Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • Untitled

    http://qz.com/284352/hong-kong-has-too-many-poor-people-to-allow-direct-elections-leader-says/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 15:15:00 UTC

  • I am not really sure what is going on but a lot of people who participate in pro

    I am not really sure what is going on but a lot of people who participate in propertarianism have made significant leaps lately. It’s …. well, for me, it’s moving. its inspiring. And I’m honestly awed….

    Awed.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 11:47:00 UTC

  • GETTING CLOSER TO CORRECTING THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS —“We can only know when

    GETTING CLOSER TO CORRECTING THE CRITICAL RATIONALISTS

    —“We can only know when we speak falsehoods. We cannot know when we speak the truth. Therefore all we can ever do is testify truthfully. And we can only testify truthfully, even if we desire to, by operational description, because we ourselves are the victims of error, bias, wishful thinking, habit, and deception. So to speak truthfully is only possible if we limit ourselves to operational actions and measures. This does not convey ‘meaning’ which is what others often desire. We can either leave the derivation of meaning to others, or we can construct the meaning by way of analogy. The problem is, that when we construct an analogy, we must add information external to the facts. To convey meaning is not to convey the truth. One can convey meaning by analogy, but then one must provide operational descriptions in order to prove that one has not erred, biased, imagined, or lied. This argument, is the simplest reduction that I know of for the arguments of the intuitionists(mathematics), Operationists (psychology), and Operationalists (physics), and Praxeologists (economics). It is a moral restatement of the mathematical argument for the requirement of Reverse Russian Mathematics in order to make a truth claim. Speaking truthfully is merely a matter of whether we can testify to their existential possibility of their construction as well as the theory’s existential correspondence with demonstrable reality .”—

    I think that when I was arguing with critical rationalists earlier in the year, I could not distill this argument down this far. Neither Poppers ‘meaning’ nor David’s formal logic solve this problem. As such I stipulate that this is the correct solution to the critical rationalist problem, and that as Alex has argued, popper was a cosmopolitan, and he was a victim of the vast legacy of cosmopolitan errors. He was half right but he was not right enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 11:23:00 UTC

  • So weird. Some weeks I just squirrel away on some problem and other weeks I can’

    So weird. Some weeks I just squirrel away on some problem and other weeks I can’t stop the tidal wave – I have to sprint just to capture what I can. No control over it at all. Just happens.

    One thing that has become so obvious of late, is that hypotheses seem to be purely intuitive in origin, and mere accidents of whatever else you were thinking before hand. And the only possible solution is to place no confidence in them at all, other than to just attack them from every possible angle: what explanatory power does this idea provide? And how can I refute it?

    The second thing that’s even more clear to me now, is that writers must carefully limit their stimulation to the subject at hand so that free association is not polluted by conflicting subjects: allow yourself to have pure ‘dreams’ (waking free associations).

    The third is that intellectual productivity is largely constituted in the sheer number of hours you focus on a problem to the exclusion of all others: specialization.

    I mean, intelligence does buy you velocity, but only in initial free association. Just working at free association on a singular subject trains your neural network so that the previous associations are conducted without cost, and the next association is now available to you for the prior cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 10:27:00 UTC

  • “Truth defeats gossip, operationalism defeats obscurantism, testimony defeats pl

    –“Truth defeats gossip, operationalism defeats obscurantism, testimony defeats platonism, but only declaring the normative commons as shareholder property rights allow us to punish the use of gossip, obscurantism and platonism; and only punishment for such thefts provides an incentive against their use.”–

    Punish evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 10:12:00 UTC

  • If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to expe

    If we cannot agree with that which we cannot sense (reduce to an analogy to experience), then how can we convince people that something that they cannot intuit is in fact moral…… How the hell do we solve this problem…

    If one is intuitively immoral (as it appears the majority are) then, then how is any argument able to persuade?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:59:00 UTC

  • “Women control access to sex. But men control access to commitment. [Not committ

    —“Women control access to sex. But men control access to commitment. [Not committing] is just [how] men [are] exercising [their] control – because they are now incentivized to do so. [Under monogamy] they [were] incentivized to commit. [Now they are not]. That’s why the family is being destroyed.”— Kyle Casperson

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:48:00 UTC

  • (tepid inspiration) Is it true, that there is nothing better than the love of a

    (tepid inspiration)

    Is it true, that there is nothing better than the love of a good, (young, beautiful) woman? Hmmm… the love of many good, young beautiful women? lol

    Talking to a woman in Lviv today. She says “Our men are not simple”. I say I don’t understand. She replies, that the family is being destroyed here as well as in the west. Why? Because why should a man stay home with one woman when he can have “…this one, and that one and another one, as well?” So that means family breaks, sons have no fathers, mothers are poor.

    I see. So american men are simple because we commit?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 09:08:00 UTC

  • THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE –“1. social sciences cannot control condition

    THE LIBERTINE ANTI-SCIENTIFIC LIE

    –“1. social sciences cannot control conditions such to test the variables of a hypothesis.”—

    This statement is false. It is one of the many libertine lies. As most libertine lies, and like most successful lies, it relies enough on a grain of half truth to be able to fool the audience by suggestion.

    Positivism as a movement is false, but empiricism is not. There is no requirement for constructing data, only for observing and collecting data as measurement of one kind or another, because we must be sure that by the use of measurements, we compensate for the frailty of our wishful thinking, our biases, our reason, our perception, and memory.

    For example, we can and did hypothesize red shift. We cannot create red shift, only observe it. Likewise, we can construct an theory of the economy, or of any social phenomenon, and exhaustively test the theory against all instances of the collected data.

    As long as the data that CORRESPONDS can be operationally DESCRIBED – that is, reduced to a rational series of human actions – then we have conducted both a test of external correspondence as well as a test of internal consistency.

    Just why this lie has been so successful I am not sure. I suspect that it is because people WANT to believe the lie, as they want to believe many lies. Because they try to justify what gives them advantage, rather than seek the truth whether it is advantageous to them or not.

    But the fact remains, the criticism of empiricism in the social sciences is nothing more than an elaborate lie, that literally through “advertising” by cosmopolitan libertines, has successfully overloaded an ignorant and wishful population sufficient to persist the lie – just as all cults and religions must accomplish, libertines (all cosmopolitans) have accomplished this particular lie.

    PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE IF WE SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND WE MAY ONLY SPEAK THE TRUTH WHERE PHILOSOPHY IS IDENTICAL TO SCIENCE. BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINE WE CALL “SCIENCE” IS A MORAL ONE – and has nothing particular to do with scientific research, but all human inquiry.

    1 – Empiricism: observe, measure, record.

    2 – Instrumentalism: reduce the imperceptible and incomparable to the perceptible and comparable by means of formal instruments (physical instrumentation) or informal instruments (logic).

    3 – Operationalism: defend against the introduction of error, wishful thinking, bias, and imagination.

    4 – Testimonial Truth: it is not possible to testify to the truth of a proposition that you cannot state operationally, as both a means of construction (internal consistency, existential possibility), and a means of use (external correspondence, external correlation).

    As far as I know the libertine fallacy stands irreparably falsified by this argument.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 08:56:00 UTC

  • AN INTUITION: where does conflict-cooperation sit in haidt’s foundations?

    AN INTUITION:

    where does conflict-cooperation sit in haidt’s foundations?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 05:10:00 UTC