Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING. (wort

    MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING.

    (worth repeating)

    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)

    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.

    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 02:18:00 UTC

  • THE EMERGING INTELLECTUAL CONSENSUS (Fragility) – Nassim Taleb (anti-fragility)

    THE EMERGING INTELLECTUAL CONSENSUS (Fragility)

    – Nassim Taleb (anti-fragility)

    – Ricardo Duchesne (uniqueness of western man)

    – Kevin Macdonald (group evolutionary strategies)

    – Curt Doolittle (Truth, Trust, Law, and Institutions)

    – Stephen Hicks (Postmodernism) (Reluctantly Associated I’m sure)

    – Nial Ferguson (Economics) (Possibly Reluctantly Associated)

    – Martin van Creveld (The Culture of Warfare)

    – Emmanuel Todd (The Evolution of Western Morality and Identity)

    – Jayman (genetics)

    – HBD Chick (the family)

    That’s your list of heavy hitters

    That’s the conference I want to produce.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-21 09:55:00 UTC

  • The Emerging Intellectual Consensus (Fragility)

    – Nassim Taleb (anti-fragility)
    – Ricardo Duchesne (uniqueness of western man)
    – Kevin Macdonald (group evolutionary strategies)
    – Curt Doolittle (Truth, Trust, Law, and Institutions)
    – Stephen Hicks (Postmodernism) (Reluctantly Associated I’m sure)
    – Nial Ferguson (Economics) (Possibly Reluctantly Associated)
    – Martin van Creveld (The Culture of Warfare)
    – Emmanuel Todd (The Evolution of Western Morality and Identity)
    – Jayman (genetics)
    – HBD Chick (the family)
    That’s your list of heavy hitters
    That’s the conference I want to produce.

  • The Emerging Intellectual Consensus (Fragility)

    – Nassim Taleb (anti-fragility)
    – Ricardo Duchesne (uniqueness of western man)
    – Kevin Macdonald (group evolutionary strategies)
    – Curt Doolittle (Truth, Trust, Law, and Institutions)
    – Stephen Hicks (Postmodernism) (Reluctantly Associated I’m sure)
    – Nial Ferguson (Economics) (Possibly Reluctantly Associated)
    – Martin van Creveld (The Culture of Warfare)
    – Emmanuel Todd (The Evolution of Western Morality and Identity)
    – Jayman (genetics)
    – HBD Chick (the family)
    That’s your list of heavy hitters
    That’s the conference I want to produce.

  • REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims 1) In the choice between meanin

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims

    1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.

    2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.

    3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.

    4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.

    5) In the choice between objectively moral, and competitive necessity, objectively moral fails.

    6) In the choice between competitive necessity and kin selection, competitive necessity fails.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-07 00:34:00 UTC

  • REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness 1) Internally Consistent – meaning

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Warranty of Truthfulness

    1) Internally Consistent – meaning “logical”

    2) Externally Correspondent – meaning “observably predictive”

    3) Voluntarily transferred – meaning “ethical and moral”

    4) Parsimoniously Stated – meaning “the limits are defined”

    5) Operationally Defined – meaning “existentially possible”

    6) Thoroughly Falsified – meaning you have tried to demonstrate these statements are false, and failed.

    If you cannot demonstrate these, then you cannot warranty your statement is free of imaginary content, error, bias, obscurity, misrepresentation, and deceit.

    REPEAT AFTER ME: The Hierarchy of Logical Claims

    1) In the choice between meaningful and logically consistent, meaningful fails.

    2) In the choice between logically consistent and externally correspondent, logical consistency errs.

    3) In the choice between externally correspondent and operationally possible, external correspondence errs.

    4) I the choice between operationally possible and objectively moral, operationally possible errs.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-06 06:36:00 UTC

  • ***READ ME FIRST*** A RECONSTRUCTION OF PRAXEOLOGY AS ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM FULL

    ***READ ME FIRST***

    A RECONSTRUCTION OF PRAXEOLOGY AS ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH RATIO-EMPIRICAL SCIENCE

    I. PURPOSE:

    1) To restore credibility to Austrian Economics by transforming it from Rationalist and pseudoscientific, to consistent with all scientific and logical disciplines.

