Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A SUBSET OF “THE MORAL METHOD” All processes of product

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A SUBSET OF “THE MORAL METHOD”

    All processes of production are the same. We merely weight the outputs differently in value. Science values knowledge for its own sake (supposedly.) The scientific method ignores both real costs and opportunity costs. Technology doesn’t ignore them, because it is goal directed. The production of consumer goods, ignores places lower value on knowledge development and hides it rather than publishes it. But all that differs in any process of production (study of transformation) is which inputs we consider, and which outputs we prefer. PERIOD.

    The scientific method is but one instance of THE METHOD. The method is the same, whether in craft, production, technology or science. You would not believe how hard I have tried to make this argument, and how hard critical rationalists try to deny it so that they can preserve a special place in their hearts.

    Here is the mind blowing bit: The scientific method is written as a moral rule more than a logical one. The reason that scientists developed this moral rule in some detail before other fields, was because it was so much easier to lie, err, and fantasize about the production of hypotheses than it was to produce craft, production, or technology. Worse, (and this is what I work on) it is even harder to take the same moral prohibition and apply it to social science (economics, religion, morality, politics, law) because the incentives to lie, err, and fantasize, are even greater than those in science. My objective, in my work, is to apply the moral constraints we put in place upon science to defend us from lies, errors, and fantasies, to the social sciences, and the moral literature. And I expect that there will be a lot of resistance to following THE METHOD. Precisely because lying, useful error, and selling fantasies is so profitable.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-02 12:19:00 UTC

  • PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS I’ve been wrestling with thi

    PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    I’ve been wrestling with this problem for a few days now. That is, that :

    (a) While intuited morality corresponds to the atomicity of the family structure;

    (b) AND therefore determines demand for the state (authority to resolve conflict, prevent conflict, or prevent retaliation);

    (c) AND only the absolute nuclear family can EVOLVE individual property rights, and liberty,

    (d) AND the absolute nuclear family, as normative and legal, is fragile, and subject to conquest by more familial, tribal, national, and religious organizations;

    (e) AND absolute nuclear families facilitate easier movement of human resources to capital (rather than moving capital to resources);

    That does not mean that:

    (f) An aristocratic, familial and tribal society cannot adopt legal individual property rights, and institute formally in law, and therefore in norm, total suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions.

    (g) And therefore eliminate the need for absolute nuclear and nuclear families, thereby returning to aristocratic families.

    (h) Furthermore, that only it is only by violation of rights by the formal institution of immoral and conspiratorial actions, that aristocratic families (natural aristocracy over 3+ generations) are exterminated by competitors.

    Therefore,

    (i) It is possible to possess both aristocratic families, outlaw persecution of aristocratic families, (inheritance taxes, etc, income taxes for the purpose of redistribution), and individual high trust property rights.

    (j) In fact, since violation of the family is a violation of moral and conspiratorial property rights, then of necessity, one cannot suppress the aristocratic families and yet preserve property rights.

    THEREFORE

    (k) The enlightenment era, particularly the cosmopolitan enlightenment (socialism, libertinism, and neo-conservatism) is a war on the exceptional families by the unexceptional families.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-02 11:54:00 UTC

  • Maybe I am locked in a struggle though. I am locked in a struggle for the truth

    Maybe I am locked in a struggle though. I am locked in a struggle for the truth against the cult of mysticism, obscurantism, deception and justification.

    Truth is a great argument to base Aristocratic Egalitarianism and Propertarianism upon. It is very hard to defeat.

    Their only possible response is “I prefer to lie”.

    ——-

    Curt Doolittle wrote:

    Just had a thought last night as I questioned my own work: If one’s bias is one of conflict prevention, then what? Thats my bias (obviously from a childhood with too much conflict in it). How do I check my own bias?

    So while I agree with the argument that all human discourse is signaling, negotiating, and justification, I wonder if not all biases are non-neutral.

    Because a bias in favor of compatibilism rather than ‘winning’ seems to produce positive externalities, not biased ones.

    ——-

    Jonathan Haidt 8:33 PM (7 minutes ago)

    i like your point about externalities.

    i also think that if you are not part of a team locked in struggle with another team, you are more likely to see the truth.

    jh

    ——-

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-30 13:47:00 UTC

  • Women have a lot of choices from 16-32, and men have a lot of choices from 35-up

    Women have a lot of choices from 16-32, and men have a lot of choices from 35-upward. So men are sort of picky complainers about women in my age range the same way that women are picky complainers when they are in their prime. The problem in our range is money. You can find nice girls, pretty girls, smart girls, and girls who don’t want to spend your money with reckless abandon. But its very hard to find all of that in one package.

    One of the reasons Ukrainian women in the last category are so rare, is that women compete here on femininity not masculinity, so they need resources to do that, and the result doesn’t make money, but encourages laxity. In the states women first want a man to increase status and consumption, then to increase resources for reproduction, then to provide economic security when the children are gone. Men tend to want the same thing all along: sex, nesting and care-taking.

    I have usually done pretty well by sacrificing a bit on looks to get intelligence. I suppose women look at me and sacrifice hight for intelligence (lol). However the combination of not-nice, and spending your money with abandon, is a pretty bad deal, no matter how smart and pretty they are.

    And since I am pretty much incapable of existence in the world without that care-taking, I’d prefer it was nice and to control the costs. 🙂

    sigh.

    Why share this. ‘Cause men don’t. And should. Whether you live old age in wealth or poverty depends largely on the woman you choose.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-30 11:02:00 UTC

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM? (worth repeating) I consi

    WHAT IS THE NEXT ITERATION AFTER CRITICAL RATIONALISM?

