Form: Thread

  • I’m a genius by every known measure. Sorry. It’s considered rude to say so. But

    I’m a genius by every known measure. Sorry. It’s considered rude to say so. But it’s true.
    Every every government, every state, every civilization, collapses for the same combination of reasons. There is no disagreement among synthetic historians over this combination of causes. (My particular contribution to those causes is a minor increase in the precision of causes.) Trump has correctly identified the reasons in our era. And he has correctly attempted to reverse them. The fact that he rallies the base with moral hyperbole, and uses the left’s techniques to undermine them, and to force them to discuss the topics he wants is simply profoundly irritating to the opposition – which again only reinforces his base. Internationally he has attempted to correct the exploitation of the american worker and middle class by ending the postwar redistribution of american economy to others in order to defeat the communists, and the exploitation of all amerians by subsidizing european defense, and world patterns of finance, transport and trade. He has done none of this by radical action, dictate or force. Because he is a centrist who only appears conservative because he correctly attempts to reverse the overproduction of parasitic pseudo elites, the exploitation of the working and middle classes under the globalism that we created, the exploitation of americans in respose by the financial sector, and the exploitation of all americans by the europeans in the cost of defense, and the ascendant but recalcitrant world in cost of policing borders, world trade, and human rights in order to prevent another world war.
    Trump’s policies are unassailable by an informed adult and moral mind. They are easily assailable by the feminine, adolescent, and childish mind – which is what all thought leaders in history have claimed is the deterministic cause of the failure of majority democracy. Why? The motives of the left (parasitic, feminine, infantilized minds) are always and everywhere reducible to the escape of responsibility and liability for one’s display word and deed.

    Reply addressees: @russianbotulism @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-06 14:25:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842934124828409856

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1842931030824718841

  • RT @stclairashley: This is undeniably true. The Left has become the pro-crime pa

    RT @stclairashley: This is undeniably true. The Left has become the pro-crime party.

    In Manhattan, 60% (!!!) of felonies are reduced to mi…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-28 00:47:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839829263924768968

  • THE ASYMMETRIC ECONOMICS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT @elonmusk , All 1. Falsehoods are c

    THE ASYMMETRIC ECONOMICS OF TRUTH AND DECEIT

    @elonmusk , All

    1. Falsehoods are cheaper easier and faster to produce than truths. “Adding Clay is easier to sculpt than Removing Stone.”
    2. Desirable falsehoods are cheaper to and faster to distribute than truths.
    3. The economics of falsehood, false promise, wishful thinking, magical thinking, externalization of costs, evading responsibility, and outright lying is such that a small portion of the population must work diligently to suppress that mass production of those falsehoods generated by the funding of non-academic courses in universities, then distributed by media, entertainment, and the state.
    4. The left has institutionalized and industrialized lying while the right merely fails to produce quality arguments because while the left is pseudo-intellectual, the right is anti-intellectual, and classical liberal libertarians – once the intellectual vanguard of the right – were captured by the Rothbardian Libertine Libertarians and were vaporized by events by 2010.

    We have no intellectual competitors on the right. And that’s not a good thing.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    https://t.co/mnjST7WOgM

    Reply addressees: @elonmusk


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-28 00:43:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839828363093196800

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839199325408129340

  • “Q: Curt: Does Recycling then cause more damage than it prevents?”– I don’t thi

    –“Q: Curt: Does Recycling then cause more damage than it prevents?”–
    I don’t think I would make that case, I think instead we should grasp that:
    1. Recycling metal is a good thing. Same for hazardous liquids. Glass maybe. Paper is a wash because recycling it is more harmful than the savings gained. The worst part is all the false promise, the hypocrisy of it, the wasted time and effort by the population. So transfer stations where we take our trash, separate some metals, maybe glass make sense but otherwise the rest of it doesn’t. (If we manage to solve the energy production problem, it might become economically viable for an industry to evolve that will reclaim the material in ‘dumps’ if there is any value there. However, the planet is pretty good at recycling, and dumps are a tiny portion of the territory, and if leaching is prevented they’re safe.
    2. The government, the activists (a secular religion really), and those invested in the system will refuse to correct course because of the vested interests whether psychological, social, political, or material
    3. Every single progressive movement such as saving household electricity (meaningless, since almost all energy consumption is by industry and office buildings), or no fault divorce (made it worse), or even the great society movement and the civil rights era imitating the soviets ( ended integration and slowed minority achievement ), or bussing and forced integration (didn’t work, caused separation by income instead, dumbed down our education system) or urban planning, design, and investment (always failed), or even ending slavery in the south (it’s utility was ended by industrialization in thirty years and we killed 1/2 a million people, and empowered this (evil) federal government because of it.
    4. In general you seek to punish the bad, and the good will emerge, but you cannot outwit the bad so to speak with attempts to directly produce the good. This is one of the lessons I try to teach and It’s futile because of the ‘busybodies’ that our ancestors warned us about: people who cannot achieve on their own so seek to use the money and force of government to do so, which in turn attracts bureaucracy and parasites on the goverment trough through contractors and such.

    Reply addressees: @CricketSurfing @BretWeinstein


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-13 13:36:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834586930391949312

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1834579395811393887

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @JFGariepy SEX DIFFERENCES FOR REFERENCE (updated) Hemisphere

    RT @curtdoolittle: @JFGariepy SEX DIFFERENCES FOR REFERENCE (updated)
    Hemisphere: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Right — Left
    Sex: . .…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-30 11:38:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829483903284916456

  • RT @bierlingm: And you should never apologize for or detest this privilege. Priv

    RT @bierlingm: And you should never apologize for or detest this privilege.