    2) To quash rationalist and pseudoscientific fallacies that have discredited Austrian economics, discredited the quest for moral economics, distracted from the quest for moral institutions through moral constraint on political economy, and cast the quest for liberty itself as the province of ‘the lunatic fringe’.

    3) To provide a language for dividing economics into moral (Austrian operational economics) and immoral (Keyensian redistributive economics) disciplines.

    4) To provide a scientific and critical rather than ideological and justificationary discussion of Austrian Economics (at least the German wing) as a method for testing the truthfulness and morality of economic theories – and to advocate restoring morality and truthfulness to economic science.

    What follows is a series of posts I have written in the past few months as I have worked on Propertarianism. It may require that you have a non-trivial understanding of philosophy. And your average passionate advocate of political ideas does not have that understanding. But hopefully you will glean some ideas from it, and provide me with some useful criticism.

    Thanks

    II. SUMMARY:

    The first post summarizes the argument. The remaining articles expand the Introduction take you from basic philosophical concepts, through a series of short essays

    1) REFORMING AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS IS NECESSARY (To return the dialog to truthful and moral Austrian economics, and deceptive and immoral macro economics)

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/762176483871723/

    2) WHY ARE YOU REFUTING MISES, ROTHBARD AND HOPPE? (To Save Austrian Economics from the lunatic fringe)

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/762184140537624/

    3) PRAXEOLOGY AS MISES FAILURE TO DEVELOP ECONOMIC OPERATIONALISM (Restoring Austrian Economics To Compatibility with Ratio-empirical science)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/

    III. BACKGROUND:

    0) BASIC TERMS (And yes, you probably need to read these rather than assume you know what they mean.)

    – Rationalism vs Empiricism

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

    – Intuitionism in Mathematics

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

    – Operationalism in Physics

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/

    – Operationism in Psychology

    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm

    – Instrumentalism (Eccentric Usage)

    I am a scientific realist, however, I use the term “instrumentalism” (probably a bad choice of words) in a much narrower sense: to refer to our use of logical and physical instruments to reduce phenomenon to that which we can somehow experience and compare, contrast, qualify, quantify or decide.

    1) THE STRUGGLE TO PRODUCE A MORAL ECONOMIC SCIENCE

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750991571656881/

    2) SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF SPEAKING TRUTHFULLY

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750418458380859/

    3) MORAL CONSTRAINT FROM LAW THROUGH MATHEMATICS

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751096391646399/

    4) CRITICISM: EMPIRICISM, INSTRUMENTALISM, OPERATIONALISM, FALSIFICATIONISM VS JUTIFICATION: RATIONALISM

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751258491630189/

    5) JUSTIFICATION AS ADHERENCE TO CONTRACT, CRITICISM AS ADHERENCE TO DUE DILIGENCE

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/763919313697440/

    6) MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/10/17/mises-position-in-intellectual-history/

    7) SCIENCE AS TRUTHFUL SPEECH – GERMAN RATIONALISM AND JEWISH COSMOPOLITANISM AS IMMORAL INFORMATION DISTORTION EQUAL TO THE INFORMATION DISTORTION OF KEYNSIAN ECONOMICS.

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/752211031534935/

    8) WHICH IS MORE LIKELY: A PURPOSEFUL DECEPTION OR ANTI-SCIENTIFIC RATIONALISM?

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/751253388297366/

    9) THE REFORMATION OF WESTERN THOUGHT

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/752802284809143/

    10) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    – “Praxeology and Its Critics” by Bruce Caldwell.

    http://public.econ.duke.edu/~bjc18/docs/Praxeology%20and%20Its%20Critics.pdf

    – Do We Reason When We Think We Reason, or Do We Think?

