Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT? Well that depends upon whether one is discussing expe

    ARE DEFINITIONS IMPORTANT?

    Well that depends upon whether one is discussing experience, meaning or existence, and whether one conflates them.

    I write definitions all the time. It is very hard work.

    The only existentially possible truth is testimonial truth: a proposition that is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and operationally(existentially) possible. all other uses of the term truth are analogies to testimonial truth requiring fewer properties for the purpose of the method in which such statements are made.

    Mathematics (logic of relations) for example constructs proofs, and mathematicians claim that they they are true: internally consistent. Mathematics is an internally consistent system in which both discovery and existence are operationally demonstrated.

    Physics (logic of causation) uses mathematics, and therefore statements in physics also require external correspondence. We can only test the measurements for existence, so we test measures rather than causal properties.

    In human action and human cooperation, we rely on internal consistency of statements, external correspondence, as well as operational definitions – because we must insure that we are not using information supplied by imagination instead of existential information alone.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 12:55:00 UTC

  • APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL –“It is not that we can

    APRIORISM VS CONSISTENT, CORRESPONDENT, AND EXISTENTIAL

    –“It is not that we cannot USE aprioristically deduced concepts. It’s that they are not deductive certainties”–

    Michael Phillip:

    Interesting. This sounds like something Einstein said a while back about concepts

    Curt Doolittle:

    Yes, it was his fundamental insight: he had to eliminate the frame.

    And it is why Bridgman was adamant that physics must remain experimental and science operational.

    ALSO

    In Math it is why Brouwer (and Poincare) and Bishop have been adamant about constructivism and intuitionism in mathematics.

    ALSO

    In Economics, it’s what Mises was trying but failed to do with praxeology – he was too buried in german and jewish rationalism. He confused truth and morality – which is a very german thing to do.

    ALSO

    And it is close to what popper (inarticulately) argues

    And so it’s what I’m trying to find a way to articulate: that since we think in terms of meaning and with words, we can use very loose associations to investigate phenomenon in any discipline.

    ***However, once we develop a theory we must demonstrate that it is internally consistent (our words or symbols are reasonably free of error), externally correspondent (testable in reality), and operationally possible (existentially possible).***

    Even then we are not sure it cannot be falsified – only that we testify that it is internally consistent, externally correspondent, and existentially possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 10:58:00 UTC

  • “Philosophy is dead, and if it is not then almost every philosophy department ce

    —“Philosophy is dead, and if it is not then almost every philosophy department certainly is.”— Justin Ptak

    (Gem.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 10:54:00 UTC

  • AMAZING WOMEN IN BUSINESS In business, in negotiations, V would eat most women t

    AMAZING WOMEN IN BUSINESS

    In business, in negotiations, V would eat most women twice her age like Pringles in a man cave on new year’s day. Not because she’s competitive. Not because she’s flirtatious or feminine. Not because of any ego. But, just because she’d just work harder, longer, and smarter.

    Women have a particular advantage at certain layers of business: they obtain their status elsewhere and so can compete for results at a discount. The women at the top tend to be outliers and other than as outliers, not terribly impressive. But I still contend that women, in the main, hold the center better than men do.

    Women seem to need a protector – perhaps men do too, but I don’t see it. And if protected they can do amazing things. Men do not need to feel safe to act. Make women feel safe. (And they will start to adopt your framing unconsciously.

    It’s weird. Women can rationalize their mate’s biases, find the best in them even if it’s not there, and find ugly, stupid, annoying, children beautiful and charming. Good thing. Someone has to. They can rationalize anything if it makes ‘peace’.

    They can gather and allocate many micro tasks at once that men cannot even imagine a mind can do.

    Politics and theory are, however, masculine talents. And while female outliers exist they are only outliers, not general rules.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 09:44:00 UTC

  • You know, despite appearances, I am a pretty nice guy and will work irrationally

    You know, despite appearances, I am a pretty nice guy and will work irrationally hard to make others happy. But precisely for that reason, when people try to take advantage of it and press me into what I don’t want to do, it makes me incredibly frustrated.

    wtf people.

    Btw: always draw out negotiations as long as possible. 😉

    You learn more.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 07:42:00 UTC

  • So is he right? is that what we are searching for? not philosophy as a disciplin

    So is he right? is that what we are searching for? not philosophy as a discipline, but a philosophical psychology? Are science, philosophy, truth telling, and psychology simply obvious if they are in fact the same discipline approached in different languages, just as we chose religion, stargazing, and magic before we had developed science?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 06:18:00 UTC

  • Well, of course you can be wealthier if you don’t pay the costs of holding a mon

    Well, of course you can be wealthier if you don’t pay the costs of holding a monopoly on a territory. Free riding is profitable.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 06:14:00 UTC

  • I have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it ta

    I have been working on this idea, and I finally gotten close to expressing it tangibly as measurement. The examples I give are the golden(positive) vs the silver rule(negative), property(positive) vs property rights(negative). And I want to construct a general rule for requiring both positive(contextual precision) and negative(general rule). Because I feel its necessary to unify the sciences, philosophy morality and law in order to eliminate ‘escape routes’ by various forms of verbalism, that man will try to employ as a means of circumventing the moral constraint of truth-speaking.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 01:58:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 01:19:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-04 00:54:00 UTC