistency between two or more states (falsification by competition).

    All disciplinary languages (grammars) from math to logic, to programming, to contract language, to common language, to fiction (and even ficitnoalisms – meaning pseudoscience, and theology) consist of variations in the rules of grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), including variations in permissible vocabulary (paradigms).

    A science provides a formal process and makes use of instrumentation for the use of measurements for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the falsification (passage of testing) of categorical consistency, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, scope completeness, limits, and parsimony. If the science is a social science it must also include tests of rational choice given available knowledge and incentives (rationality), and if a matter of law, tests of voluntary reciprocity (morality)

    As far as I know this is the ‘state of the art’ set of definitions.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    READING

    Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction.

    Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology

    Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-ideology-and-a-belief

  • What Is The Difference Between An Ideology And A Belief?

    Terrible answers. Here is the correct one.

    Belief and Faith, because of our theological heritage have been conflated quite intentionally. So we have to deconflate (disambiguate) them before we can answer the question.

    A belief or reported preference refers to that which you report (state) that you understand to be True, and honestly think you will or do, act as if is True. (whether or not you actually act as such is something different.)

    A demonstrated preference refers to what we do regardless of what we believe, say we believe. This is why social sciences and psychology were pseudosciences and economics was necessary to stop them from spreading pseudoscience: people demonstrate preferences when they vote or purchase things, and they report, and say they believe very differently from how they vote or purchase. Hence we use only indirectly produced information to test people’s demonstrated preferences, and nearly all surveys are to large part meaningless on anything that someone would virtue signal (Google “Virtue Signaling”).

    An article of Faith requires we preserve belief (act as if true) something that is contrary to the evidence in order to preserve the value of acting in accordance with Wisdom Literature in order to achieve desirable ends, even when we don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect. In economic terms faith allows us to buy cheap options on achieving a personal or collective good, and renders one’s plans and actions invulnerable to rational and scientific persuasion. That is their value. It turns out that faith in others is the optimum strategy for producing high trust cooperation. That was just a theory until we proved it in the past century.

    An ideology functions, like literature, to inspire individuals to action under democracy. Ideologies need not be rational or consistent, and are less vulnerable to criticism if they are not. Ideology is the result of our change to (limited) democracy.

    A philosophy provides methods of decidability in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. The domain of philosophy is individual preferences, and interpersonal good.

    A logic provides a grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation) for the testing (criticism) of sets of constant relations for internal consistency between two or more states (falsification by competition).

    All disciplinary languages (grammars) from math to logic, to programming, to contract language, to common language, to fiction (and even ficitnoalisms – meaning pseudoscience, and theology) consist of variations in the rules of grammar (rules of continuous disambiguation), including variations in permissible vocabulary (paradigms).

    A science provides a formal process and makes use of instrumentation for the use of measurements for the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the falsification (passage of testing) of categorical consistency, internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, scope completeness, limits, and parsimony. If the science is a social science it must also include tests of rational choice given available knowledge and incentives (rationality), and if a matter of law, tests of voluntary reciprocity (morality)

    As far as I know this is the ‘state of the art’ set of definitions.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Propertarian Institute,
    Kiev, Ukraine.

    READING

    Andrew Heywood : Political Ideologies : An Introduction.

    Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology

    Thomas Sowell: A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-ideology-and-a-belief

  • Now, you see, name calling, is an admission that one cannot participate in a dis

    Now, you see, name calling, is an admission that one cannot participate in a discourse because of inadequate vocabulary, available knowledge, available paradigms, and the ability to organize them into a set of constant relations that we call ‘argument’ – what humans do.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 22:25:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976223142829019137

    Reply addressees: @AndreasOpinions @EliRadninyc @dvalls1006 @LolitaResist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976221229484036096

    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/976221229484036096

  • Data is data is data. Justification, moralizing, and critique are just playgroun

    Data is data is data. Justification, moralizing, and critique are just playground schoolgirl gossip, shaming, and rallying for those that can’t pass a STEM degree. Postmodernism is over. Science won. You were wrong. Your generation is just going to have to deal with it. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 22:00:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976216900777775104

    Reply addressees: @AndreasOpinions @EliRadninyc @dvalls1006 @LolitaResist @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976194568826703872

    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/976194568826703872

  • My place is the one the market demands of me: the suppression of ignorance, erro

    My place is the one the market demands of me: the suppression of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fictionalism, and deceit, and the restitution of the one natural law: rule of law of reciprocity. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 21:57:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976216079855964162

    Reply addressees: @Sonya__Ericson @BorisJohnson @WWF

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/976201060854452224

    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/976201060854452224

  • PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO 1. The only truths we know for ce

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWN UPS PART ONE AND PART TWO

    1. The only truths we know for certain are falsehoods. Everything that is not false is a truth candidate. This is the inverse of the fallacy of justificationism and the central insight of the sciences: the means by which we invent or grasp an idea contribute nothing to whether or not it is true or false. Only exhaustive falsification and survival from criticism deliver confidence that actions produce anticipated outcomes due to our comprehension of cause, effect, and the operations that are possible. Otherwise we are forever justifying whatever it is we seek to justify by any set of excuses we can imagine. This is why astrology, numerology, theology, philosophy, and the pseudosciences are so common – justification means absolutely nothing.