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/lfd-.pdf

    – The Objectives of Science

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/poincare.pdf

    – Truth Defined

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/philosophy/people/associates/miller/TruthDefined.pdf

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 05:36:00 UTC

  • TRUTH The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of

    TRUTH

    The question: how do we speak the truth, given any subset of properties of reality?

    “Truthful” – Testimonial Truth – A Warranty, but of what?

    1) meaningfully expressible ( hypothesis )

    2) internally consistent (logically consistent)

    3) externally correspondent ( physically testable )

    4) existentially possible (operational construction)

    5) voluntarily choose-able (voluntary exchange)

    6) market-survivable (criticism – theory )

    7) market irrefutable (law)

    8) irrefutable under original experience (True)

    The Warranty:

    I. *TRUE*: Assuming elimination of the barriers of time, space, scale, and observability, a promise that one would come to the same conclusion if equally truthful in his actions.

    II. *TRUTHFUL*: the criteria for such a warranty to be made.

    Criticism of Intellectual History:

    we have been obsessed with science and math rather than seeing them as simple subsets of the more complex problem. And in the west, we took truth telling for granted, when it is the first principle upon which all other western advances were made.

    (Next. Information Differences Necessary in Verbal Expression)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-15 03:17:00 UTC

  • THOUGHTS: ON TEACHING PROPERTARIANISM. (currently editing) SPEAKING THE TRUTH 1)

    THOUGHTS: ON TEACHING PROPERTARIANISM.

    (currently editing)

    SPEAKING THE TRUTH

    1) Conceptual comparisons by: unique instances, ideal types, golden means(spectra), multi-axis (supply-demand), multi-axis-intertemporal(incentive models),

    2) The hierarchy of arguments and how to identify each: emotional reaction, moral reaction, rational argument, historical analogy, empirical analogy, scientific-experimental analogy, economic-empirical analogy, operational description.

    3) The Points of view: Imaginary, Experiential, Rational, Observational, Operational.

    4) Testimonial truth – what it means to speak truthfully (morally-scientifically)

    5) The logical instruments: identity, naming and numbering, relations (mathematics), logic, causality(physics), exchange (cooperation)

    6) the requirements for speaking truthfully: Internal consistency(logic), external correspondence (correlation),existential possibility(operations)

    7) The application of the requirements to the spectrum of logics.

    8) The explanation of the errors of mysticism, mythology, narrative, rationalism, pseudoscience and scientism and how to avoid them.

    This I can do. It’s the hardest part. But this I can do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-07 06:55:00 UTC

  • On Convincing Others

    [C]HALLENGING THOUGHT OF THE DAY
    (useful)

    0 – We are unequally desirable mates – this is necessary for evolutionary adaptation.
    1 – We evolved a reproductive division of labor – the genders.
    2 – We evolved an inter-temporal division of reproductive labor:
    4 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term preferences; 
    5 – We demonstrate short, medium, and long term moral biases;
    6 – We evolved, quite naturally, lower(<95), middle(<125) and upper(>125) classes;
    7 – We need virtue(imitative), rule (rational), and outcome (scientific) ethics;
    8 – We need sacred(religious), moral(normative), and calculative (legal) rules;
    9 – We rely upon intuitive(experiential), conscious(rational), and instrumental(calculative) tools to made decisions.
    10 – Our moral biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
    11 – Our normative biases reflect our reproductive strategies.
    12 – Our formal and informal institutions reflect our group-competitive strategies.
    13 – All universalist strategy is to extend group-competitive strategies to dominate other group competitive strategies.

    Short term strategy is in the interest of the lower classes (socialism – labor)
    Medium term strategy is in the interest of the middle classes (classical liberty – trade)
    Long term strategy is in the interests of the upper classes (aristocracy – order)

    Some people are only CAPABLE of sentimental talk and argument.
    Some people are only CAPABLE of rational talk and argument.
    Some people are CAPABLE of scientific talk and argument.

    So what does all of this tell us about persuading others? It tells us that we cannot (and should not) try. It tells us to create institutions that allow cooperation across moral codes and reproductive strategies. It tells us that the majority cannot understand these matters except experientially – once implemented.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev, Ukraine.