Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1549971692 Timestamp) MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 ==== by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata) Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science Abstract (Gated) The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1549971692 Timestamp) MORE ON THE REPLICATION CRISIS IN PSYCHOLOGY (PSEUDOSCIENCE) What if the reason we have not developed a framework, and why psychology cannot convert to a science, is because we may like what we find? I’ve been working on the problem as a byproduct of my work (method) and I think it’s relatively simple and solid. We just won’t like it. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0522-1 ==== by Valerio Caprario (via james santagata) Incredibly deep paper: – the replicability crisis in psychology is not only driven by methodological and statistical shortcomings – it’s mainly driven by a lack of theoretical frameworks – Psychology needs to be turned into a formal science Abstract (Gated) The replication crisis facing the psychological sciences is widely regarded as rooted in methodological or statistical shortcomings. We argue that a large part of the problem is the lack of a cumulative theoretical framework or frameworks. Without an overarching theoretical framework that generates hypotheses across diverse domains, empirical programs spawn and grow from personal intuitions and culturally biased folk theories. By providing ways to develop clear predictions, including through the use of formal modelling, theoretical frameworks set expectations that determine whether a new finding is confirmatory, nicely integrating with existing lines of research, or surprising, and therefore requiring further replication and scrutiny. Such frameworks also prioritize certain research foci, motivate the use diverse empirical approaches and, often, provide a natural means to integrate across the sciences. Thus, overarching theoretical frameworks pave the way toward a more general theory of human behaviour. We illustrate one such a theoretical framework: dual inheritance theory.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1550070444 Timestamp) —“Hey Curt, a friend and I are going to read Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” soon. Do you recommend any other work that would expound the most up-to-date and rigorous philosophy of science? Cheers.”— The conversion of science from justification to falsification to to market competition, and unifying science and law, where science is but an extension and application of the law of tort, and the testimony required in laws of tort. Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Popper’s conjectures and refutations, …but first read: Hayek’s knowledge in society essay, and his Road to Serfdom … And if you can manage it: Elanor Ostrom (Commons) And Amartya Sen (philosophy and economy) … And then Hayek’s Law, Legislation, and Liberty if you want to take it all the way through to the end. Popper is talking about explicit knowledge and hayek about tacit knowledge. And we must possess both. Just as we must possess recipes (transformations/actions) and theories (search algorithms/opportunities). One to search for opportunities and one to exploit them. THe rest of the century is basically wasted with poorly articulated arguments attempting to state what is a fairly obvious problem. As far as I know my work is most current, and that is that there is no via-positiva scientific method (what to do) only a via-negativa scientific method (due diligence in that your testimony is truthful.) That we must perform due diligence in each of the applicable dimensions of possible human comprehension. And that science consists of the art of attempting to possess the information necessary to testify. And therefore that science then is a market for arguments. So: – Free Association > Hypothesis – Hypothesis > Theory – Theory > Law – Law > Habituation – Habituation > Metaphysical assumption. Cheers. -Curt

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551204493 Timestamp) NO WOO WOO. UNIVERSE MOST LIKELY PRESERVES INFORMATION BY MULTI-OSCILLATION 1) I don’t accept anything. it’s simply that I can’t falsify any of these theories or the category of theories all of them belong to and I can falsify every other category of theories that all other alternatives belong to. 2) Secondly, given that the universe appears to consist of nothing more than information, and that such information has no other method of retention than the universe itself, nothing can exist other than the universe as the store of information. 3) As such space time (whatever the universe consists of) consists in one of the three theoretical constructions (oscillating, multi-oscilating, or or curvilinearly infinite (self referential) with multi-oscilating providing means of preserving information between states. That’s my best guess with knowledge at our disposal – only because it is the only option that does not survive falsification at this moment in time

  • (FB 1551194839 Timestamp)

    (FB 1551194839 Timestamp) https://you.23andme.com/published/reports/d38d18567cd94a91/? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a6b/ad93d88b0158d449881e56749d5443b3ff80.pdf

