Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Does Wittgenstein’s Conclusion On The Omnipotence Paradoxes Put An End To Them?

    Wittgenstein did not solve the problem that he sought to, Frege thru Kripke and the followers of Turing (meaning Chomsky) did.

    (a) there exist no paradoxes, only the application of the rules of formal (deflationary) grammars to colloquial (suggestive) and inflationary (fictional) speech. In other words, there exist no paradoxes that are not simply incomplete sentences (transactions).

    (b) wittgenstein and russell are correct: in the end, the investment in logic has been a waste of time. It’s nothing but tautology. Because we cannot use the logic of constant semantic relations (language) as we do the logic of constant positional relations (mathematics) to produce proofs. And the Intuitionists were correct: We cannot even do so in mathematics. So what the logics allow us to do is falsify statements, but not prove statements.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-Wittgensteins-conclusion-on-the-omnipotence-paradoxes-put-an-end-to-them

  • 1) I am referring to a conflationary grammar and semantics, that we call ‘fictio

    1) I am referring to a conflationary grammar and semantics, that we call ‘fictionalism’, that appears to have originated in Pilpul, and when exposed to greek rationalism, evolved into Rabbinical Judaism>Christianity>Islam>and the French, German, and Jewish counter-enlightenments.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 19:49:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960601169944088578

    Reply addressees: @Daylonism

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Hermeus_Amer

    @curtdoolittle I could be off base on this, but are your referring specifically to various forms of Jewish mysticism and Jews themselves? (medieval Kabbalah, Neo-Hassidism, etc..).

    Or the influence of Abrahamic traditions (starting with Jews) in general?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960597943827931136

  • If we end lying in the market for information, as much as we have worked to end

    If we end lying in the market for information, as much as we have worked to end lying in market for goods and services (although not marketing and advertising), then the Second Abrahamic Deception of Marxist-Socialist-Postmodern-Feminism is done forever. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 16:33:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960551929066741761

  • There are Sentimentalists(emotions), Moralists(Norms), Rationalists(Justificatio

    There are Sentimentalists(emotions), Moralists(Norms), Rationalists(Justification), Scientists(Correlation), and Operationalists (Truthful Testimony). It is possible to outlaw lies in public, which are possible under all but Operational Speech.) Revolt, Reform. Replace. #Trump.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 16:31:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960551493337305088

  • The secret to truthful speech is complete sentences (Transactions), in operation

    The secret to truthful speech is complete sentences (Transactions), in operational semantics (observable), in operational grammar (empirical). The secret Natural Law is the Universal Decidability of Reciprocity. We can outlaw false speech in the commons. #Trump

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-05 16:28:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/960550593226997760

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • AGAIN, THE LIAR’S PARADOX ISN’T A PARADOX The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and

    AGAIN, THE LIAR’S PARADOX ISN’T A PARADOX

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants.

    Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested.

    The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars.

    Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar.

    For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself.

    And for the same reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-02 06:08:00 UTC

  • Again, The Liar’s Paradox Isn’t A Paradox

    The term is “The Liar’s Paradox”, and its variants. Arthur Prior does a weak job of correctly explaining why it isn’t a paradox. I’ll explain why it’s not a paradox in detail if anyone is interested. The Liar’s Paradox illustrates the difference between math, logic, reason, and science, and difference between platonism vs operationalism, and the difference between well formed and malformed statements in colloquial grammar, ordinary language grammar, vs deflationary grammars. Or stated differently, the grammatical structure of the statement relies on ordinary language grammar, while the question refers to formal, legal,or logical grammar. For example, you can draw the square root of two, you can apply the square root of two in calculation or construction, but you cannot calculate it itself. And for the same reason.

  • Is It Racist To Call A Culture Food Bad?

    Why don’t you just worry about whether you speak the truth or not, and ignore whether people like it or not.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-racist-to-call-a-culture-food-bad

  • Is It Racist To Call A Culture Food Bad?

    Why don’t you just worry about whether you speak the truth or not, and ignore whether people like it or not.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-it-racist-to-call-a-culture-food-bad