Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Is that true? (a) increases in demonstrated intelligence appear to result almost

    Is that true? (a) increases in demonstrated intelligence appear to result almost entirely from the learning of general, universal rules. (b) The discipline of science exists almost entirely of methods of developing general rules of decidability independent of a diversity of ideas. (c) truth itself, differs from good, or preference in that it provides decidability regardless of preference or good. Is diversity of law a good thing? What about logic? What about criminality, ethics, morality, and evil? Teh only ‘diversity’ that I know of that is good is invention of that which is true, good, and preferable. Every other diversity, is almost always reducible to a means of conducting thefts under moral pretense.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 10:05:00 UTC

  • Once you provide a means of decidability regardless of preference or good, the p

    Once you provide a means of decidability regardless of preference or good, the problem is then falsifying it. That’s what it means to say a ‘law’: I can’t falsify this and I can testify to it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 09:28:00 UTC

  • WE FACED OUR IGNORANCE WITH COURAGE AND DESTROYED SUPERNATURALISM Can we face ou

    WE FACED OUR IGNORANCE WITH COURAGE AND DESTROYED SUPERNATURALISM

    Can we face our ignorance, and this time, destroy our pseudoscience and pseudorationalism?

    WHEREAS

    1) Operational descriptions are perfectly testable – informationally complete.

    2) Names of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.

    3) Names of categories of operational descriptions for brevity – but at the expense of lost information.

    4) Conflation of names of categories of operational descriptions for (a) transfer of meaning by association, (b) admission of ignorance, (c) use to obscure ignorance (d) use for deception.

    5) Use of abstract categories “thing”, “is/are/was/were” for (a) brevity (b) admission of ignorance (c) to obscure ignorance (d) for deception.

    CONVERSELY

    One can speak entirely in operational descriptions limiting one’s self to operational grammar. The uncomfortable problem that results, is the near universal admission of our near universal ignorance, and our use of pretentious prose to obscure our ignorance and deceit.

    This is what I have learned from our failure to defeat the pseudosciences and pseudo-rationalisms of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 19:47:00 UTC

  • Untruth is profitable in the short term for the individual. Truth is profitable

    Untruth is profitable in the short term for the individual. Truth is profitable in the long term for the polity. Just as theft is profitable for the individual, and ordered rule of law is profitable in the long term for the polity. In general, the service of governments is to suppress local parasitism (corruption and crime), thereby reducing local transaction costs and dramatically increasing productivity. The problem for the polity is then in minimizing or eliminating those centralized rents through the distribution of the costs of policing. So far this has been almost impossible for all societies. It’s possible now, largely because of the possibility of information transparency.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 12:41:00 UTC

  • TRUTH IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR ‘OTHERS’ AND AN INCENTIVE FOR US Truth in public spe

    TRUTH IS A DISINCENTIVE FOR ‘OTHERS’ AND AN INCENTIVE FOR US

    Truth in public speech will impose a cost on us. It will impose nothing more than the cost of additional effort on the right. It will impose a very high cost on the left, especially the (((professional))) left – an intolerable one. It will impose such an intolerable cost on parasites that they will leave. And it will impose an intolerable cost on those who invade to degrade our civilization, that they will never want to come. Meanwhile, we will get nothing but wealthier, and we will again evolve our civilization under truthful public speech in matters of the commons as we did by truthful speech that we call ‘science’ in matters of the physical world.

    We have a ‘stupid’ contingent of our own. A pretty big one. And always have. But the ‘stupid’ contingent can only live above its station if their elites (us) drag them along with us.

    So while the ‘stupid’ contingent is a problem for us when they even glance in our direction, they do place a burden on parasitic leftist speech, they have been successful in disrupting the leftist narrative, and in the end, they will either take to the streets and help, or not.

    As usual, the radicals take to the street first and the others follow once they think there is a chance of success.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-26 11:19:00 UTC

  • Philosophy without history, economics, and science is just secular religion – a

    Philosophy without history, economics, and science is just secular religion – a form of conspicuous consumption.

    Just by adding costs in to philosophy half of all questions disappear.

