Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • well, figure out the reason they’re trying to make this argument, since it must

    well, figure out the reason they’re trying to make this argument, since it must justify something.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 17:34:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761254083013541889

    Reply addressees: @hostempopuli

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761253827744034816

    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/761253827744034816

  • We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how t

    We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how to test for it. Now we do: Testimonialism. Ergo:No more lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 17:30:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761253043266609154

  • We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how t

    We couldn’t require truthful speech in the commons, because we didn’t know how to test for it. Now we do: Testimonialism. Ergo:No more lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 13:30:00 UTC

  • BTW: you use magic words to decieve: if you cannot describe higher order, and Es

    BTW: you use magic words to decieve: if you cannot describe higher order, and Essence by their true names.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 11:46:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761166349666246656

    Reply addressees: @SydneyTrads

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761165915467546624

    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/761165915467546624

  • DECIDABILITY: CUNNING, MORAL, SMART, GENIUS I think there is a pretty big differ

    DECIDABILITY: CUNNING, MORAL, SMART, GENIUS

    I think there is a pretty big difference between smartness and genius. I consider quite a few people smarter than I am in this dimension or that – and I think it’s related to their ability to master things like chess, chemistry, and mathematics, using axiomatic systems to permute applications of rules within the limits of the game. In other words, those people that live in a world of proofs I consider smart.

    I suppose I COULD work in that field, but axiomatic thought is a very different way of thinking from theoretic. In my world there are no rules, there is only information and order. To some degree I see all rules as errors, or contrivances, the same way I see legislation and norms.

    The theoretical mind does not work with boundaries at all, but with creating new orders in order to break through the boundaries that limit us.

    This I think, is the difference between deviant and cunning, moral and wise, axiomatic and smart, theoretical and genius. Some of us cunningly circumvent rules, some morally work within them, some us axiomatically think of new ways to apply them, and some of us theoretically think of new organization of rules. All using slightly different methods of decidability.

    Intelligence can be applied using cunning(immoral), moral(wise), axiomatic (smart), and theoretical(genius) methods. I think this is the correct framing of a problem we generally confuse ourselves through conflation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 06:15:00 UTC

  • One if the reasons you see people in our movement criticize moral mythologies –

    One if the reasons you see people in our movement criticize moral mythologies – even those of our own people – is because truth leads to exchange : cooperation and trade. Whereas deceit simple provides cover for the perpetuation of immoral arrangements.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 11:05:00 UTC

  • THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSA

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-stone&_r=0ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE.

    Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension;

    Say, like:

    -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) ->

    And like:

    -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion ->

    We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like:

    -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism

    We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – internal consistency (logic)

    3 – external consistency (empiricism)

    4 – existential possibility (operationalism)

    5 – rational possibility (morality)

    6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony)

    So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline:

    “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.”

    If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in:

    1 – error

    2 – bias

    3 – wishful thinking

    4 – suggestion

    5 – overloading

    6 – obscurantism

    7 – pseudoscience

    8 – deceit

    Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood.

    That is the best that we can do.

    And this is what it means to “Testify”.

    And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 09:46:00 UTC

  • (Nit: terminological advice in argumentation: Avoid “true” and “pure” and “real”

    (Nit: terminological advice in argumentation: Avoid “true” and “pure” and “real” – all are “no true Scotsman” arguments that belie lack of understanding of causality. Some choices: “equalitarian democracy”, “majoritarian democracy”, “monpoly democracy”, or some other variation that describes the cause as the use of equal votes yet unequal distribution of interests and ability in the population. The original English model granted a house for each class monarchy, nobility, middle class, and the church as an agent for women and the poor. this allowed us to create a market for the construction of commons between the classes rather than democracy. the error in the classical liberal model was in emerging middle class concentrating power in the parliament rather than continuing the model and expanding the parliament rather than adding new houses. This culminated in the enfranchisement of labor, then women, which if in separate houses would have preserved the use of government as a market, rather than as a ruling body. – Cheers )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 04:13:00 UTC

  • WHAT BAD ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS DO…. Listened to a roundtable of Philosophers f

    WHAT BAD ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS DO….

    Listened to a roundtable of Philosophers from The New School discuss the questions “what is philosophy” and “is it relevant”, and was … exasperated.

    There were four basic themes to their (Marxist) discourse:

    1) the did not seem to grasp the spectrum of ‘comparative’ or perhaps ‘calculative’ methods, and simply referred to different disciplines instead of the properties that these methods include and test, and exclude and do not test.

    2) They do not understand that most of what they are saying are mere word games: they start with a term and try to define it’s meaning, rather than start with a problem and solve it, or start with a term and see what it CAN ONLY mean.

    3) As Marxists they are desperately trying to create a verbal religion wich will provide either the skepticism or authority of religion in order to avoid the obvious evidence of Darwinian necessity.

    4) They were trapped into the fallacy of seeking the ‘truth’ while at the same time seeking to construct a lie, and of course this is the reason for their intellectual struggle.

    There was only one philosopher (Cornell West) who I would find interesting to debate, because he seeks to avoid the truth in order to find peace in inferiority. I have compassion for this problem. But I solve it through trade which costs, but does not create conflict, not through denial and deceit which costs because it creates conflict. The Buddhists and Stoics’s solved this underclass problem of acceptance through behavioral modification. The stoics truthfully and the Buddhists … I guess pseudoscientifically or pre-scientifically if that’s possible. The Hindus created a history-mythology which is impenetrable to the rest of us. Everyone in the three ‘books’ religions just lied about it, so that they could pretend to solve it.

    (Wrote something wonderful … and fb ate it. I swear I’m going to intentionally install my own keylogger so that there is always some record of my scribblings.)

    PHILOSOPHY: (quick sketch) Transcendence.

    PERSONAL(epistemology). Avoid false knowledge. Discover useful (~true) knowledge. By the use of reason. Using Methods of Reason: narrative(communication), rational(comparison), rationalism(non-contradiction), logic(internal consistency), cooperation(ethical consistency), physics (empirical and operational consistency), testimonialism (truth). This provides us with Personal Transcendence: The Hero’s Journey. Philosophy can be performed in fantasy narrative, in historical narrative, in rational and logical (set) argument, in empirical, and in testimonial terms. But throughout we are Loading, Unloading, Imagining, Comparing, Valuing, and Deciding. All that differs is our skill in each method, and whether we wish to influence (loading-empath), deceive (obscurantism, suggestion), or persuade (truth-objectivity).

    POLITICAL (cooperation)

    Avoid error and deception, discover utility and truth. Using the methods of reason, and the methods of argument:

    Group Transcendence via persuasion.

    PHYSICAL (physics)

    Transformation via action:

    AESTHETIC (biological)

    The Goal of Transformation.

    The Useful(actionable), True(Ethical), The Moral(Good), The Beautiful(Bounty/Fertility/Content/Perfection)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 05:50:00 UTC

  • THEY HIERARCHY OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS —Observations vs Operations vs Explanatio

    THEY HIERARCHY OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS

    —Observations vs Operations vs Explanations—

    1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.”

    2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe”

    3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law”

    (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.)

    Observation: reporting of facts

    Operations: production of processes.

    Explanations: describing causal relations

    That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 01:28:00 UTC