Curt Doolittle

Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

  • THE ‘SCIENCES’ UNDER NATURALISM AND ACTION 1) structure of reality 2) structure

    THE ‘SCIENCES’ UNDER NATURALISM AND ACTION

    1) structure of reality

    2) structure of calculation

    3) structure of status

    4) structure of reproduction

    5) structure of production

    6) structure of cooperation

    No one will probably understand, but I think that is the set of necessary first principles.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 05:26:00 UTC

  • precise but fun. 🙂

    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/11/everyone-in-world-needs-at-least-4000.htmlNot precise but fun. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-10 07:39:00 UTC

  • USA IS NOT MORE MEDICALLY INNOVATIVE THAN UK OR GERMANY. It’s just a lot bigger.

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/10/31/would-universal-healthcare-in-america-stifle-innovation-no-it-wouldnt/THE USA IS NOT MORE MEDICALLY INNOVATIVE THAN UK OR GERMANY.

    It’s just a lot bigger. The USA is the largest HI-IQ country, with the largest distribution of intellectuals.

    –ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE SMART FRACTION.–

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 09:09:00 UTC

  • All emergent phenomenon are not necessarily good

    All emergent phenomenon are not necessarily good.

    http://scienceblog.com/67277/teachers-more-likely-to-have-progressive-speech-and-language-disorders/

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-15 09:57:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE MEETS ACTION “I .. would not defend [the] statement that we should prefe

    SCIENCE MEETS ACTION

    “I .. would not defend [the] statement that we should prefer for the basis of action the best-tested theory. What we should prefer rather is the best-tested proposal for action.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf

    Another fortune cookie from Ken Hopf.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 07:34:00 UTC

  • GLOBAL COOLING THRU 2030 DUE TO NATURAL SUN CYCLE. I don’t like to participate i

    GLOBAL COOLING THRU 2030 DUE TO NATURAL SUN CYCLE.

    I don’t like to participate in this debate much (Even though I’ve lost a couple of hundred thousand dollars investing in the climate scare.) I’d rather wait until I see the evidence. It bothered me that the INCENTIVES were problematic. It bothered me that it was used as a political tool. But being bothered isn’t evidence one way or another.

    But it’s pretty clear that while we’re putting chemistry into the atmosphere, that the sun, not us, is the primary determinant of climate. We’re heading into an ice age. And from that perspective, perhaps CO2 will help keep us warmer? 🙂

    QUOTES:

    “Premeditated science” is a major culprit.” But the press is also culpable. “The main reason they were able to get away with what they’ve gotten away with is that a majority of the mainstream media were complicit in what (the IPCC and other scientists) were doing,”

    The report hasn’t been released yet, because if they release the commentary before the report, and the report disagrees with the commentary, it won’t matter because the politicians and public won’t read the report, just the commentary.

    “This is where the Founding Fathers have been corrupted because they believed the media would be the watchdogs, the gatekeepers. The mainstream media have failed completely.”

    ACTUALLY

    Its in the economic incentive of the press to lie, underreport, overreport and mislead. The only way free press has any meaning is if you can’t charge money for your reporting. We don’t need the press. Boggers roll up ideas better than does the press, along multiple ideological lines. The press has lost it’s pulpit and that’s great. Because the pulpit sold marxism and proletarianism to the masses as a virtue. THe press made vice into virtue.

    Burn them at the stake? Well. Virtually maybe. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 06:45:00 UTC

  • PRAXEOLOGY REQUIRES SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM (From Elsewhere) This is going to be

    http://keirmartland.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/empiricism-versus-praxeology/NO. PRAXEOLOGY REQUIRES SCIENCE AND EMPIRICISM

    (From Elsewhere)

    This is going to be one of those necessary intellectual battles that I just don’t want to have. Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Hoppian argumentation.

    They’re all half right. That’s a lot better than anyone else has done. But it’s only half right. Praxeology is incomplete and backwards, Rothbardian ethics are incomplete, and Hoppian argumentation is a symptom, not a cause.

    I’d rather innovate on institutions, or criticize the opposition. But without correcting where we’ve been, I can’t argue for where we must go.

    =====REPLY TO POST====

    Science is necessary to compensate for our cognitive biases, cognitive limitations, an the limits of our perception. We need instrumentation, measures and numbers for the same reason we need money, prices and numbers. We cannot think without them. Because we cannot think about what we cannot reduce to analogy to experience.

