Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • ( So yes, I’m reforming philosophy, psychology, social science, economics, polit

    ( So yes, I’m reforming philosophy, psychology, social science, economics, politics, and group competitive strategy.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:38:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjectiv

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY

    I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology.

    Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened.

    So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete.

    Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is:

    1 – categorically consistent (identity)

    2 – internally consistent (logically consistent)

    3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent)

    4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated)

    A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining:

    5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony)

    And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining:

    6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality)

    So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights.

    However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language.

    Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration.

    So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit.

    And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:37:00 UTC

  • Philosophers place greater weight upon FEELING, and the cognitive scientists pla

    Philosophers place greater weight upon FEELING, and the cognitive scientists place greater weight on REPORTING, which tells us nothing about TRUTH but a great deal about the instrumentation available to SUBJECTIVE introspective and OBJECTIVE empirical testing.

    My experience is that while in retrospect the initial stage of awareness is arguably ‘me’ or ‘i’, while in that state any such ‘experience’ (feeling) other than ‘satisfaction/dissatisfaction’, ‘urgency/calm’, ‘dominant/submissive stance’ does not seem to exist.

    So one can ‘feel’ first, but not understand, and the one can understand but not report upon, and finally one can feel, understand, and report upon.

    Interestingly, analyzing feelings can change them(association), and reporting upon feelings can change them(signaling) – sometimes falsely. (Which obvious in retrospect)

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 04:31:00 UTC

  • There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (dec

    There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling.

    This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism.

    And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-25 01:02:00 UTC

  • ( Well you wanted serious philosophy. I’m trying to do my part. But like I said,

    ( Well you wanted serious philosophy. I’m trying to do my part. But like I said, I am suspicious that much serious philosophy exists in the 21st century. 😉 )

    (bait)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 14:28:00 UTC

  • IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifia

    IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T.

    Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. it’s not justifiable but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief.

    In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”.

    THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)

    I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.

    I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.

    As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.

    As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.

    As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.

    As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.

    There is no possible justification for belief.

    There is possible justification for moral action according to norms.

    There is possible justification for legal action according to laws.

    But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy.

    Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language.

    But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda.

    (ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.)

    So to speak truthfully requries we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak eitehr in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, becasue we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especialy in empire america.

    If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did.

    Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. 😉

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 14:00:00 UTC

  • TIPS ON WRITING PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS USE ACTIVE VOICE 1) Learn one ‘aggressive

    TIPS ON WRITING PROPERTARIAN ARGUMENTS

    USE ACTIVE VOICE

    1) Learn one ‘aggressive’ or ‘honest’ technique: “Active Voice not Passive Voice”

    ‘John threw the ball’ not ‘the ball was thrown by john’. Read “passive voice” on the internet. This is where you’re having trouble with operational language.

    USE FINANCIAL AND CRIMINAL, NOT EXPERIENTIAL AND MORAL TERMINOLOGY

    2) make sure any MORAL term you use is converted into an economic or financial term showing not abridgment of your interpretation of the moral contract, but of objective theft independent of subjectively biased moral judgements

    SO THIS

    A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond redemption.

    SHOULD BE THIS

    A cowardly man imposes costs upon kin and kith to the extent of being beyond restitution.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE

    “embodying” is yet another symbolism not an objective declaration or observation. instead:

    “demonstrating”, or possibly in this paragraph “forcing others to protect and produce for him…”

    CAUSES OF OUR PASSIVE VOICE

    We grow up with “Polite Speech” and polite speech asks us to avoid accusatory descriptions. This produces passive voice.

    We grow up with the habit of talking about the object (thing affected) rather than the subject (thing acting). This produces passive voice.

    John did this which caused these increases or decreases in those forms of capital, demonstrating that he is a thief or investor.

    YOU ARE MAKING FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC TRANSACTIONS INSTEAD OF MORAL JUDGEMENTS

    Propertarian arguments represent A LEDGER of TRANSACTIONS against property.

    Think of your arguments as software that’s narrating a set of accounting entries, and rendering a judgment of profit or loss.

    SUMMARY

    Just stick with the idea of subject acted on object, which caused this result, thereby producing a transaction against property resulting in a profit or loss.

    CLOSING: OUR PURPOSE

    Our purpose is to change from the MORAL AND MONOPOLY frame of decision making on common goods, to the SCIENTIFIC AND MARKET frame of decision on common goods.

    So we are revolutionizing the commons by asking “We have different objectives, but we can still cooperate if we trade. so why wont you be honest with me and trade? If you will trade, then I will trade. But if you will not trade and you want to engage in fraud or theft or violence, then I will remain moral, and not engage in theft, or fraud, but I WILL engage in violence, so that in the future you engage in truth and trade, or that you are dead, so you cannot commit fraud and theft.”

    This is the MORAL argument we put forward in propertarianism.

    “Why won’t you trade with me? If you will not trade with me then you may boycott trade with me – I will understand. But if you try to commit fraud and theft, directly or indirectly, as an individual or a group of any size, then I and other moral men, will not engage in theft and fraud, but we will engage in violence to end, perform restitution for, and punish, – and if necessary kill – those who engage in fraud and theft rather than trade or boycott.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 04:16:00 UTC

  • “The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”— David Mondrus

    —“The truth is the truth no matter who speaks it.”— David Mondrus

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-24 02:07:00 UTC

  • any promise you make is true if it survives the test of reconstruction we call c

    any promise you make is true if it survives the test of reconstruction we call correspondence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 19:40:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768171187759378432

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768166290523435009

    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/768166290523435009

  • Try to say that clearly. If you can’t state it operationally you don’t know what

    Try to say that clearly. If you can’t state it operationally you don’t know what youre talking about. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-23 19:19:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768165726125428736

    Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/768165148221513729

    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/768165148221513729