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551204493 Timestamp) NO WOO WOO. UNIVERSE MOST LIKELY PRESERVES INFORMATION BY MULTI-OSCILLATION 1) I don’t accept anything. it’s simply that I can’t falsify any of these theories or the category of theories all of them belong to and I can falsify every other category of theories that all other alternatives belong to. 2) Secondly, given that the universe appears to consist of nothing more than information, and that such information has no other method of retention than the universe itself, nothing can exist other than the universe as the store of information. 3) As such space time (whatever the universe consists of) consists in one of the three theoretical constructions (oscillating, multi-oscilating, or or curvilinearly infinite (self referential) with multi-oscilating providing means of preserving information between states. That’s my best guess with knowledge at our disposal – only because it is the only option that does not survive falsification at this moment in time

  • (FB 1551194839 Timestamp)

    (FB 1551194839 Timestamp) https://you.23andme.com/published/reports/d38d18567cd94a91/? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a6b/ad93d88b0158d449881e56749d5443b3ff80.pdf

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1551978975 Timestamp) DEFINITIONS: SCIENCE, SCIENTISM, PSEUDOSCIENCE, PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, AND LITERATURE. (worth repeating) THE DEFINITIONS i) SCIENCE: a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. ii) SCIENTISM : overstating empiricism (correlation), without completing the applicable scope of due diligences, or attempting to apply tests of truth in matters of preference or good. iii) PSEUDOSCIENCE: Testifying to the truth of statements without having performed due diligence against ignorance error, bias, and deceit. iv) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM: Attempts to claim closure where closure does not exist in the logics without appeal to the next higher dimension (empiricism). In other words sophisms, no matter how skilled. Contradictions proposed rarely exist, and almost all questions of philosophy are non-existent bits of fraud due to the use of poor grammar and incomplete sentences. (For example, the liar’s paradox is not operationally possible.) THE ARGUMENT (1) The sciences consist of logical and physical means of falsification in each dimension of possible human action (categorically consistent, internally consistent(logical), externally correspondent(empirical), operationally possible(existential), rational choice(voluntary), reciprocal rational choice(moral), scope-completeness/limits-defined/surviving-parsimony.) (2) the sciences can therefore tell us what is false, and what at present appears to be true (meaning the science allow us to testify to having performed due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.) (3) For some reason, we still conflate the logics (tests of constant relations between two or more states, in a set of dimensions), including mathematics (tests of constant positional relations given scale independence) and the deducibility (‘inference’) of relations given the inviolability of those constant relations. Very little of meaning can be said of logic other than it is extremely useful in the falsification of the logical – which is how we use it. Proofs appear to have very little value since given enough time nearly anything can be justified by verbal ‘proof’). (4) Philosophy at present is limited to the exploration and determination of preference (personal), and good (collective). But philosophy has a tragic reputation for nearly universal falsehood outside of those choices. In fact, current philosophy consists largely of self help on one side and a catalog of human errors in intuition on the other. (5) Literature consists of envisioning possible and impossible worlds, for the purpose of exploration, advocacy, and criticism. (6) We tend to conflate literature and logic (philosophy), and conflate History (myth), law (norm), literature (parable), and pseudoscience into theology, just as we inflate literature and reason into philosophy. (7) So while there is value in via positive imaginings (theology, philosophy, mythology) there exists only decidability (conflict resolution) via mathematics, science, history, and reciprocity (law). Ergo, if we must disagree, we must resort only to decidability independent of good or preference. If we seek possibilities, we must resort to literature, myth, and philosophy. Truth can only be produced via-negativa, and choice only by via positiva. Sorry. That’s all there is to the scope of human knowledge. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/03/29/definitions-science-scientism-pseudoscience-pseudo-rationalism-and-literature/

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    (FB 1552156504 Timestamp) SOCIAL SCIENCE IN ONE IMAGE

  • (FB 1552164367 Timestamp) BUT WHY ARE THEY SHAPED THAT WAY? This is why

    (FB 1552164367 Timestamp) BUT WHY ARE THEY SHAPED THAT WAY? This is why….