Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • The only Two Search Criteria Available for Scientific Statements.

    “[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • The only Two Search Criteria Available for Scientific Statements.

    “[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • TYR = TIWAZ = SKY FATHER God of: War, Sky, Thang (Council) Ruler god: solar deit

    TYR = TIWAZ = SKY FATHER

    God of: War, Sky, Thang (Council)
    Ruler god: solar deity, god of war, justice, religion

    Dayus Pitar
    Dayus
    Zeus
    Jupiter
    Dia
    Dei
    Tyr “Lord”, “God”
    Tiw, Tig
    Tiwaz

    Christian priests were responsible for confusing Tyr and Odin, Odi… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdjMGB_UPbw&fbclid=IwAR2AAMMki5STcAigp606Ej8MqqSnSMQ3BUqaopp9uGOjgk9OpGB3BpEJ8Tg

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 23:48:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232089936108703744

  • Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by op

    Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements.

    Here is what we do in P:

    Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations.

    We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization.

    Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law.

    Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions.

    This is the propertarian methodology.

    And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 11:47:00 UTC

  • Truth: Europeanism (reason and evidence) (realism, materialism, operationalism,

    Truth: Europeanism (reason and evidence)
    (realism, materialism, operationalism, empiricism)
    Wisdom: Sinism (‘reasonableness’)
    Myth: Hinduism (analogy wisdom)
    Lies: Abrahamism (sophistry and deceit)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 03:18:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231780522155761664

    Reply addressees: @PeterAl09732414

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1231779554093666304

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @PeterAl09732414 I never err. If I figure it out. It’s right. Period. https://t.co/kSxb4MZkA6

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1231779554093666304

  • = TIWAZ = SKY FATHER God of: War, Sky, Thang(Council) Ruler god: solar deity, go

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdjMGB_UPbwTYR = TIWAZ = SKY FATHER

    God of: War, Sky, Thang(Council)

    Ruler god: solar deity, god of war, justice, religion

    Dayus Pitar

    Dayus

    Zeus

    Jupiter

    Dia

    Dei

    Tyr “Lord”, “God”

    Tiw, Tig

    Tiwaz

    Christian priests were responsible for confusing tyr and Odin, Odinas: god of battle rage,

    Baldr most likely son of tyr not odin.

    Odin gained more ground over time.

    Named Allfather.

    Odin has many names because local gods were incorporated into the cult of odin.

    As the germans became more warlike in response to the roman invasions, demand for warrior god became the main deity. Tyr decreased further during the germanic migrations.

    Overall a wonderful little lecture.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdjMGB_UPbw&Updated Feb 23, 2020, 8:45 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 20:45:00 UTC

  • “SHRILLING” (VS SHRILL, SHREW, SCOLD) |Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging

    “SHRILLING” (VS SHRILL, SHREW, SCOLD)

    |Shrilling| Counter-Signaling -> Outraging -> Shrilling -> Shrieking

    Shrilling : hbd science-denialism, feminism, postmodernism, marxism, inappropriate theism.

    shrill

    1a: having or emitting a sharp high-pitched tone or sound

    1b: accompanied by sharp high-pitched sounds or cries

    2: having a sharp or vivid effect on the senses

    3: PIERCING, STRIDENT, INTEMPERATE

    shrew, shrewish (adj.)

    “peevish, malignant, clamorous, spiteful, vexatious, turbulent woman” [Johnson] is late 14c., from earlier sense of “spiteful person” (male or female), mid-13c.,late 14c., “wicked, malignant,” from shrew + -ish. Of women, “malignant and scolding,” from 1560s. Related: Shrewishly; shrewishness.

    scold (n.)

    mid-12c., “person of ribald speech,” later “person fond of abusive language” (c. 1300), especially a shrewish woman [Johnson defines it as “A clamourous, rude, mean, low, foul-mouthed woman”], from Old Norse skald “poet” (see skald). The sense evolution might reflect the fact that Germanic poets (like their Celtic counterparts) were famously feared for their ability to lampoon and mock (as in skaldskapr “poetry,” also, in Icelandic law books, “libel in verse”).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 10:15:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION OF MORALITY Morality = Reciprocity Reciprocity = limiting our display

    DEFINITION OF MORALITY

    Morality = Reciprocity

    Reciprocity = limiting our display word and deed to productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality to the action, and warrantied within the limits of the actors’ capacity for restitution, between those who demonstrate, promise, imply, or expect exchange of reciprocity.

    As far as I know, that is the logical, empirical, biologically necessary, genetically necessary and complete definition of morality, for conscious beings, and there are no cases under which the definition fails.

    Some people will try to conflate the moral and the good, where good consists of an additional investment in addition to not violating reciprocity – but this demands involuntary transfer from others, and violates reciprocity.

    Some people will try to demand involuntary exchange of a promise of reciprocity from those who do not offer it – but an enemy is nothing more than an enemy who will not engage in reciprocity.

    Some people will argue this is a binary condition rather than an agreement, under which we match their level of reciprocity and irreciprocity. But while we seek perfect reciprocity, we rarely obtain it. In international trade and in politics we all but never obtain reciprocity, instead we exchange selective reciprocities and irreciprocities within our tolerance for continued cooperation, boycott, or war.

    Some people will try to demand reciprocity in war between groups, between whom the exchange of reciprocity has been withdrawn, but this demand violates reciprocity.

    Humans demonstrate the minimum morality that they can get away with without provoking altruistic punishment from others.

    Humans possess extraordinary abilities of accounting for debts and credits with others, our relative status, status differences, and the tendency of people to engage in moral or immoral behavior.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-23 07:02:00 UTC

  • IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR, SUBJECT = SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY —“I think “subject” ref

    IN OPERATIONAL GRAMMAR, SUBJECT = SUBJECT OF TESTIMONY

    —“I think “subject” refers to the concept in which the whole of the testimony describes, but through the description of operations by an actor or group of actors.”— Adam Jacob Robert Walker

    Well done!!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-22 10:43:00 UTC

  • A GOD IS A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT Man is the measure of all things to man, becaus

    A GOD IS A SYSTEM OF MEASUREMENT

    Man is the measure of all things to man, because man is the only system of measurement available to man. God is a system of measurement in the group’s ideal of man to imitate (as in Jesus, or Achilles) a demigod to aspire to (Odin, Hercules), a god to negotiate with (zeus, thor, tyr), one to obey (jehova, allah), or one to simply understand (deism, the physical and natural laws). Any creature inventing a god would invent one in his image just as we have – and just as the hundreds of gods have been invented abandoned or lost before the present gods.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-21 13:24:00 UTC