Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • IVAN TRIES AND FAILS – HOT TO SPOT A SOPHIST (people not grasping closure) P-law

    IVAN TRIES AND FAILS – HOT TO SPOT A SOPHIST

    (people not grasping closure)

    P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic?

    The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’.

    You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail.

    You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it.

    The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference).

    The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion).

    Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions.

    Sorry. Just is.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 10:42:00 UTC

  • Quite the opposite. I am exceptionally talented at what I do. But it’s over your

    Quite the opposite. I am exceptionally talented at what I do. But it’s over your head. Don’t worry. There is plenty of nonsense out there for you if formal language is too hard for you. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 01:34:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243350702556053506

    Reply addressees: @AnUntimelyMan @KANTBOT20K @Doland58655726

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243343443046420482

  • Propaganda = Falsehood. Advocacy = Encouragement Information = Truth. !!ALWAYS!!

    Propaganda = Falsehood.
    Advocacy = Encouragement
    Information = Truth.

    !!ALWAYS!! disambiguate any term into a series to be sure you understand what it means. 😉 A dictionary isn’t enough. Dictionary -> Serialization

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-25 17:40:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242868994555678722

    Reply addressees: @RickyBobby_USA @EricLiford @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242868168697274372

  • One of the ways we use P-Law to identify false claims is the use of pseudoscient

    One of the ways we use P-Law to identify false claims is the use of pseudoscientific language as a pretense of knowledge or claim. Will people still require Mythology, theology(Empathic), Literature and philosophy( Pragmatic ) in addition to History, Science, Law, (Ruling)? Yes.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-03-17 15:48:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239941714632196098

    Reply addressees: @FOSTERMMXXII @jamesfoxhiggins @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239939988256509952

  • REQUEST OF JEWISH MEMBERS OF P-COMMUNITY

    (a) P-law is for everyone, but in the process of teaching it, it’s very much anti the abrahamic method of argument used in judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, HBD-Denialism, and anti-white sentiment in general in the modern world. (b) This easily comes across as anti-semitic, rather than anti-arguing theologically as in judaism, islam, christianity or pseudo-scientifically as in marxism, postmodernism, feminism and human diversity denialism. (c) Just as in the past Americans blamed everything on the europeans, then the germans, then the Russians during past conflicts – education against the left, because of jewish dominance of left thought leadership, attracts people who want to ‘blame everything on the jews’. It takes a lot of work to pull them into recognizing that ‘rule of law fixes us all’. That means ALL OF US who are not crazy leftists regardless of our ethnicity. So if you are jewish and participate in our movement, in the institute, or in our politics, it will help us and the movement a great deal – but you must endure these people and help us help them them:

    –“We all follow our traditions until we know which of them not to follow – we have no choice.”–

    But we teach:

    –“We can’t change the past. The past doesn’t matter. The future does. And Rule Of Law, Fixes Us All.”–

    That includes the absolutely-crazy science-denying left in every single ethnic group – including the whites. This is why we seem to attract ex muslims, half-jews, and some secular jews. And this group helps Bring everyone along into “Rule of Law Fixes Us All”. So if you sign up with the institute, you have to sign up knowing that this is what you’re going to have to deal with – and what we all need.

  • REQUEST OF JEWISH MEMBERS OF P-COMMUNITY

    (a) P-law is for everyone, but in the process of teaching it, it’s very much anti the abrahamic method of argument used in judaism, christianity, and islam in the ancient world, and marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, HBD-Denialism, and anti-white sentiment in general in the modern world. (b) This easily comes across as anti-semitic, rather than anti-arguing theologically as in judaism, islam, christianity or pseudo-scientifically as in marxism, postmodernism, feminism and human diversity denialism. (c) Just as in the past Americans blamed everything on the europeans, then the germans, then the Russians during past conflicts – education against the left, because of jewish dominance of left thought leadership, attracts people who want to ‘blame everything on the jews’. It takes a lot of work to pull them into recognizing that ‘rule of law fixes us all’. That means ALL OF US who are not crazy leftists regardless of our ethnicity. So if you are jewish and participate in our movement, in the institute, or in our politics, it will help us and the movement a great deal – but you must endure these people and help us help them them:

    –“We all follow our traditions until we know which of them not to follow – we have no choice.”–

    But we teach:

    –“We can’t change the past. The past doesn’t matter. The future does. And Rule Of Law, Fixes Us All.”–

    That includes the absolutely-crazy science-denying left in every single ethnic group – including the whites. This is why we seem to attract ex muslims, half-jews, and some secular jews. And this group helps Bring everyone along into “Rule of Law Fixes Us All”. So if you sign up with the institute, you have to sign up knowing that this is what you’re going to have to deal with – and what we all need.

  • I don’t reduce deep and complex sets of ideas into trivial essences that can be

    I don’t reduce deep and complex sets of ideas into trivial essences that can be misinterpreted or misrepresented.

    All it does is make more work for me. So you have to spend the time to learn the argument posted and not distill it down to some grade school triviality.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 16:35:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233068196464381952

    Reply addressees: @ToneUnknown

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233067468970696704

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt

    Russell’ S Paradox Isnt. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/26/russell-s-paradox-isnt/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 19:47:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232753986677153793

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma

  • Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.

    [R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma