Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of plato

    The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.

    Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.

    As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.

    Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.

    Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.

    But each transformation made man better than he was before.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:29:00 UTC

  • ***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to

    ***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to claim it is ‘true’, When you claim something is true, at that point you promise to others it is true enough to determine their action. And by that claim expose them to potential harm. This violates every ethical and moral limit to cooperation.***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 04:19:00 UTC

  • CURT: WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMETHING YOU WISH TO OBSERVE? (apriorism does not convey

    CURT: WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMETHING YOU WISH TO OBSERVE?

    (apriorism does not convey truth, only a discount on testing)

    I would call it either existence or reality prior to my observation of it. and the mixture of existence or reality and my memory and imagination after I observe it. Hence the necessity to use discipline by performing due diligence that what I record or testify is a ‘fact’ (because it has survived testing) rather rather than a statement of error, bias, wishful thinking or deception.

    Now as a trite but possibly helpful example, lets take your use of ‘fact’ to assume that nature provides truth rather than you provide truth. Nature/Reality exists. It can’t promise. It can’t testify. It cannot create truth propositions. It can’t observe. Only we can. So we create facts, and we create truthfulness, within our promise and testimony that our observations are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Truth exists in the correspondence between reality and description of it. But man creates the description and when he utters it he promises it is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.

    So in your case you did not test that your use of the term ‘fact’ was truthful (truth by necessity) rather than merely honest (truth by analogy). You may be honest but you erred.

    Likewise you did not test that the conveying truth content sufficient for persuasion of others was warrantied to be truthful rather than merely honest, and attempted to use this honesty but falsehood to persuade me by an appeal to the truth or authority of this non-fact that you claimed to be a fact.

    Truth is constructed by man and it is always open to revision. Hence all knowledge is hypothetical and subject to future criticism, and no knowledge is ever persuasive in itself. It is only persuasive because of the accumulated test for falsehood that have eliminated error. And as such we must always test all deductions, inductions, abductions, and outright guesses that result from it.

    ergo, apriorism is a means of hypothesizing not of truthfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:33:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHAT DO YOU CALL AN OBSERVATION? (frowns) “An observation” Observation–>F

    CURT, WHAT DO YOU CALL AN OBSERVATION?

    (frowns)

    “An observation”

    Observation–>Fact as Hypothesis -> Theory

    Observations that survive criticism are facts.

    Hypotheses that survive criticism are theories.

    I may observe and err. A fact survives tests that I err/bias/think-wishfully/deceive in my observations.

    In other words, truth candidacy is a product of survival.

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FACT

    1) something to observe

    2) an observer to witness it

    3) (possibly) a method of observation (“instrumentation”)

    4) a method of recording (memory or instrumentation)

    5) a method of criticizing the observation to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from the record (memory).

    If we cannot find a way to falsify the record then we may morally claim it is a truth candidate, and therefore a fact.

    Some observations are easy to test: “john wrote that post”.

    Some observations are harder to test: “that car hit the pedestrian”.

    Some observations are very hard to test: last year’s faster than light problem due to improper fitting of a connector.

    It’s not hard guys unless you confuse the application of justifiction (law) to criticism (science). Which is common.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:17:00 UTC

  • Faith in Priors is not Rational, it’s Instinctual

    [F]AITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon? Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something. By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception). So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy. Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker. And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable. If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness. You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever. Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability. (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. ) I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state. By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law. I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons. -Curt Feedback:

    —“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

    Exactly. 😉

  • Faith in Priors is not Rational, it’s Instinctual

    [F]AITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon? Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something. By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception). So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy. Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker. And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable. If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness. You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever. Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability. (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. ) I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state. By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law. I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons. -Curt Feedback:

    —“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

    Exactly. 😉

  • It’s Moral to Seek to Understand.

    ***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An immoral man imposes costs upon others in the hope the others cannot pay those costs, rather than seek the truth. As such cost-imposers are liars and cheats, and thieves.***

  • It’s Moral to Seek to Understand.

    ***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An immoral man imposes costs upon others in the hope the others cannot pay those costs, rather than seek the truth. As such cost-imposers are liars and cheats, and thieves.***

  • Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

    [T]here are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters. First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs. Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments. What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship. So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs. I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon. I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system. But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention. Cheers

  • Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

    [T]here are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters. First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs. Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments. What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship. So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs. I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon. I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system. But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention. Cheers