Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS —“”A little knowledge is a d

    THE PROBLEM OF ANCHORING AND KNOWLEDGE NEVER ENDS

    —“”A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”? I don’t know about that. I have found many “experts” today are elitist. I run into the “how dare you question my position? What is your scholarship/training/etc.” more often than not. “Who are you to impugn my scholarship?” Then again, maybe I represent the quote with my own hubris?”— John Stephens

    Well you know, you aren’t wrong – that’s just saying: “there are limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the bottom, and limits of knowledge anchoring and insufficiency at the top” – which is empirically true the more variation in general rules. We are anchored by our knowledge and its limits. For example, the set of general rules in physics, and chemistry are not heavily debated, in some part because they are contextually invariant. The set of general rules in biology and economics are heavily debated because niches demonstrate adaptivity : extraordinary variation. Such that while some general rules are discovered, the combinatorial consequences of those general rules are extremely difficult to pin down. Economics in particular. I assume when we get to sentience (artificial intelligence)that the limits to cognition will be measurable, and we will learn about the human mind through those measurements.

    I think that what I do, and what others do, is to save time and effort by throwing nonsense back in your face, simply so that you don’t have to deal with helping someone through a long journey from their assumptions to sufficient knowledge to question them. I mean. We’re all human.

    I think moreover, that – at least, since having converted full time to philosophy – my observation is that many men know their craft but not *why* their craft yields truthful propositions *relative to other crafts*. In other words, *they just don’t know.* And they don’t want to be ‘outed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 14:07:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) —“When we verify through testing by our best empirical metho

    (worth repeating)

    —“When we verify through testing by our best empirical methods, our arguments gain credibility from *reality*. When we assert based on a-priorisms which can not be found in reality we use logic to “steal credibility from reality” – we assert it as reality without consulting reality- a transfer of credibility from existence in reality, to the subjective untestable, invisible, personal opinion.”— Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 13:53:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin —“Curt equates a lack of due diligence to vet ones ideas agains

    by Bill Joslin

    —“Curt equates a lack of due diligence to vet ones ideas against error, bias, self deception, overloading etc as lying. Any primacy of consciousness or theism stands as arguing for a preference opposed to arguing a point in the commons.

    Theism and primacy of-conciousness are not verifiable in the commons – to proceed with them you must accept these premises.

    ***When we verify via our best empirical methods, our arguments gain credibility from reality. When we assert based on a priorisms which can not be found in reality we use logic to “steal credibility from reality” – we assert it as reality without consulting reality- a transfer of credibility from existence in reality, to the interpretive framework.***

    If an argument holds arbitrary assertions we can dismiss it off-hand. (If asserted without evidence it can be dismissed without evidence)”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-06 13:51:00 UTC

  • Language isn’t magic. People are too trusting and too suggestible. That’s why re

    Language isn’t magic. People are too trusting and too suggestible. That’s why religion works. That’s why postmodernism works.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 19:50:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENCE OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH: TESTIMONIALISM Operationalism provides a *measur

    THE SCIENCE OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH: TESTIMONIALISM

    Operationalism provides a *measurement* of ordinary language by fully expanding all sentences, reducing all sentences to a series operationally and therefore subjectively testable statements. Then using precise definitions of terms, stated in operational language, whose limits we have calculated by enumerating all related terms in a series. Science requires measurements as a means of falsifying against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. Strictly constructed, algorithmic expression of arguments in operational grammar: “actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result and resulting externalities”, produces a value neutral, subjectively (humanly) testable, language of truthful speech for the production of law, contract, argument, criticism, and illustration independent of value judgement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 19:21:00 UTC

  • Apparently ‘philosophy’ often means ‘literary pseudoscience’ or ‘moral fiction’

    Apparently ‘philosophy’ often means ‘literary pseudoscience’ or ‘moral fiction’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 07:21:00 UTC

  • Before Propertarianism, ethics and politics were rational. Now they’re Algorithm

    Before Propertarianism, ethics and politics were rational. Now they’re Algorithmic Calculations.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 07:15:00 UTC

  • ON WORDINESS – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY. – Operational Language is WORDY. –

    ON WORDINESS

    – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY.

    – Operational Language is WORDY.

    – Programming Algorithms is WORDY.

    – Algorithmic Natural Law is gonna be WORDY.

    Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely.

    Precise language containing technical terms is wordy.

    Why if all the other sciences require technical language, to you think that speaking scientifically – meaning TRUTHFULLY – about the the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

    Grow the f–k up. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 10:55:00 UTC

  • WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE???? Um. You don’t get it. 1 – The reason I

    WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE????

    Um. You don’t get it.

    1 – The reason I have done so much work is that by my own definition, ***I cannot make a truth claim without producing a full accounting*** of internal consistency and external consequences. (That’s why you write books about theories and, not papers. And why you write papers about experiments not books.)

    2 – The vast majority of what I do online is explore a single theory consisting of three questions: i) Can we extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence in the commons (the market) from products and services to speech? ii) If we do extend it, what will be the consequences? iii) How can we provide institutions that provide the institutions that satisfy market demands and do so truthfully? iv) is truth enough? The answer to those question so far, is yes, we can do it; the consequences will be profoundly beneficial on the scale of the scientific and industrial revolutions; we can provide those institutions my relatively minor changes to the constitution; and yes, truth is enough to restore the west *AND* to maintain the west’s traditional advantage: no other people seem to be able to create a truth speaking high trust society.

