Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • Q&A: Curt: What is Your Innovation on Popper in Epistemology, Science, and Truth?

    –“Curt, I believe I already know the answer to this, but believe it to be valuable to your general audience nonetheless: what is your innovation on Popper in epistemology, science, and truth?”—Moritz Bierling

    [G]REAT QUESTION. THANKS. It’s very hard to do this question justice in a few thousand words. But tend to think of it as in the last century we had a lot of thinkers basically fail to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. And they couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I”ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning **existentially possible to construct through a series of operations** is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibiity, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover. POPPER Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism, which evolved into cultural marxism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude, is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. Verisimilitude: Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Cycle Problem -> Theory -> Test is actually … incomplete. The correct structure is: Perception(random) -> …Free association (searching) -> ……Hypothesis (wayfinding) -> ………Criticism(test – individual investment) -> …………Theory (recipe/route) -> ……………Social Criticism (common investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..wayfinding (criticism) / Hypothesis.  Wayfinding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. DIMENSIONS OF CRITICISM The dimensions of criticism in pursuit of Determinism (Regularity, Predictability, “true”) – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logical) (mathematical/relations, linguistic/sets) – external consistency (empirical correspondence) – existential consistency (existential possibility) – moral consistency (symmetric non imposition) – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony) If a statement (promises) or theory passes all of these tests it is very hard for it to still contain their opposites: – error in its many forms – bias – wishful thinking in its many forms. – suggestion – pleading – guilting – shaming – complimenting – obscurantism, pseudorationalism, pseudoscience – overloading – lying and deceit in their many forms. TRUTH Truth is the most parsimonious operational description that we can give short of a tautology. In other words, truth is the search FOR TRUE NAMES. MORE I have also discussed truth in quite a bit of depth elsewhere so I don’t feel its important to discuss it here. SUMMARY So what I have attempted to do is ‘complete’ the scientific method, that popper started upon. It is not particular to science, but to any TESTIMONY we might attempt to give. The consequence of doing so is that philosophy, morality, law, and science are now synonyms using the same language and structure. Which kind of floored me actually. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: —“Curt: Whats Your Position on Intellectual Property”—

    INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:

      [T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

    • Q&A: —“Curt: Whats Your Position on Intellectual Property”—

      INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Forms of Intellectual Property:

        [T]rademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry. Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others. Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others. Worse, the reason we have so much (undesirable) that’s published in every medium, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral to issue copyrights. But this is a decision for groups through their political processes. They must just be aware of the consequences that will occur as monumental works decline and experiential works increase. I suggest that we retain a registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism). Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use. There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research. Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents. It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license. In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others. Further Thoughts I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others. This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

      • evidence is not determined by inputs but by outputs

        evidence is not determined by inputs but by outputs.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 00:47:35 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765349249135640577

        Reply addressees: @CliffordSAtton @mamasaurusof2 @cmandrecyk @CookPolitical @dmataconis

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348653577990144

        IN REPLY TO:

        Original post on X

        Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765348653577990144

      • The surveys contain by an array of metrics by different producers every year. De

        The surveys contain by an array of metrics by different producers every year. Density and scale produce diminishing returns.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 21:29:16 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765299342177632256

        Reply addressees: @magicbravosolo

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765295645607485440

        IN REPLY TO:

        Original post on X

        Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765295645607485440

      • Again, fallacy of statistics. WHO in texas and Tennessee and Mississippi and Ala

        Again, fallacy of statistics. WHO in texas and Tennessee and Mississippi and Alabama love it?

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 19:55:11 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765275665247657984

        Reply addressees: @magicbravosolo @mmurraypolitics @dmataconis

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765248285825232896

        IN REPLY TO:

        Original post on X

        Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765248285825232896

      • Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”— INTELLECTUAL PRO

        Q&A: —“CURT: WHATS YOUR POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY”—

        INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

        Forms of Intellectual Property:

        * Trademarks and Branding (Weight and Measure) (may not misrepresent as identical)

        * Creative Commons and Open Source ( free use for non-commercial use)

        * Copyright (License fees to inventors of creative products)

        * Patents (license fees to inventors of material products )

        * Legal Privileges (license fees on partial or total monopolies)

        Trademarks and branding were developed as a weight and measure to both to prevent people from fraudulently representing work, and to provide traceability if the weight and measure was violated by substandard manufacture. There is no more conflict over trademarking than there is over any other standard weight, measure, or title registry.

        Copyrights might have been issued as a perk to authors from the crown, but they evolved into a standard practice, if for no other reason than humans in protestant societies object to profiting from the work products of others.

        Creative commons and Open Source licenses evolved out of copyright in order to allow non-commercial use and copying. Which solves the problem of profiting without contributing to the works of others, versus the ability to copy that which is easily copied. Creative commons solves the problem of allowing profiteering on the backs of others.

        Worse, the reason we have so much (crap) published in every medium, and the reason we have an immoral media, and an immoral Hollywood, and an immoral publishing system, is the rewards of selling these artificially licensed products. People who write will do so for very little return. Just as people who produce all arts will do so for very little return. Just as people who engage in research will usually do so for very little return. There is no reason provide support when the net result of that support is the conversion of ART FROM A CIVIC COMMONS TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. In fact, under that criteria, it is immoral – even heinous – to issue copyrights.

        I suggest that we retain the registry (trademarks) and copyrights, so that people may engage in the reproduction of easily reproducible goods for personal, interpersonal, and civic use, while retaining the prohibition on unproductive profiting (reproduction for profit without compensating the copyright holder), and on fraud (profit through plagiarism).