    Just by adding operational language to philosophy, the rest disappear.

    There really aren’t very many difficult questions: metaphysics (action), epistemology (testimony), ethics (reciprocity), politics (markets for commons), group evolutionary strategy (predation, parasitism, cooperation, or avoidance.)

    The meaningful issue is: why don’t you like the answers? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-25 17:12:00 UTC

  • My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operatio

    My contribution is that I have incorporated costs, full accounting, and operationalism into philosophy, and produced a system of categories by which we can algorithmically ‘calculate’ (not compute) tests of reciprocity – including the reciprocity of truthful speech. This is far harder than logic (set consistency), and far harder than empiricism (external correspondence). But it is just as formal as logic and mathematics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 18:22:00 UTC

  • LIMITING THE PREFERRED AND THE GOOD WITH THE TRUE Well some of us are biased for

    LIMITING THE PREFERRED AND THE GOOD WITH THE TRUE

    Well some of us are biased for true, and some for good, and some for preferable, and those of us who are biased for true, are better at ‘limiting’ those biased for the good and preferable, if we can deflate their ‘moral and normative’ language into ‘technical’ language. In other words, we must force them to meet us on our turf: truth.

    Just as you cannot prove any system of logic within itself, and must appeal to the next higher dimension of logic (that includes more information), we cannot criticize the intuitive (preferable), good (moral and normative) unless we do so with the next higher logic: the true.

    And the language of truth is deflation.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 09:37:00 UTC

  • WHY IT’S NOT MY JOB TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR SIMPLE FOLK: THE DIVISION OF COGNITIVE

    WHY IT’S NOT MY JOB TO MAKE IT SIMPLE FOR SIMPLE FOLK: THE DIVISION OF COGNITIVE LABOR

    (a) Have you read bacon, Locke, smith, hume, darwin, spencer, hayek and nietzsche? What about Marx, Engels, Boaz, Freud, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida? What about Cantor Poincare Hilbert, and keynes? Of course not. You don’t read original material. You probably don’t even read the people who translate their ideas into common context in intellectual history. It’s possible you read simplifications written by those that simplify the work of the translators into intellectual history. Its most likely that you ‘hear’ the rules of thumb that interested or educated people have learned from the simplifiers.

    (b) Do you ask questions morally? Meaning do you ask how something CAN be true, or do you ask how you might err in how you think today? Especially given the evidence of what you know, have read, and have achieved in your life? No, you are another silly young male.

    (c) Just as there is an occupational hierarchy of politicians > financiers > entrepreneurs > executives > professionals > managers > craftsmen > laborers > underclass, there is an intellectual occupational hierarchy of inventors of ideas (140+) > communicators of ideas (130+) > adapters of ideas(120+) > users of adapted ideas(110+) > users of instructions provided by adopters of ideas (100+) > imitators of instructions provided by adapters of ideas (100-) > and below 100 we get into rumours, parables, and sayings rather than the ideas themselves.

    So ideas degrade with every generation downward. Common examples are that evolution is non-directional, other than the exploitation of niches, and the ludic fallacy that we can calculate probabilities of non-closed distributions.

    So you know, I don’t take criticisms from dimwits seriously and I’m unkind to dimwits because I’ve found that most dimwits are either not worth my time, or they are just young men who haven’t learned how to ask questions using good manners. The way I test young men, is by shaming them. And that separates the moral young men, from the dimwits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-24 08:39:00 UTC

  • “Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? I

    —“Aren’t you implicitly conflating the hard sciences with computer programming? It seems so. For you the sciences at hand are absolutely sufficient for every decision making, which (I assume, sorry) is boiling down to the Boolean algebra.”—Igor Rogov

    I’m saying that there is only one ‘science’: truth telling, and that the scientific method, if completed (via testimonialism) unifies science, philosophy, law, and evolutionary biology.

    properties > category > sets > operations > sequential operations > externalities from sequential operations > macro-patterns from externalities.

    And that while computers can COMPUTE algorithms using TYPES, humans can CALCULATE ‘routes’ using CATEGORIES

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-23 08:40:00 UTC