Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism

    [B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM 1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism. 2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony. 3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit. 4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content. Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism. Thanks for following me on the journey.

  • Very Short Introduction to the Epistemology of Testimonialism

    [B]RIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM 1) All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism. 2) We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony. 3) If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit. 4) Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content. Note: This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion. So while I wish I was done with this topic, it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation. The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism. Thanks for following me on the journey.

  • APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE. Rationalism provides

    APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE.

    Rationalism provides a limited subset of tools with which we can conduct test(criticisms) and construct ideas (hypotheses) within the discipline of constructing Truthful Testimony (science).

    I understand that imagining and exploring ideas via rationalism is desirable because it requires less knowledge than full criticism sufficient for testimony.

    But rationalism (internal consistency) provides only a child( subset) of truth telling (science) not the parent(determinant) of it.

    GATHERING, STUDYING, RESEARCHING, “FILLING THE SHELVES OF THE MIND”

    Collecting general knowledge about a subject so that you have conceptual resources with which to experiment.

    OBSERVATION: Just what it says. You observe and remember (record) something with sufficient instrumentation that you can compare it to future observations.

    FACT: An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. In other words an observation that has survived all known criticism.

    FREE ASSOCIATION: Imagining through free association by any means possible from the most rigorous use of mathematics through daydreaming, using the conceptual resources available to you to experiment with.

    HYPOTHESIS : A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. In other words: informed guesses.

    THEORY: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. In other words, an hypothesis that has survived scrutiny.

    LAW : A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. In other words a theory that has survived all known criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 06:19:00 UTC

  • BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM All non-tautological stat

    BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM

    All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

    We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

    If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

    Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

    This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion.

    So it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation.

    The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

    Thanks for following me on the journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 13:14:00 UTC

  • FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL —“The problem with this moral

    FAITH 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.”—

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:57:00 UTC

  • How Would Our Lives Change Under Truthfulness?

    (note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 ) [Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

    Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst

    Why would we give the government such power? Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other. And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.

    Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst

    Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential. Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential. NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)

            UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION) The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning: – Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association) – Finance, Banking, (hypothesis) – Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory) – and Consumption. (law) The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction. – Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision). PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT) Academy (education production), Government (commons production), Hospital (healthcare production) Church(insurance provision),

            Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst

            As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it… So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences. My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂

            Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst

            Are you trying to profit from your espousal?

            Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst

            1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful. 2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted? 3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony? 4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness? If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution. Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs). THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS The Costs of Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/ The Truth is Expensive http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/truth-is-expensive-but-the-returns-warrant-it-and-morality-demands-it/ Lies and Opportunity Costs http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/lies-damned-lies-and-opportunity-costs/ The Cost of Teaching Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/the-cost-of-teaching-truth/ Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/those-who-fear-truth-are-taking-discounts/ Truth is Enough http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/22/the-high-cost-of-truthfulness-but-truth-is-enough/

          • How Would Our Lives Change Under Truthfulness?

            (note that this is a Socratic Dialog and Edward is playing devil’s advocate in order to force me to articulate the ideas. I dont want to miscast his intentions. 🙂 ) [Q]UESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

            Give the government the power to define and prohibit pseudoscience. Rushton would have been executed for sure. Sounds like the high road to tyranny.—Edward Fürst

            Why would we give the government such power? Defense of the informational commons, like that of water, air, and land, is a property right like any other. And as a property right, It’s a matter for judges, not government.

            Are judges not government functionaries? – Edward Fürst

            Are they? Is it necessary that they be? Did they evolve as such? Operationally, judges (conflict resolution over property) are necessary and government (production of commons) is preferential. Lets go through the difference between non-discretionary organizations, and preferential. NECESSARY FUNCTIONS (RULE)

                    UTILITARIAN FUNCTIONS (PRODUCTION) The Voluntary Organization of Production. Meaning: – Industry, Entrepreneurship, (free association) – Finance, Banking, (hypothesis) – Craftsmanship, Distribution, Trade (theory) – and Consumption. (law) The Voluntary Organization of Reproduction. – Meaning “Family” (reproductive provision). PREFERENTIAL FUNCTIONS (GOVERNMENT) Academy (education production), Government (commons production), Hospital (healthcare production) Church(insurance provision),