    Privilege just means that your parents and ancestors invested…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-29 10:28:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829103868988301443

  • RT @DegenRolf: “Wokeness has a stronger correlation with anxiety than with depre

    RT @DegenRolf: “Wokeness has a stronger correlation with anxiety than with depression.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjop.13065?campaign=wolearlyview Many studies have found tha…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-29 10:28:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1829103797718692082

  • RT @ExponentialApe: This felt like a @Breedlove22 conversation with John Vervaek

    RT @ExponentialApe: This felt like a @Breedlove22 conversation with John Vervaeke’s darker alter ego @curtdoolittle.

    It definitely got pr…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-29 01:58:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828975470563434503

  • RT @StevePender: This guy keeps getting results, W after W after W. John Deere,

    RT @StevePender: This guy keeps getting results, W after W after W. John Deere, Harley Davidson, now Ford.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-28 18:08:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1828857248317161679

  • QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE “the science of science itself” We’re working on the d

    QUESTIONS OF META-SCIENCE
    “the science of science itself”
    We’re working on the definition of science and it’s relation to decidability and truth.

    PROMPT
    Can one perform science if one is not seeking to produce the testifiable (that which is testifiable by man) if given the spectrum of science from unfounded speculation through to incontestable law of a first principle: (Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty), as defined in this excerpt?

    Summary: As such any claim of science requires the following three claims:

    1. Degree of Testifiability: A declaration of the categorical demarcation of the [???] of the claim:
    … … |Category of Testifiability (One)|: Speculation > Conjecture > Hypothesis > Theory > Working Theory > Settled Theory > Law > Certainty

    2. Constitution of the Substance: A declaration of premises of the dimensions of the claim one is testifying to:
    … … |Substance (All Appropriate)|:Theory of Existence (Metaphysics, Realism, Naturalism) > Theory of Causality (Operations) > Theory of Description (math or language or both) > Evidence (Measurements)

    3. Mandatory Due Diligence: A declaration of the dimensions of testifiability one has satisfied the demand for.
    … … |Mandatory Due Diligence (All, Promise)|: Explanatory Power > Survivability > Identity, Internal Consistency > Operational Possibility > Rational Choice > Reciprocity > Parsimony > Scope and Limits > Warrantability > Restitutability

    RESPONSE
    This is a challenging and nuanced question, and it strikes at the heart of what defines science and the boundaries of scientific inquiry. Let’s explore this by breaking it down:

    1. Core Definition of Science:
    Traditional Definition: Science is traditionally defined as a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Central to this definition is the concept of testifiability—the ability to subject a hypothesis, theory, or observation to empirical testing, and thus provide evidence that can be verified or falsified.

    2. The Spectrum of Scientific Inquiry:
    Speculation to Law: The spectrum you describe—from unfounded speculation to incontestable law of a first principle—represents a range of epistemic statuses within scientific inquiry. At one end is speculation, which may or may not be testifiable or grounded in empirical evidence. At the other end are laws or first principles, which are universally accepted as testifiable due to their empirical validation and logical coherence.

    3. Science Without Testifiability:
    Exploratory Science: In some cases, science can begin with exploratory or speculative phases where the aim is not immediately to produce testifiable results but to generate ideas, hypotheses, or frameworks that may later be subjected to testing. This exploratory phase is crucial for advancing new theories or concepts, especially in fields where empirical testing is currently limited or where the phenomena are not yet fully understood.
    Theoretical Science: Theoretical science often involves developing models, simulations, or mathematical constructs that may not be directly testifiable in the traditional sense but provide a coherent framework for understanding phenomena. Over time, parts of these theories might be tested as technology or methods advance.
    Conceptual Science: Some areas of science focus on refining concepts, definitions, or classifications that are foundational to empirical work. While these activities might not produce immediately testifiable outcomes, they are essential for the structure and coherence of scientific knowledge.

    4. Can It Still Be Called Science?:
    Depends on the Goal: If the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that can eventually be tested, then these activities can still be considered part of the scientific process. In this view, science encompasses both the generation of ideas (which may initially be speculative) and their subsequent testing and validation.
    Pseudoscience: On the other hand, if the goal is to avoid or disregard testifiability—if there is no intention of producing knowledge that can be empirically verified—then this falls outside the bounds of science and into the realm of pseudoscience, philosophy, or metaphysics. Science, by definition, seeks to produce knowledge that can be tested and verified.

    5. Practical Examples:
    Quantum Mechanics: Consider early quantum mechanics. Initial ideas like wave-particle duality began as speculative but mathematically grounded concepts. Over time, these ideas were subjected to empirical testing, leading to their acceptance as foundational scientific principles.
    String Theory: String theory offers a more contentious example. It is highly mathematical and speculative, and many aspects are not currently testifiable. Some argue that it is still part of science because it aims to eventually produce testifiable predictions, while others criticize it for its current lack of empirical testability.

    6. Science as a Process:
    Iterative Nature: Science is an iterative process where speculative or theoretical ideas are refined, tested, and either validated or discarded. The process of moving from speculation to testifiable hypothesis to validated law is what characterizes scientific progress.
    Testifiability as a Guiding Principle: Even when the immediate goal isn’t testifiability, the broader scientific endeavor is guided by the principle that knowledge should, in the end, be testifiable. This commitment distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry.

    Conclusion:
    Science is fundamentally tied to the production of testifiable knowledge. However, the scientific process includes phases where testifiability is not immediately achievable—such as in speculative, theoretical, or conceptual stages.
    These phases are still part of science if they ultimately aim to produce knowledge that can be empirically tested. If the pursuit of testifiability is entirely absent or rejected, then the activity would likely be considered outside the bounds of science, possibly falling into pseudoscience, philosophy, or speculative metaphysics.
    The guiding principle of science is that, regardless of the stage in the process, the ultimate goal is to produce knowledge that is testifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-23 20:08:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827075366034534402