Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?

    1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
    So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).

  • Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?

    1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
    So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).

  • Complexity That Assists in Truth Telling

    —-“Complexity is often employed to deceive, obfuscate, and evade the simplest of truths. The proper function of complexity is in the increased precision of truth telling, rather than the enhancement of lying.”—-Adam Houseman

  • Complexity That Assists in Truth Telling

    —-“Complexity is often employed to deceive, obfuscate, and evade the simplest of truths. The proper function of complexity is in the increased precision of truth telling, rather than the enhancement of lying.”—-Adam Houseman

  • Epistemology: Prediction vs Explanation

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 11:24am) I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: limits, parsimony, and falsifiability. Technically they are all properties of scope. But to test scope we must test all dimensions of scope. Also, like internal consistency, I use external correspondence rather than ‘predictability’ since ‘prediction’ generally invites the ludic fallacy (probability). We cannot predict much in the economy, because any observation and measurement we make effects it. the physical sciences progress quickly because they are the most simple, because they are the least variant. social sciences advance more slowly because we adapt where the physical world can’t. So science requires that we ‘match the data’ recorded in retrospect, not that we predict. Instead, prediction is a reductio test of simple systems. Ergo, the explanation horizon depends reflects the rate of adaptation. so we must choose more prediction in some cases (physical science) and more explanatory power in other cases (social science) simply because the horizons vary so much between reaction (the physical world) and action (the social world).

  • Epistemology: Prediction vs Explanation

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 11:24am) I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: limits, parsimony, and falsifiability. Technically they are all properties of scope. But to test scope we must test all dimensions of scope. Also, like internal consistency, I use external correspondence rather than ‘predictability’ since ‘prediction’ generally invites the ludic fallacy (probability). We cannot predict much in the economy, because any observation and measurement we make effects it. the physical sciences progress quickly because they are the most simple, because they are the least variant. social sciences advance more slowly because we adapt where the physical world can’t. So science requires that we ‘match the data’ recorded in retrospect, not that we predict. Instead, prediction is a reductio test of simple systems. Ergo, the explanation horizon depends reflects the rate of adaptation. so we must choose more prediction in some cases (physical science) and more explanatory power in other cases (social science) simply because the horizons vary so much between reaction (the physical world) and action (the social world).

  • Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.

  • Giving Up On Scientific Thought For Everyone?

    (Curt Doolittle December 19 at 12:20pm) NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable. If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population. We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia. We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn. These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination). When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.

  • Q&A: Martial Epistemology

    —“Where did you learn that the roots of science are in martial epistemology? Who on your reading list?”— Well, it’s not a novel idea. I just frame it more precisely. I think I intuitively understood it just because of all the history I’ve read. But it was the sequence Marija Gimbutas > J. P. Mallory > Karen Armstrong that provided such consistency that I was able to make use of it.

    IMHO Karen Amstrong does the best job of the worldwide analysis of the age of transformation, and the foundations of our differences as the martial structure of that time. That said, Taleb also covers it in the Black Swan when he says that military people are the least ideological because they have the most skin in the game.

  • Q&A: Martial Epistemology

    —“Where did you learn that the roots of science are in martial epistemology? Who on your reading list?”— Well, it’s not a novel idea. I just frame it more precisely. I think I intuitively understood it just because of all the history I’ve read. But it was the sequence Marija Gimbutas > J. P. Mallory > Karen Armstrong that provided such consistency that I was able to make use of it.

    IMHO Karen Amstrong does the best job of the worldwide analysis of the age of transformation, and the foundations of our differences as the martial structure of that time. That said, Taleb also covers it in the Black Swan when he says that military people are the least ideological because they have the most skin in the game.