Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • The Purpose of the Technologies of Truth and Falsehood.

    [T]he purpose of that technology that we call ‘Truth’ is largely one of persuasion. The purpose of that technology we call ‘falsehood’ is largely the prevention of persuasion by imaginary, erroneous, biased, wishful, or deceitful means. In any scale beyond the directly perceivable – meaning beyond no more than 150 people – we cannot rely upon persuasion but instead must rely upon falsification: reason not to do something.

    There are few known goods. There are some known good processes. At any scale assent is the default. Falsification by the imposition of costs not assent by majority rule. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • A SHORT COURSE ON DECIDABILITY (learning propertarianism) REVERSE: In logic we s

    A SHORT COURSE ON DECIDABILITY

    (learning propertarianism)

    REVERSE: In logic we state that a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice).

    OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system.

    Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is unnecessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-27 11:46:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD The purpose of that techn

    THE PURPOSE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES OF TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD

    The purpose of that technology that we call ‘Truth’ is largely one of persuasion. The purpose of that technology we call ‘falsehood’ is largely the prevention of persuasion by imaginary, erroneous, biased, wishful, or deceitful means.

    In any scale beyond the directly perceivable – meaning beyond no more than 150 people – we cannot rely upon persuasion but instead must rely upon falsification: reason not to do something.

    There are few known goods. There are some known good processes.

    At any scale assent is the default. Falsification by the imposition of costs not assent by majority rule.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-25 12:21:00 UTC

  • APRIORI AND RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL AND OPERATIONAL —“Anything that can be shown

    APRIORI AND RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL AND OPERATIONAL

    —“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

    I am sure he thinks I’m crazy but honestly I see Val as a guardian angel without whose scarce but precious counsel I would not have made the progress I have over the past few years.

    Thank you Val.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-25 09:10:00 UTC

  • What Is Critical Rationalism?

    [C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

    SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London)

  • What Is Critical Rationalism?

    [C]ritical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism. ASSERTIONS: 1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.) 2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate. 3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false. 4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”). 5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

    SUMMARY One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon: ……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth; –or– ……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception. Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (London)

  • Property:Positive / Commons:Negative

    [P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive).  Commons=preservation(negative).

  • Property:Positive / Commons:Negative

    [P]roperty is an attempt to solve the problem of decidability on the use of resources. But no matter how we arrange property we still have the problem of producing commons – where we define ‘commons’ as an investment that produces goods, but must be free of privatization (consumption). (Parks are a great example because their central function is to prevent consumption of land – they have no other ‘use’ than transit and experience.) Some commons produce status (art, poems, plays, parks, monuments, monumental architecture). Some commons improve quality of life and safety (sewers, water treatment, armies). Some improve prosperity through trade (roads, street cars, railways, airports). To qualify as a commons, the use of the good must not be limited to those who paid for it. It’s just that the consumption of the good is prohibited. Property=consumption (positive).  Commons=preservation(negative).

  • Propertarianism is for the Prosecution

    (good) [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony. If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse. If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.I AM A PROSECUTOR That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did. Except this time, we will prosecute liars.

  • Propertarianism is for the Prosecution

    (good) [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony. If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse. If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.I AM A PROSECUTOR That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did. Except this time, we will prosecute liars.