Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • They were victims of the enlightenment fallacies of their cultures. Science prev

    They were victims of the enlightenment fallacies of their cultures. Science prevails

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 20:10:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766004197825339392

    Reply addressees: @FemaBand @ThomasEWoods @lewrockwell @jeffdeist @jtsale

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/766003281516650496

    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/766003281516650496

  • Chemistry, and Doing The Dishes

    [T]he subject I know the least about is chemistry. Why? For very simple reasons: while there is an intellectual component that is akin to three-dimensional puzzle-solving, the existential feature of chemistry is dishwashing.

    Now, aside from the fact that as an autist I really don’t like to get my hands dirty – it’s over-stimulating in a way that normals can’t understand; as a child, we had to wash the dishes after supper, and my father was a bit of a tyrant about it.

    Chemistry involves dirtying a lot of dishes that need cleaning, and that unlike the joy of cooking, produces all sorts of smells, and burns, and other nasty consequences that someone with intense experiences just has a problem with.

    I can diagnose a Ferrari engine pretty accurately just by listening to it idle in an enclosed space. I can criticize any artwork past or present. I’m an adequate if messy cook. And I’m hella-scary with what we can claim is true or not.

    But I’m comfortable not working with chemistry really. Because I’m uncomfortable doing dishes.

  • Chemistry, and Doing The Dishes

    [T]he subject I know the least about is chemistry. Why? For very simple reasons: while there is an intellectual component that is akin to three-dimensional puzzle-solving, the existential feature of chemistry is dishwashing.

    Now, aside from the fact that as an autist I really don’t like to get my hands dirty – it’s over-stimulating in a way that normals can’t understand; as a child, we had to wash the dishes after supper, and my father was a bit of a tyrant about it.

    Chemistry involves dirtying a lot of dishes that need cleaning, and that unlike the joy of cooking, produces all sorts of smells, and burns, and other nasty consequences that someone with intense experiences just has a problem with.

    I can diagnose a Ferrari engine pretty accurately just by listening to it idle in an enclosed space. I can criticize any artwork past or present. I’m an adequate if messy cook. And I’m hella-scary with what we can claim is true or not.

    But I’m comfortable not working with chemistry really. Because I’m uncomfortable doing dishes.

  • Do scientists actively believe that everything has an explanation?

    Do scientists actively believe that everything has an explanation? https://www.quora.com/Do-scientists-actively-believe-that-everything-has-an-explanation/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=45b6e9e8

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 18:45:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765620510923296773

  • course everything CAN BE EXPLAINED. The problem is in observing it. Much of the

    https://www.quora.com/Do-scientists-actively-believe-that-everything-has-an-explanation/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=45b6e9e8Of course everything CAN BE EXPLAINED. The problem is in observing it.

    Much of the universe is open to electromagnetic inspection, but not enough of it. Until we can inspect something it is very hard to do anything other than deduce that explanation from the events that surround it.

    BUT THATS NOT THE POINT.

    The point you’re probably getting at, and the one science exists to expose, is the use of comforting or appealing, or satisfying LIES to fool people.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 16:14:00 UTC

  • scientists actively believe that everything has an explanation? “— Of course,

    https://t.co/0lUVIcaRLG—“Do scientists actively believe that everything has an explanation? “—

    Of course, everything CAN BE EXPLAINED. The problem is in observing it.

    Much of the universe is open to electromagnetic inspection, but not enough of it. Until we can inspect something it is very hard to do anything other than deduce that explanation from the events that surround it.

    BUT THATS NOT THE POINT.

    The point you’re probably getting at, and the one science exists to expose, is the use of comforting or appealing, or satisfying LIES to fool people.

    SCIENCE REDUCES LYING

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 14:45:00 UTC

  • No, thats justificationism under law, not truth under science. sorry. no

    No, thats justificationism under law, not truth under science. sorry. no.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:48:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349599448035349

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton @mamasaurusof2 @cmandrecyk @CookPolitical

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349473866383360

    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/765349473866383360

  • theories survive falsification, one proves only possibility – so no

    theories survive falsification, one proves only possibility – so no.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:47:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349168193867777

    Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton @mamasaurusof2 @cmandrecyk @CookPolitical @dmataconis

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348653577990144

    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/765348653577990144

  • Do Scientists Actively Believe That Everything Has An Explanation?

    Of course everything CAN BE EXPLAINED. The problem is in observing it.
    Much of the universe is open to electromagnetic inspection, but not enough of it. Until we can inspect something it is very hard to do anything other than deduce that explanation from the events that surround it.

    BUT THATS NOT THE POINT.
    The point you’re probably getting at, and the one science exists to expose, is the use of comforting or appealing, or satisfying LIES to fool people.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-scientists-actively-believe-that-everything-has-an-explanation

  • Do Scientists Actively Believe That Everything Has An Explanation?

    Of course everything CAN BE EXPLAINED. The problem is in observing it.
    Much of the universe is open to electromagnetic inspection, but not enough of it. Until we can inspect something it is very hard to do anything other than deduce that explanation from the events that surround it.

    BUT THATS NOT THE POINT.
    The point you’re probably getting at, and the one science exists to expose, is the use of comforting or appealing, or satisfying LIES to fool people.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-scientists-actively-believe-that-everything-has-an-explanation