Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • “The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle (qu

    —“The reason we need a truth is because it’s undesirable.” — Curt Doolittle

    (quote from yesterday’s show – suggested via Brandon Hayes)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:59:00 UTC

  • photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/33678440_10156381604887264_15323751

    photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/33678440_10156381604887264_1532375139289661440_n_10156381604882264.jpg THIS ILLUSTRATION IS IMPRECISE

    (a) a “square” describes the shadow truthfully.

    (b) a “circle” describes the shadow truthfully.

    The question is whether one is testifying to the shadow or to the three dimensional object that casts it.

    One CANNOT testify to the shape of the three dimensional object that casts the shadow, one can only testify to the shape of the shadow.

    THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TESTIMONY (Truth).

    “DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP by INFERENCE.”Philip SaundersI love a good meme prosecutionMay 26, 2018 1:05pmGearóid Walshvery goodMay 26, 2018 1:07pmTrevor BrightmanI have appropriated this meme and description…May 26, 2018 1:37pmChris LavanI’ve always liked the GEB cover…the two objects are objectively different, but depending on how you look at them they look the sameMay 26, 2018 1:41pmGregg MyersMay 26, 2018 1:46pmCurt DoolittleI saw a mother and child (nativity).

    Then I did an image search and … omg… damn. lolMay 26, 2018 1:50pmEdgar BraintreeThat meme is perfect for people with no grasp of rudimentary logic .May 26, 2018 1:57pmCrystal TompkinsMay 26, 2018 2:18pmGregg MyersMay 26, 2018 2:19pmCrystal TompkinsLet’s make it even more abstract hereMay 26, 2018 2:20pmJoao Tiago AlmeidaHa! Said the same about this a few years back on my fb wall :)May 26, 2018 2:38pmChris CantrellInteresting except that in many human interactions a person claims to describe the object based on the shadow. In many cases the person is not aware that what they think they saw was just the shadow and not the actual object. I think you are over logic’ing people’s illogical behavior. From my view the illustration is precise. If deception is added to the equation it gets even more interesting. One can make a true statement while being deceptive.May 26, 2018 3:08pmDann Hopkins@[1071411546:2048:Niall Collins]May 26, 2018 3:24pmGabriel YbarraAngry wing of the Triumvirate assemble!May 26, 2018 4:11pmNoah J RevoyThe problem is that we all should have learned not to assume in kindergarten.May 26, 2018 4:48pmFortis VeroIf you don’t see a simple piece of bread you may have some underlying issues that need to be addressed.May 26, 2018 7:40pmHoward Van Der KlauwSo framing is important.

    Also the image should simply describe all three things as true. None are exclusively truth.May 26, 2018 8:31pmCurt Doolittle(speech is true or false, things are not. This is the problem with our language (the verb to-be). we don’t distinquish between “i state” and “exist as”May 26, 2018 8:32pmCrystal TompkinsI have issues then because I see Jesus in this toastMay 26, 2018 8:32pmHoward Van Der Klauw@[741197263:2048:Curt] true. To restate.

    All three inferred statements of description would be true.

    None precludes the other which is the error of the picture.

    No wonder you banned memes. They waste so much time.May 26, 2018 8:34pmCrystal TompkinsIt was just a jokeMay 26, 2018 9:43pmCrystal TompkinsWEW thank god, I didn’t wanna get into that lolMay 26, 2018 9:45pmCrystal TompkinsShould’ve known since you’re also a Doolittle fan you’re not hugely into abrahamic religionsMay 26, 2018 9:46pmChris CantrellMaybe I am being simple, but I think the image refers to conversation about events, not statements about items. So while the image isnt a solid analogy, it serves the purpose.May 26, 2018 10:16pmDean GeeObjective truth vs subjective truthMay 27, 2018 11:08amCurt DoolittleTruth is true. There is no such thing as subjective truth. Becasue true = decidable.May 27, 2018 11:30amDean GeeWell, there are foundations for logic. Some are based in fact and some are based on the valencies of the individual. Humans need air, objective truth; humans should be treated well, subjective truth.May 27, 2018 3:08pmDean GeeI guess it is the difference between opinion and fact, however both opinion and fact are true, just fact is universally true, and opinion is true to some.May 27, 2018 3:09pmMichael AndradeWhat’s fascinating about this image is that it is unconsciously self-referential; its “shadow” – the lesson readers walk away with – is antithetical to the actual truth we ought to be learning from it.May 28, 2018 1:09amTHIS ILLUSTRATION IS IMPRECISE

    (a) a “square” describes the shadow truthfully.

    (b) a “circle” describes the shadow truthfully.