    Praxeology is only a test. We can test what we can sense. With science, can test what we can reduce to analogy to sensation. And given that our biases and limitations are what define us as human, because we have them in common, we can test incentives produced by those experiences, whether sense perception, or analogies to experience, which we call measurements. That is what praxeology tells us.

    But what we can DEDUCE from praxeology is limited. And evidence has proven that to be true.

    To say that humans will respond to incentives produced by any given policy is true. To say that the multitude of interweaving externalities is deducible from those incentives is not.

    I don’t really desire to correct praxeology or rothbardian ethics, but we must if we are to mature libertarian philosophy.

    http://keirmartland.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/empiricism-versus-praxeology

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 05:08:00 UTC

  • STATISTICS: SORRY BUT THE MYTH OF GENETIC DISTANCE IS FALSE. Probably too techni

    http://drjamesthompson.blogspot.com/2013/10/loci-number-and-group-difference.htmlDAMNED STATISTICS: SORRY BUT THE MYTH OF GENETIC DISTANCE IS FALSE.

    Probably too technical for the FB audience but here is a paper on, and discussion about, how the ‘lie’ that two people within a group are more diverse than people across groups is an intentional deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-05 10:27:00 UTC

  • How Long Before We Have Another Einstein?

    EINSTEIN LIKE MOST GENIUS IS A PRODUCT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COALESCE DISPARATE INSIGHTS IN A PARTICULAR BODY OF TIME.

    1) It certainly appears that Einstein merely provided mathematical tests for work of Poincare. (Almost everything else he said, did, and wrote was really.. quite silly.). The genius was provided by Maxwell and Poincare. Einstein’s elegance was in his method of communication.

    2) The evidence suggests (see Murray) that we obtain a genius in a field because two prior generations of intellectuals concentrate efforts in that field for status seeking reasons. (Mozart).

    3) It also appears that a certain rate of wealth creation is necessary over a sustained period of two generations before genius is ‘affordable’ and therefore emerges because a sufficient number of people have the time and resources to specialize in what is essentially non productive labor. 

    4). We have argued for a few generations now that it appears to take five to seven hundred years for a civilization to ‘cook’ a philosopher.  And that civilizations appear to go thru phases that produce different categories of thinkers in each season.

    5) These factors suggest a causal relation that other commenters attribute to sheer temporal correlation.  That is: it’s very expensive to get enough IQ available and working on intellectual production, over enough generations, that minor insights can accumulate in sufficient numbers that someone from a following generation can synthesize and articulate the common causal relations between those insights and articulate that common causal relation as a new “idea”.

    I’d recommend Murray’s tome Human Accomplishment and Joel Mokyr’s various works including The Gifts of Athena.

    https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-we-have-another-Einstein

  • How Long Before We Have Another Einstein?

    EINSTEIN LIKE MOST GENIUS IS A PRODUCT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COALESCE DISPARATE INSIGHTS IN A PARTICULAR BODY OF TIME.

    1) It certainly appears that Einstein merely provided mathematical tests for work of Poincare. (Almost everything else he said, did, and wrote was really.. quite silly.). The genius was provided by Maxwell and Poincare. Einstein’s elegance was in his method of communication.

    2) The evidence suggests (see Murray) that we obtain a genius in a field because two prior generations of intellectuals concentrate efforts in that field for status seeking reasons. (Mozart).

    3) It also appears that a certain rate of wealth creation is necessary over a sustained period of two generations before genius is ‘affordable’ and therefore emerges because a sufficient number of people have the time and resources to specialize in what is essentially non productive labor. 

    4). We have argued for a few generations now that it appears to take five to seven hundred years for a civilization to ‘cook’ a philosopher.  And that civilizations appear to go thru phases that produce different categories of thinkers in each season.

    5) These factors suggest a causal relation that other commenters attribute to sheer temporal correlation.  That is: it’s very expensive to get enough IQ available and working on intellectual production, over enough generations, that minor insights can accumulate in sufficient numbers that someone from a following generation can synthesize and articulate the common causal relations between those insights and articulate that common causal relation as a new “idea”.

    I’d recommend Murray’s tome Human Accomplishment and Joel Mokyr’s various works including The Gifts of Athena.

    https://www.quora.com/How-long-before-we-have-another-Einstein