Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Things are complicated when your premises are false. Explanatory power is an awe

    Things are complicated when your premises are false.

    Explanatory power is an awesome test.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testi

    OMFG. Of all the things I have done, I am most proud of the combination of testimonial truth and operational criticism that complete the suite of criticisms that we call ‘science’.

    Just riding high today. Sigh.

    I wish I could talk to Popper. He would have understood. Hayek probably not, but Popper for certain.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 12:00:00 UTC

  • ERROR IN UNDERSTANDING: OPERATIONALISM IS CRITICISM, NOT JUSTIFICATION —“Opera

    http://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/Operationalism.pdfTHE ERROR IN UNDERSTANDING: OPERATIONALISM IS CRITICISM, NOT JUSTIFICATION

    —“Operational definitions were a neo-Machean development that connected with the positivism of Logical Positivism. Logical Positivism failed, with the failure of operational definitions being just one of multiple and multifarious failures of Logical Positivism more broadly.”—

    The tragedy is that operationalism failed.

    The depth of this tragedy is one of the great intellectual failures of human History.

    Operational definitions test the existential possibility of our premises.

    All those great minds failed.

    And the twentieth century was an age of pseudoscience because of it.

    What could we have done without a century of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, freudian psychology, Boazian anthropology, Keynesian justification of theft, Rawlsian deception, Cantorian sets, and the pseudoscientific attacks on physics? Would philosophy have been lost had we saved it with operations? I think so.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF FAILURE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 11:50:00 UTC

  • I need some Eli Harman today. Love you man

    I need some Eli Harman today.

    Love you man.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:20:00 UTC

  • I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths. I judge the ara

    I don’t judge the arational expression of agreement with truths.

    I judge the arational expression of agreement with falsehhids; and the rational justification of falsehoods, and the pseudoscientific justification if falsehoods.

    But increasingly I judge the incomplete use of due diligence in truth claims.

    Which is novel.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 04:19:00 UTC

  • Greg. Really interesting to hear you POV on TRS. You have the narrative down. Go

    Greg. Really interesting to hear you POV on TRS. You have the narrative down. Good speaker. Articulate. -Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 02:09:00 UTC

  • ON “WIFE BONUSES” When I tell Eastern Europeans that American marriages (because

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-i-let-my-husband-pay-me-a-wife-bonus-2015-5MORE ON “WIFE BONUSES”

    When I tell Eastern Europeans that American marriages (because of feminism) are business partnerships, not families in the local sense, this is what I am talking about.

    I still am not sure I enjoyed being part of the 1%. At this point it merely allows me to write, and innovate in business. But I have become decidedly ascetic outside of nice clothes and a slightly bigger apartment.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-25 01:48:00 UTC

  • Knowledge equips you with material with which to imagine by free association. Kn

    Knowledge equips you with material with which to imagine by free association.

    Knowledge fills the shelves of your mind with possible permutations you need only labor to imagine.

    The scientific method equips you with means of eliminating from your statements what you imagine, what you err, what you bias, and what you use to deceive, prior entering them into the informational commons – as a means of not causing harm to the commons (pollution).

    The scientific method – the method of removing imaginary content – is both a procedural one (contrary to scientific common knowledge), an empirical one (that removes imaginary content), and a moral one (with which you promise others you have done your due diligence).

    And I would like to hold you accountable for your claims of ‘science’: wherein you state what warranties of due diligence you have performed, and what warranties of due diligence that you have not. Because there is no reason to grant you a partial warranty.

    If you wish to publish your ideas, you can be held accountable for warranty you must provide in order to publish, whether you desire to provide that warranty or not.

    Social scientists would diminish rapidly in number.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 12:15:00 UTC

  • I desire to build the best tribe that I can. That is the top of the pyramid of p

    I desire to build the best tribe that I can.

    That is the top of the pyramid of personal fulfillment.

    And the top of the evolutionary period of achievement.

    I will cooperate with you as long as it helps me achieve that goal.

    And as long as I do not sacrifice that goal.

    I agree not to prey upon you.

    But if you choose parasitism and to justify parasitism,

    Then I will choose predation.

    It is far more enjoyable to conquer, enslave or kill you,

    Than to be subject to your parasitism and predation,

    And to sacrifice by personal fulfillment and evolutionary achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 12:05:00 UTC

  • Noah, I can throw an wrench in the saltwater either-or comparison and say this:

    Noah,

    I can throw an wrench in the saltwater either-or comparison and say this:

    That if saltwater economists and justify pseudo-scientific morality, then why can’t freshwater economists defend morality with pseudo-scientific models.

    The problem isn’t that one side or the other errs. It’s that both sides err.

    Why do politicians and voters react positively to freshwater arguments, and negatively to saltwater arguments?

    Is it because they are ill informed? Or is because justifying morality poorly is preferable to justifying immorality well.

    And lest you suggest that morals are subjective, one would have to answer why cooperation is preferable to non-cooperation. It is only preferable if it is not parasitic for the individual – not if it is merely Pareto optimal in the aggregate.

    And why is this conflict raging in economics and politics?

    The underlying question is one of familialism, tribalism and dysgenia – is our society moral or not? Is heterogeneity a good or a bad?

    And that is too uncomfortable a question for the Academy to answer.

    Which is why some of us are out here trying to answer it.

    Uncomfortable truth that it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-24 12:01:00 UTC