    2. The only preference we know is the one we demonstrate. The only good we know is the one we mutually demonstrate by acting upon. People report very differently from what they demonstrate. The only morality we know that is we must avoid criminal(material), ethical(direct), and moral (indirect) imposition of costs upon one another. The only moral actions then are those that are not criminal, unethical, and immoral, and that means the only moral actions consiste of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon the investments of others by externality. Ergo, all moral actions are those that are not immoral. There is no recipe for moral action other than that which is not immoral.

    3. People always and everywhere demonstrate that they are neither moral or immoral but amoral and rational, doing what they must in all circumstances that they exist in. it is just disproportionately advantageous to act morally for the simple reason that the returns of cooperation always and everywhere defeat the returns on individual action. This is why exhaustive forgiveness of ‘cheaters’ in all walks of life will generally reform them. Because it is in their self interest. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment also (high cost of punishing cheaters), because the returns on cooperation are so valuable that we evolved to pay the high cost of punishment in order to preserve the high value of cooperation.

    4. People notoriously think they are right and in the right, and acting morally, which is why we have courts of one kind or another among all peoples at all stages of development. And while rules of decidability in courts in matters of conflict vary from the poor and underdeveloped where interests in things, kin, and relationships are rare and collectively owned, to the wealthy and developed where things, interests, kin, relationships, and contracts are universally allocated to individuals and individually owned, the means of decidability in every single civilization is RECIPROCITY.

    5. There exist then only one negative moral rule and one universal test of morality: “Do not unto others as they would not have done unto them”. There is only one positive moral rule: the extension of trust to non kin that we extend to kin, until it is no longer empirically possible to trust. – this optimizes cooperation by continuously training malcontents that it is in their interest to cooperate, and ostracizes (punishes) those who do not.

    6. There are no conflicts that are not decidable by tests of reciprocity. None. This is why all international law is limited exclusively to the test of reciprocity. So logically(rational choice) and empirically (demonstrated action), and universally (all laws domestica and international at all scales) morality is anything that is not immoral unethical or criminal in that it imposes costs upon the efforts already expended to obtain a non-conflicting interest, in a good, relationship, or opportunity.

    As far as I know no argument can defeat this that is not in and of itself an attempt at reciprocity (theft, freeriding, parasitism, conspiracy).

    PHILOSOPHY FOR GROWNUPS PART TWO

    This is not so much a philosophy as the results of science that I can no longer deny, and so I live according to the science – in large part because it is advantageous.

    1. We are an expensive life form. Particularly our brains.

    2. We must acquire, and we acquire at cost to ourselves. we acquire experiences, things, kin, relations, interests, opportunities.

    3. All our emotions are nothing but reflections in state of that which we plan to, are in the process of, or have acquired an interest.

    4. Cooperation is logarithmically more productive than any action an individual can take, and therefore we must cooperate to survive -or at least not encourage retaliation against us. (Possibly as much as ten thousand times as productive.)

    5. People are purely rational, not moral or immoral but amoral: they cheat and try to acquire disproportionately from cooperation, they free ride, steal from, and prey upon others. This is why we demonstrate altruistic punishment of cheaters in all walks of life, even at high personal cost: to prevent defectors from cheating.

    6. The optimum algorithm (really) for developing cooperation is to exhaust every opportunity for cooperation even from cheaters. They almost always come around, because it is always an advantage to come around. This was the entire message of christianity which was lost in the dogma. But it’s just science.

    7. All our speech is merely a dance of negotiation so that we may create opportunities to acquire, do acquire, or preserve what we acquire. All of it is just signaling.

    8. We are entirely incognizant of these behaviors because it is evolutionarily disadvantageous for us to be intuitively honest, honest with ourselves, and honest with others. This is the same reason we have many cognitive, social, and probabilistic biases in our genes. To keep us going when evidence would overwhelm us.

    9. Most of the joy in life is playing this set of word games, cooperative games, and acquisition games with others so that we all acquire what we want as best we can without making others avoid us so that we can’t acquire what we want and need. This is why people commit suicide when they are lonely, and do not commit suicide when they are not.

    10. Therefor the only rule of cooperation, of morality, and of law, is reciprocity: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary cooperation with each other, and the only immoral actions are those that violate that moral rule by free riding, parasitism, theft, or predation. And that is why reciprocity is the basis of all traditional laws (and why it is not the basis of legislation).

    This little list is the answer to nearly all of metaphysics, epistemology, psychology, sociology, ethics, and politics.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 13:02:00 UTC

  • YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You ju

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN

    You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe.

    MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-20 11:47:00 UTC

  • You Don”t Have To Agree With Me To Learn

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe. MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.

  • You Don”t Have To Agree With Me To Learn

    YOU DON”T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME TO LEARN You don’t have to agree with me. You just have to follow me for a year or two until you understand how to use the methodology. And the veil will drop from your eyes. I see it over and over and over again. Not only in the people who agree, but those who understand but disagree, and go on to use it in their own way. You will not be unaffected by Acquisitions, Testimonialism and Propertarianism. It will enable you to understand the human universe just as physics helps you understand the physical universe. MARKETS FOR VIA-POSTITIVA IN EVERYTHING. THE ONLY MONOPOLY IS VIA-NEGATIVA DECIDABILITY: TRUTH.

  • Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are n

    Look: Truth, Formal Logic, Formal Language, and Law are Via-Negativas, and are not going to be as popular or as accessible as story, parable, analogy, and essay.Natural Law, Programming, and Math are not accessible.I’m never going to be popular for my formal work.Not my audience.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-19 13:19:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975723349656600576