        Patents have a long history both of existence in one form or another, and of attempts to end them. The problem has been in part that there are good reasons for some, and no point of demarcation (no ‘criteria of decidability’) has been discovered that limits its use.

        There is one benefit of patents in that it forces continuous creativity in some minor property of a process or admixture, and it is possible that without patents we would not see this creativity. However, it we could easily limit patents (grants of partial monopoly), to those at biological, chemical, or atomic level (basic research), and leave engineering (construction) and design (user interfaces) out of it, and then later extend into atomic, chemical, and biological levels at some point in the future when we have reduced those areas to engineering rather than basic research.

        Otherwise, if used as an incentive to conduct basic research (like universities and laboratories), or as an incentive to produce goods with unlikely markets (rare medicines and treatments), or in the future, genetic modifications, a patent can serve as a method of funding off-book subsidy of private research for the production of beneficial commons. For this purpose, it would be immoral to prohibit patents.

        It is difficult to imagine an equivalent of the creative commons or open source movements, for explicitly commercial goods, for personal or civic (non-profit) use. We do not do this today because we already implicitly permit it today. (Given the problem of “I Pencil” it’s almost impossible to create complex goods for personal use, but we encourage it and treat admire it.) So I would argue that we could clarify the right to do so, because this is the area where we get into problems of companies defending uses that they don’t want to because the courts will treat non-defense as license.

        In other words it is rational to separate market-for-profit-using-the-insights-of-others from ‘use’. Or put another way: you cannot prohibit someone from making something for self, family and society by a license to a MARKET monopoly on the SALE of a good. This is the difference that needs clarifying. You cannot tell someone he may not use information to transform something for use, but you can certainly prevent him from participating in the market because it is a COMMONS, by profiting from the innovations of others.

        I suppose I could get into how we create opportunities through population density and the suppression of parasitism using the common law, by requiring PRODUCTIVE, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange between all parties; and then address how the PRODUCT of this collective norm (property) produces opportunities, and that it is these opportunities (a product of the commons) that we compete for, with the best competitor (inventor, investor, producer, distributor) winning the benefits of seizing that opportunity. But I think that the logic and economics of market opportunities is off topic for this discussion. Even though, in order to explain why we require PRODUCTIVE transfers from people rather than parasitic transfers, is the entire purpose of coming together in groups, and incrementally suppressing parasitism through the (negative) prohibition on involuntary unproductive uninformed transfers and negative externalities using rule of law, and the (positive) market reward for productive, informed, voluntary transfers and positive externalities. It’s this process of forcing man (like we have with plants and animals) to engage in productive market participation, in order to benefit from productive market participation of others.

        This possible a great deal to digest, and yet, I could go into far more detail as I’ve shown in the last paragraph. But this is a categorically consistent, logically consistent, morally consistent, empirically consistent,fully accounted,and fairly parsimonious argument that will be difficult to defeat.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Philosophy or Aristocracy

        The Propertarian Institute

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-15 05:30:00 UTC

      • The information provided by sets of price levels is insufficient to convey the t

        The information provided by sets of price levels is insufficient to convey the totality of demand. Only what markt can tell us.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 13:58:05 UTC

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763736248238342144

        Reply addressees: @mightyboom_

        Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763705296845807616

        IN REPLY TO:

        Original post on X

        Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

        Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763705296845807616

      • The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in

        The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in measurement; the law, that branch of economics we call incentives; and that discipline we call programming on existential possibility from a sequence of possible operations, and the logical and rational disciplines higher emphasis on internal consistency and non-contradictions.

        But physical science cannot use rationalism and non contradiction nor direct experience in its quest for knowledge beyond that which we can ourselves perceive and experience. Even in what we can perceive and experience, our perception and experience are ‘dirty’ or perhaps ‘noisy’ signals that we can trust if and only if we launder them through observations that compensate for our ‘dirty’ and ‘noisy’ perceptions.

        So science is not synonymous with empiricism. Positive Science refers to that discipline in which we construct methods by which we can extend our perception and launder our experiences of ‘dirt’ and ‘noise’: error, bias, and wishful thinking.

        Negative Science refers to that discipline with which we construct methods by which we can launder the statements of others, such that we remove suggestion, loading (framing and overloading), pseudoscience, and deceit in its many forms.

        Science consists of a toolbox of methods for ensuring that we speak truthfully. It does not consist of a toolbox of methods by which we explore the universe. we construct all the tools and methods that we need to extend our perception and to reduce what we cannot observe to an analogy to experience that we can, so that we can make comparisons and judgments.

        But we reason and measure what we imagine, and then we launder the results of our imaginations.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-07 04:07:00 UTC

      • There are no infinite goods including free trade. Unless you have performed a fu

        There are no infinite goods including free trade. Unless you have performed a full accounting such that you have measured the full set of externalities, then how can you blindly state that free trade is an objective good?

        When we form polities and construct markets we lower opportunity and transaction costs, and ‘ create opportunities’ – and through competition we seize them, converting a common asset into private goods, producing those private goods both as an individual and common good.

        When we trade with external parties in other polities and on other markets, we may or may not by externality produce good or harm.

        For example when we are compensating for resource and geographic differences this is hard to argue with.

        When we import or export products and services that create vulnerability we also do harm.

        When we are engaged in labor discounting then we may or may not be producing good.

        When we export advantageous technical knowledge we are surely harm.

        When we export medicines we are doing Harm in many ways.

        Price is a poor measure of total cost to capital.

        Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 07:45:00 UTC