    The question is whether one is testifying to the shadow or to the three dimensional object that casts it.

    One CANNOT testify to the shape of the three dimensional object that casts the shadow, one can only testify to the shape of the shadow.

    THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF TESTIMONY (Truth).

    “DO NOT MAKE SHIT UP by INFERENCE.”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:57:00 UTC

  • TRUE ENOUGH FOR ACTION —“At what point do you know you have enough data and ex

    TRUE ENOUGH FOR ACTION

    —“At what point do you know you have enough data and experience to act?”— Jeff Urizen

    When you (a) must act, (b) can pay for the full consequences of failure of your actions (c) can warranty your actions.

    In other words… when your knowledge is ‘true enough for the consequences’:

    TRUE ENOUGH

    A hierarchy of Truths:

    – True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship

    – True enough for me to feel good about myself.

    – True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.

    – True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.

    – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.

    – True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.

    – True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.

    – Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal

    TRUE ENOUGH FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF ERROR

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:51:00 UTC

  • “Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken becaus

    —“Children are broken because families are broken because women are broken because men are no longer Hoplites – no longer husbands of their freeholds.”—Greg Swann

    The militia owns the commons, and tends it as a garden, or the commons is nothing but weeds – and like all countries lacking a militia – full of trash and fecal matter.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:47:00 UTC

  • VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHlsQUIGLEY VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHls

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:39:00 UTC

  • VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-IbGfdlHlsQUIGLEY VIA GATTO: LIBERTY REQUIRES DEADLY WEAPONS

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 12:39:00 UTC

  • THE TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN MARXISM AND POSTMODERNISM. By Hicks

    THE TRANSFORMATION BETWEEN MARXISM AND POSTMODERNISM.

    By Hicks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 11:15:00 UTC

  • ( Great feed, with excellent aesthetics, particularly the combination of craftsm

    ( Great feed, with excellent aesthetics, particularly the combination of craftsmanship, curiosity, novelty, whimsy, elegance, and fertility-beauty. Well done. 😉 )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 11:14:00 UTC

  • THE HIERARCHY OF REVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS Think of revolutionary arguments as a p

    THE HIERARCHY OF REVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS

    Think of revolutionary arguments as a pyramid:

    – The theory (strategy)

    – The Incentives (science) of that strategy

    – The law (constitution) reflecting those incentives

    – The generational institutions (“government”) utilizing those incentives

    – The Intergenerational institutions (“education, religion”) retaining the strategy, incentives, law, and institutions).

    – The benefits for members (“rewards”) produced by those incentives, law, and institutions.

    – The motivations (“agitations”) that they produce by those what would obtain those benefits.

    – The Plan (“revolution”) that provides the opportunity for those whose motivations are sufficient to act – to do so.

    ||> Intellectuals > operators > citizens > agitators, revolutionaries: Arguments(solutions) for each. And let the weight of self interest drive the revolution – just like the enlightenment did and the eastern conquest of the western empire by levantine christianity did.

    I start at the top and work down. Most people start at the bottom and never make it past motivations.

    I expect others to take the ideas and communicate the benefits, inspire the motivations, and to organize the revolution according to plans that are fairly tactical.

    And I expect to pay a pretty high price for doing all of this work, and I”m ok with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 10:31:00 UTC

  • THE TEST OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY All, Alm

    THE TEST OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND PSEUDOSCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

    All,

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology fail the test of repeatability.

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology depend on self reporting.

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include susceptibility to suggestion.

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology make use of small populations of students or patients.

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology include value judgements.

    Almost all papers in psychology and sociology assume a normative ideal. (this is what I object to)

    If instead our findings are repeatable;

    If instead we are measuring by context-free measurements;

    If instead our tests eliminate all chances of suggestion.

    If instead our population consists of more than 1000, and preferably 10k people;

    if Instead our categories of measurement contain no assertions of value to a trait (other than evolutionary or physical necessity – such as ‘neural economy’);

    if instead our categories of measurement contain *evolutionary specializations rather than uniform ideal*(authoritarianism);

    Then there is a fair chance we are conducting science, rather than projection.

    So if your paper passes these tests it’s got a chance of not being false.

    || Sample size > Reporting > Motivations / Value judgements > Specialization > Repeatability.

    Psychoanalysis and that argumentative technique making use of the categories of psychoanalysis (a uniform standard or ideal) that we call psychologism are pseudoscience.

    The problem for psychology is that the categories and terminology are pseudoscientific. That does not mean they are not meaningful. It means they are fictions.

    *As a general rule, the specification of an organism is determined by its limits not it’s median.*

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-26 06:25:00 UTC