                    Let me get this straight: Rothbard and Mises promoted pseudoscience. Authors of pseudoscience should be punished and suppressed. Therefore, if you had your druthers, Rothbard and Mises should have been punished and suppressed for their writing? And that is your idea of liberty? —Edward Fürst

                    As to the past, We didn’t know. Now we know. As to the present, there exists a general principle of rule of law: it cannot be retroactively applied. As to the future lets work through it… So let me ask the question again, if we incrementally suppress pseudoscience in the commons, and we know the full scientific method, then what would be the consequences. My idea of liberty is non-imposition of costs. 🙂

                    Ok. You say now “we” know. As far as i’m concerned, “we” don’t know anything but that you along with all the Keynesians, monetarists, socialists, communists, and fascists disagree with Mises/Rothbard. So far you have not won me to your side, but i am still gradually reading through your work. Regardless, given your premises that you have delivered the ultimate gospel of True Science (IE your synthesis of Northern European enlightenments) “we know” now that Mises and Rothbard, how should i be “suppressed” and “punished” for continuing to espouse their ideology? — Edward Fürst

                    Are you trying to profit from your espousal?

                    Why sure! Spreading the ideas of what i consider to be liberty is of great profit to me. Maybe im contributing to real change and maybe i’m just inflating my ego. Regardless, it feels good and is therefore profitable. But enough with the rat-faced, demonic, jewish semantics. Let’s say i’m Tom Woods for instance: i make my living publishing books In the Rothbardian tradition. What is my punishment? — Edward Fürst

                    1) well that is not the definition of profit, it’s the definition of pleasure. Profiting would require that you sell something, and calculate the difference between costs of inputs and rewards from outputs. Analogies are not truths, they are merely meaningful. 2) Do you think anyone would object to your utterances as falsehoods or deceits, under which involuntary transfer would be conducted? 3) Do you think that what you’re arguing can pass the tests of categorical consistency(non-conflation), internal consistency, external correspondence, existential possibility, morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of imposition of costs upon that which people have obtained by the same means), Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony? 4) If not, then could you state why they fail these tests of truthfulness and morality, or why you do not know whether they do or now? In other words could you include a warning of incompleteness? If one cannot perform this due diligence such that he can warranty his actions against harm, then one can for forced to pay restitution. And informational restitution like pollution of air, land, and water is costly – most often a large multiple of the original discount achieved by the pollution. Lastly, rejection of this demand is how you tell the difference between a LIBERTINE (imposer of costs) and a LIBERTARIAN (non-imposer of costs). THE HIGH COST OF TRUTHFULNESS The Costs of Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/the-costs-of-truth/ The Truth is Expensive http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/truth-is-expensive-but-the-returns-warrant-it-and-morality-demands-it/ Lies and Opportunity Costs http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/lies-damned-lies-and-opportunity-costs/ The Cost of Teaching Truth http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/the-cost-of-teaching-truth/ Truth Avoiders are Taking Discounts http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/08/24/those-who-fear-truth-are-taking-discounts/ Truth is Enough http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/22/the-high-cost-of-truthfulness-but-truth-is-enough/

                  • ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using

                    ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using introspection rather than empirical measurement, any more than you can rely on the objective measurement of anything else by introspection rather than empirical measurement?***

                    Seriously. In the future people won’t.

                    Propertarianism and Testimonialism = “Radical Empiricism” in some people’s terms, but as far as I know it consists of ‘complete empiricism’ and every discipline that we call science before now consists of ‘incomplete empiricism’.

                    There are only so many existentially possible dimensions to test.

                    If we test them all then we have created complete empiricism.

                    We stopped people from many forms of introspective reliance.

                    The next step in our conceptual evolution is stopping people from introspective reliance on moral questions.

                    Which is pretty cool really. Humbling. Terribly humbling. But cool.

                    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 07:53:00 UTC

                  • Argumentative Assistance for Students of Debate

                    [A]RGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.” 2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.” 3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”

                  • Argumentative Assistance for Students of Debate

                    [A]RGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.” 2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.” 3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”