Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • THE SECOND SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM. For every reference you use, expr

    THE SECOND SECRET OF LEARNING PROPERTARIANISM.

    For every reference you use, express it as a position in a spectrum of at least three different states all of which share the same measurement (constant relation).

    The reason most things seem clearer or more insightful is that I use series’ of operational definitions to limit (as do all grammars) and emphasize, the constant relation I wish to illustrate.

    By describing a spectrum from coming into existence, to dropping from existence (failure) you create a definition wherein the priority of the properties of the category (causality) is not open to conflation or misinterpretation.

    And that is how Abrahamism causes deception: conflation and redirection (suggestion).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-28 10:49:00 UTC

  • honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narr

    honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narrow. We create measurements as we scale. The problem with credit scores is not that they are incorrect, but that the financial system is organized to create moral hazards. Today we have criminal, civil-legal, credit, tax, property title, voting, education, and income scores. And now we’ve added google and social media ‘scores’. We create records everywhere. And we have no ‘right to be forgotten’ that the europeans do.

  • honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narr

    honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narrow. We create measurements as we scale. The problem with credit scores is not that they are incorrect, but that the financial system is organized to create moral hazards. Today we have criminal, civil-legal, credit, tax, property title, voting, education, and income scores. And now we’ve added google and social media ‘scores’. We create records everywhere. And we have no ‘right to be forgotten’ that the europeans do.

  • honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narr

    honor works because the radius of cooperation, and therefore reputation are narrow. We create measurements as we scale. The problem with credit scores is not that they are incorrect, but that the financial system is organized to create moral hazards. Today we have criminal, civil-legal, credit, tax, property title, voting, education, and income scores. And now we’ve added google and social media ‘scores’. We create records everywhere. And we have no ‘right to be forgotten’ that the europeans do.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-27 08:10:00 UTC

  • I Hate Racism And Denialism Is Just More Of It

    I thought racism was a stereotype, and that stereotypes were the most accurate measure in the social sciences, if not the ONLY accurate measure in the social sciences. (It is). I thought that median distributions of behaviors varied dramatically between races, subraces, classes, and genders, and that stereotypes were accuate measurements of such because they are almost impossible to change due to constant exposure to evidence. I thought that the Marxists Postmodernists who have engaged in this pseudoscientific nonsense that there are no differences between genders, classes, subraces, and races were trained in pseudoscience, and didn’t hold STEM degrees or demonstrate scientific testimony. Denial is just another form of lying. Pseudoscience is just another false religion. It’s stupid to treat individuals by the properties of a class. It is stupid to treat a class by the properties of an individual. It is sensible to treat a class by the properties of a class. It is sensible to treat and individual by the properties of the individual. I absolutely hate racism – and the one way to insure it is to deny our differences. Because it prevents us from dealing with the fact that it is not RACES that matter but the sizes of the middle and UNDERCLASSES in each of the races relative to host populations that matters. The upper classes and upper middle classes all get along fine – we are all Aristotelians, Anglo Rule of Law, and Mengerian Economists out of necessity in the preservation of our roles. And please stop hating on white people. We did drag all your ignorant, superstitious, impulsive, hard-laboring, impoverished, starving, diseased, and violent races, subraces, tribes, clans and families, out of your no less than five thousand years of primitivism against your will – all the while, kicking and screaming and complaining like you are now. And all your pseudoscientific pseudo-rational revisionist historicism can never change that fact. Be grateful. We don’t even want your appreciation. Just stop lying. It’s really, really, simple. You were not oppressed. You had failed. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • I Hate Racism And Denialism Is Just More Of It

    I thought racism was a stereotype, and that stereotypes were the most accurate measure in the social sciences, if not the ONLY accurate measure in the social sciences. (It is). I thought that median distributions of behaviors varied dramatically between races, subraces, classes, and genders, and that stereotypes were accuate measurements of such because they are almost impossible to change due to constant exposure to evidence. I thought that the Marxists Postmodernists who have engaged in this pseudoscientific nonsense that there are no differences between genders, classes, subraces, and races were trained in pseudoscience, and didn’t hold STEM degrees or demonstrate scientific testimony. Denial is just another form of lying. Pseudoscience is just another false religion. It’s stupid to treat individuals by the properties of a class. It is stupid to treat a class by the properties of an individual. It is sensible to treat a class by the properties of a class. It is sensible to treat and individual by the properties of the individual. I absolutely hate racism – and the one way to insure it is to deny our differences. Because it prevents us from dealing with the fact that it is not RACES that matter but the sizes of the middle and UNDERCLASSES in each of the races relative to host populations that matters. The upper classes and upper middle classes all get along fine – we are all Aristotelians, Anglo Rule of Law, and Mengerian Economists out of necessity in the preservation of our roles. And please stop hating on white people. We did drag all your ignorant, superstitious, impulsive, hard-laboring, impoverished, starving, diseased, and violent races, subraces, tribes, clans and families, out of your no less than five thousand years of primitivism against your will – all the while, kicking and screaming and complaining like you are now. And all your pseudoscientific pseudo-rational revisionist historicism can never change that fact. Be grateful. We don’t even want your appreciation. Just stop lying. It’s really, really, simple. You were not oppressed. You had failed. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • I HATE RACISM AND DENIALISM IS JUST MORE OF IT I thought racism was a stereotype