    (worth repeating)

    I consider myself a critical rationalist as far as it goes. But:

    1) I practice the art with much higher technical standards necessary to reduce or eliminate error and deception. In my view I practice philosophy as science not rationalism. It is possible that I have come to see all rationalism as justification. I am not yet certain. I do however understand the very great difference between daydreaming, thinking, reasoning, calculating and computing. And that reason is vastly inferior to calculation. And that if I am correct, and property provides us with commensurability then moral and political conflicts are marginally calculable.

    2) I do not believe that CP is empirically true although it is logically true. Only formal study will answer this question but at present the evidence certainly appears to bear out my bias.

    3) I do not believe criticism is as productive a means of innovation as exhausting theories and reforming them – which is why scientists practice exhaustion not criticism. The reason is scientists pursue goals (problems), not knowledge for its own sake (puzzles).

    4) There is no difference between any method of investigation or production other than the value attributed to different outputs of the method we call the scientific method.

    5) Although I believe Miller’s loosely correct, I also believe his emphasis on formal logic (sets) is not equal in value to operational articulation, and is likewise subject to verbalism. In fact, in large part I see the era of set operations involving language as passé, and that like law, functions and operations defeat sets and set membership. In fact, I see Cantorian sets as one of the great disasters of intellectual history.

    (Not that anyone here is going to follow what the hell I’m talking about…)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-26 08:47:00 UTC

  • LAW’S PERVERSE INCENTIVES Rule of law given a homogenous and therefore universal

    LAW’S PERVERSE INCENTIVES

    Rule of law given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. The question is whether the central authority can be reduced to calculations rather than judgments. Humans must make judgements. If we constitute a sufficient rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony.

    Incentives: Restitution plus costs, via truth telling. Triple damages plus costs for deception. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. The law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives.

    No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and personally accountable. Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability.

    We all err. We need not lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 09:47:00 UTC

  • A Small Revelation On Christianity– Every good person in america is running aro

    –A Small Revelation On Christianity–

    Every good person in america is running around trying to act (like the french) as an aristocrat – a member of the government or military.

    Every good person in Ukraine is running around trying to act like a good christian – a member of the family.

    One cannot be a good aristocrat without being a good christian.

    This is why so many libertarians are Catholic.

    Had I not experienced this condition in daily life, no matter how much I read about it, would not have understood it intuitively. Now I do.

    There is no reason to teach aristocratic excellence, and christian humility in secular terms from the altar or stage.

    This is not an intellectual position that I expected to arrive at in life.

    Look what they have done to us. Look what we, in christian humility, have let be done to us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 08:17:00 UTC

  • (PROFOUND) Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing a

    (PROFOUND)

    Sitting here thinking: you know Lester doesn’t know what he’s doing any more than the socialists did, or Hoppe does, or Popper did – or anyone for that matter who relies upon reason instead of science.

    Lester doesn’t understand the difference between an argument reliant upon, and producing, meaning (knowledge of use – correlation), vs one reliant upon and producing truth one can testify to the construction of (knowledge of construction – causality).

    Kinsella doesn’t understand (and maybe Hoppe doesn’t) that a performative contradiction is a verbalism only relevant in law, versus the possibility of demonstrated actions in negotiation regardless of words used (what I call ternary logic). It may be true that libertarianism must always consist in a legal philosophy, but that human NEGOTIATION is not constrained to the limits of legal ARGUMENT. (this is profound for those of you who still put faith in argumentation: argument is not equal to negotiation, and humans negotiate prior to agreement and retain the option to use violence, while after agreement not to use violence we agree to debate.)

    I am unsure about whether Walter Block knows he’s promoting immorality and therefore violating the contract for non-violence with people of western ethics. He’s just a Jewish guy raised with those levantine low trust instincts and trained in justifying them as moral.

    Mises didn’t understand that the reason he failed to develop operationalism that would have fulfilled the promise of his praxeology was his ignorance of other fields, and his fairly weak understanding of the philosophical movements of his era. Nor did he understand that the commons was the western competitive advantage and he was arguing to destroy it.

    Hoppe doesn’t, from what he states in his book, understand the intuitionistic and operationalist arguments, and how they undermine his a-priorism permanently and irrefutably. Nor does he understand that the reason for the failure of intuitionistic arguments in math were due to constancies in math (relations) that are impossible in other fields (causality, information, decidability).

    Rothbard I assume, knew he was just a second-hander appropriating every justification he could find – from Hospers and others like a collector of bottlecaps constructing a mosaic – and using his ability to use half true, untestable, obscurant moralism to justify cosmopolitan low trust ethics in an effort to make his own ethics applicable in the high trust society – also destroying the commons – the western aristocratic competitive strategy.

    Hell, I didn’t know what I was doing either. I just knew there was a problem and I tried to solve it. I was trying to make it impossible for the postmodernists to lie, while helping the conservatives to articulate their ideas. I didn’t know that I was actually accomplishing was to remove the distinction between philosophy and science by stating all philosophy outside of Propertarian constraints to be indistinguishable from mysticism at best, but lying in universal practice. Philosophy as it was constructed, was an exceptional means of lying, and justifying lying, by loading framing and overloading.

    Someone after me will probably finish that work, but the net result is that within two generations we can destroy philosophy and replace it with calculation. That is a profound prediction but I see it already. Philosophy was invented to persuade (lie) with, and calculation is invented to prevent loading, framing and overloading (lying).

    If you stew on this post a bit your world will melt.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-23 08:21:00 UTC