Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Sorry but Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed,.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    This is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma

  • But intellectual consistency violates social construction and as such is not onl

    But intellectual consistency violates social construction and as such is not only unnecessary but indesirable for the left.

    For the left desirable=true, and undesirable=false
    For the right true=true and false=false
    For the faithful compliance=true and non-compliance=false.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 18:31:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232734880045420545

    Reply addressees: @CrusaderSvcs

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232734430185299970

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @CrusaderSvcs Well. The canon is rather obvious nonsense that fundamentalists cannot seem to get past. The question of Deism remains possible and Physical and Natural laws eradicate conflict. The left both uses Darwin against the religious right, and denies Darwin against the scientific right.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232734430185299970

  • “It would be cool to watch you debate theologians.”

    —“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend

    [I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.

  • “It would be cool to watch you debate theologians.”

    —“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend

    [I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.

  • Our Law: The Inalienablity of Sovereignty

    [S]overeigns cannot ‘give it up to god’ – that is an act of alienation of responsibility. A sovereign can neither surrender his rights or his responsibilities without breaking the contract for reciprocal insurance of sovereignty. This is why we must have stoicism in mind, and epicureanism in life. One is sovereign or not. Aristocracy requires sovereignty – the cult of non-submission. So we may need to face our permanent inequality of those who are sovereign for who responsibility is inalienable, and those who are serfs for whom responsibility is alienated by submission

  • Our Law: The Inalienablity of Sovereignty

    [S]overeigns cannot ‘give it up to god’ – that is an act of alienation of responsibility. A sovereign can neither surrender his rights or his responsibilities without breaking the contract for reciprocal insurance of sovereignty. This is why we must have stoicism in mind, and epicureanism in life. One is sovereign or not. Aristocracy requires sovereignty – the cult of non-submission. So we may need to face our permanent inequality of those who are sovereign for who responsibility is inalienable, and those who are serfs for whom responsibility is alienated by submission

  • [E]motions are just measures of changes in property.

    By Martin Štěpán [E]motions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in property. At most, you can say they’re bad when they’re measuring incorrectly but that’s not about morality but about the brain working sub-optimally. I think what might also be going on is conflation with Christian deadly sins. But these, as far as I know, are judged by actions. So, greed can motivate a rational agent to accumulate wealth by engaging in reciprocal exchanges where parasitism and predation are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Lust can motivate one deepen connection with his mate and to produce a next generation, especially, again, where the alternatives are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Vengeance can lead one to punish what deserves to be punished and thus dis-incentivize the recipient of vengeance from repeating it (or else removing him from the society and the gene-pool) as well as dis-incentivize other from doing the same. Self-deception might lead to behave in more moral ways, such as when one deceives himself that there is an afterlife and morality our actions in this life will determine whether it will be pleasurable or painful. Empathy can often be extended to people who deserve none or who cannot or wouldn’t reciprocate, enabling parasitism.

  • [E]motions are just measures of changes in property.

    By Martin Štěpán [E]motions are not moral or immoral, they just measure changes in property. At most, you can say they’re bad when they’re measuring incorrectly but that’s not about morality but about the brain working sub-optimally. I think what might also be going on is conflation with Christian deadly sins. But these, as far as I know, are judged by actions. So, greed can motivate a rational agent to accumulate wealth by engaging in reciprocal exchanges where parasitism and predation are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Lust can motivate one deepen connection with his mate and to produce a next generation, especially, again, where the alternatives are sufficiently dis-incentivized. Vengeance can lead one to punish what deserves to be punished and thus dis-incentivize the recipient of vengeance from repeating it (or else removing him from the society and the gene-pool) as well as dis-incentivize other from doing the same. Self-deception might lead to behave in more moral ways, such as when one deceives himself that there is an afterlife and morality our actions in this life will determine whether it will be pleasurable or painful. Empathy can often be extended to people who deserve none or who cannot or wouldn’t reciprocate, enabling parasitism.