    I HATE RACISM AND DENIALISM IS JUST MORE OF IT

    I thought racism was a stereotype, and that stereotypes were the most accurate measure in the social sciences, if not the ONLY accurate measure in the social sciences. (It is).

    I thought that median distributions of behaviors varied dramatically between races, subraces, classes, and genders, and that stereotypes were accuate measurements of such because they are almost impossible to change due to constant exposure to evidence.

    I thought that the Marxists Postmodernists who have engaged in this pseudoscientific nonsense that there are no differences between genders, classes, subraces, and races were trained in pseudoscience, and didn’t hold STEM degrees or demonstrate scientific testimony.

    Denial is just another form of lying.

    Pseudoscience is just another false religion.

    It’s stupid to treat individuals by the properties of a class. It is stupid to treat a class by the properties of an individual. It is sensible to treat a class by the properties of a class. It is sensible to treat and individual by the properties of the individual.

    I absolutely hate racism – and the one way to insure it is to deny our differences. Because it prevents us from dealing with the fact that it is not RACES that matter but the sizes of the middle and UNDERCLASSES in each of the races relative to host populations that matters. The upper classes and upper middle classes all get along fine – we are all Aristotelians, Anglo Rule of Law, and Mengerian Economists out of necessity in the preservation of our roles.

    And please stop hating on white people. We did drag all your ignorant, superstitious, impulsive, hard-laboring, impoverished, starving, diseased, and violent races, subraces, tribes, clans and families, out of your no less than five thousand years of primitivism against your will – all the while, kicking and screaming and complaining like you are now. And all your pseudoscientific pseudo-rational revisionist historicism can never change that fact. Be grateful. We don’t even want your appreciation. Just stop lying.

    It’s really, really, simple.

    You were not oppressed.

    You had failed.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-26 17:25:00 UTC

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • What Does Logic Mean And What Are Its Limits?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states. The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations. All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification). One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law. The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods. Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t. Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations. Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations. Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise. Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services. -Curt Doolittle -The Propertarian Institute – Kiev Ukraine (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

  • WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS? The human facility we call logic c

    WHAT DOES LOGIC MEAN AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS?

    The human facility we call logic consists of tests of constant relations between states.

    The Logics consist of deflationary(limiting) grammars(rules of continuous disambiguation) that test via competition (comparison) the preservation of constant relations between states. And must, because that is all our brains(neurons) are capable of: relations.

    All non trivial premises are forever contingent. All non trivial statements are contingent. All non trivial proofs are contingent. And so the formal logics can only falsify the non trivial. No mathematician claims proofs and truths are the same. One does not prove the truth of anything. If not for the simple reason that confirmation does not convey truth – limits do (criteria of falsification).

    One tries to construct a proof of possibility or impossibility, and either can or cannot. One constructs operational proofs of possibility because operational statements are empirical (observable and measurable by the uniform system of measurement we call human action). Empirically, we prove nothing, but disprove much. Hence the world demonstrably operates by science and law.

    The same applies to that discipline we call logic itself. And so the formal logics teach us only how to falsify. One cannot prove a non trivial truth, only eliminate falsehoods.

    Popper was right. The sciences are right. I am right. Its same issue we have with mathematicians and mathematical platonism – infinities do not exit. Its a convention made necessary by scale independence. One cannot prove a truth. A statement survives prosecution or it doesn’t.

    Mathematics by virtue of consisting of nothing but positional names cannot consist of anything other than perfect constant relations.

    Just a matter of getting an authority figure to falsify it, rather than debate it with sophists who create straw men by conflating logic philosophy, law and science and just engage in denial of the first principle upon which their arguments depend: constant relations.

    Like prime numbers, some statements consist of relations so consistent that they cannot be otherwise.

    Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit.

    Pilpul in its original, theological, philosophical, rationalist, pseudorationalist, pseudoscientific forms can be brought to an end by consistent measurements: operational language and grammar. if we speak in complete sentences in operational grammar and semantics then we can put into law the same safeguards against propaganda and deceit in the market for information – particularly political information – that we have in the market for goods and services.

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    – Kiev Ukraine

    (PS: Trying to reach Catarina Dutilh Novaes to criticize it. She uses similar language so it will stand. (Never let a troll win.))

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:19:00 UTC