    3 – I can make my policy recommendations understood by common folk. I can make the general theory of the cycles of history as one of lies-vs-truth between the west/east, and center. I can give activists moral arguments. I can make my general theory understood by people with sufficient education in economics and politics. I can sometimes make very smart people able to understand how to construct arguments in propertarian and operational language. I can as yet make very few people understand the epistemology of testimonialism and why it completes the scientific method and unites science, biology, morality, philosophy, politics, and law into a single field of ‘testimony’. This distribution of ability and narrative is what we should expect. I probably am not a good person to talk with ordinary folk about technical issues. I simply can’t do the translation. I really love it on the few occasions where people understand most of the scope of work. But in a division of knowledge and labor my job, our job, is to produce a distribution of people who understand each level of sophistication. That’s all.

    4 – However, I do enjoy talking to ordinary guys about the things they are concerned with. And the truth is I wish I could ‘reach’ them better than I do. Because it is ordinary guys who have been most screwed over by the 20th century scams, and it’s they who I feel most need to be saved from the destruction of the west via our women and our underclasses. So I want to care for my brothers in arms most of all. But most of all, because I believe these ordinary guys will be the warriors that change from the current order to the restoration of western civilization. if for no other reason than they have the most to gain from our doing so.

    5) We do not need millions in the streets to produce a revolution. We need a solution to demand, and a small number of people to raise the cost of the status quo until we obtain our objectives. In that sense I care about a few intellectuals, a few leaders, a few advocates, and enough warriors to conduct revolution. The majority of the people once they understand the policy demands and how greatly they will benefit from them, will gladly burn the parasitic classes and reap the rewards of doing it for purely practical reasons. So they will not *resist* the transition. The only people who will resist it are the (immoral) academic, (immoral) political, and (immoral) financial classes, and the left that despises all meritocracy for good reason: they are dysgenic peoples who are but parasites upon the rest. So we do not need a mass movement. We need simply to eliminate the middle and working class’ desire to resist.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:45:00 UTC

  • WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS” 1) Every philosopher does and must

    WHY? : OUR AUTISTIC USE OF TERMS AND “-ISMS”

    1) Every philosopher does and must add or alter the properties of terms. Otherwise reorganization of categories, relations and values is impossible. The question is only whether we are increasing precision or decreasing precision. In our case we are increasing precision in order to prevent deception by ‘loose language’.

    2) We are removing misrepresentation from terminology by the use of deflation, series, and operational definitions. This means that many terms, when placed in series with related terms, can only ‘fit’ (avoid conflation and misrepresentation) if properties that cause conflation are attributed to one term and not another. By the combination of deflation, isolation of properties, and operational language we all but remove fungibility (use in deception) from terms. Moreover, we eliminate the ability to use deception in the most common manner it is used: the pretense of knowledge where the speaker lacks the knowledge to make the claims he does. Or where he has identified and is making use of a loose relation for the purpose of argument or deduction that does not hold under scrutiny.

    3) All pretense of knowledge and deception is caused by partial or incorrect information causing demand for substitution on the part of the audience, and thereby causing suggestion in the audience.

    4) Suggestion can be used to transfer meaning, which we can then deflate (limit) to truthful propositions. Or suggestion can be used to transfer partial meaning, which we let perform suggestion, or which we expand into falsehood. In other words, we can communicate then limit or we can communication and let the audience expand an idea to unlimited form. Or we can communicate and suggest other limits. And various permutations thereof. So we cannot communicate truthfully without supplying both via positiva (meaning) and via-negativa (limits) so that the competition between meaning and limits allows only potentially true information to survive.

    5) The most successful methods of deception are caused by increasingly *indirect* means of suggestion that cause the audience to perform substitution (fill in the blanks). Advertising (commercial), propaganda(political), and theology(religious) saturation of the environment produces suggestion by deception by the use of overloading the environment. And humans are not able even intentionally to insulate themselves from the free association caused by experiential phenomenon (information). So Advertising, Propaganda, and Theology are methods of deception through deception and overloading.

    6) The use of “-isms”. An “-ism” refers to a portfolio of categories, values, relations that provide decidability within a domain. So an ism is a ‘name’ for an algorithm providing some form of decidability. This ism can be very narrow (platonism) or very broad (marxism). The decidability offered can be true, undecidable, or false, or moral, amoral or immoral. But without referring to ‘-ism’s’ one must list the sometimes long sets of arguments (categories, values, and relations) within them. So it is ‘shorthand’ to use those terms, just like it is shorthand to use math, logic, geometry, calculus, or family, genus, species, race. And yes, it is burdensome on the reader who is ignorant of the subject but comfortable for both the author and the reader who are knowledgeable. The strange question is, why do people read other technical literature, which they must look up and understand terms, yet people who will read technical literature – analytic philosophy, making use of law, economics, science, and mathematics – and expect NOT to look up a lot of terms.

    I find most people rather stupid really. And the world has many more stupid people in it than smart people. But I still love stupid people as long as they desire to be moral. I just get frustrated when stupid but moral people think that the world of information should be built for their consumption like children’s cartoons. That’s not my job. My job is to be right. Not easy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:34:00 UTC