Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something” THese

    “How do we take a measure of something?” vs “How do we observe something”

    THese are synonymous statements, since our observations are narrowly constrained to human scale, and that any observation beyond human scale (perception) requires some form of instrumentation, and some form of scale by which to describe changes in state. There is no difference between instrumentation captured by the eye or that captured by complex scientific machinery other than, while both are often equally fallible, we are born with the first, and must construct the second. But in both cases, external changes in state must be reduced to stimuli that we can contrast and compare.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 07:47:00 UTC

  • Completing the Transformation of Man?

    [I] want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

  • Completing the Transformation of Man?

    [I] want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

  • OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN? I want to talk about the

    OPERATIONALISM AS COMPLETING THE TRANSFORMATION OF MAN?

    I want to talk about the experience of the mind, under economics, science and operationalism, versus under language, logic and math under platonism. But I don’t know the words to use. There is a very great similarity between language, logic, math, mysticism and religion, that is not extant in economics, science, and operationalism. Now, I sort of ‘get’ it. But I can’t quite figure out how to talk about it. One of the problems is that under internally consistent mythos (declarative inventions) we call axiomatic systems, and objective reality (externally correspondent descriptions (descriptive statements) we call theoretical systems, is that there is some strange appearance of the infinite in axiomatic (mythical) systems that does not exist in theoretical (descriptive) systems. And I can’t quite put my finger on it. But I think Operationalism cures it. Maybe that is one of the metaphysical consequences of studying science and economics? Does it cure our native imaginary mysticism? Usually by writing something like this I can touch what is on the tip of my tongue. And I’m failing. But I know it’s something like this: when we describe an axiomatic system, it is unbounded by reality’s limits. I even know why it is so – the limit of the number of concepts we can run at one time. I know that we are often ‘awed’ by what should not awe us but be obvious: that whenever we stipulate models or axioms we construct all possible consequences in that utterance, even though we cannot ‘imagine’ all such possible consequences. Our imagination takes license to create ‘the imaginary reality’ out of what was merely a computationally larger set of consequences than our feeble minds can process. What bit of cognitive bias and psychology makes us attracted to the imaginary? Is it another garden of eden? An intellectual space where we are unbounded by reality for just a moment? I think so. I think it evokes the feeling of the undiscovered valley full of new resources and prey. It’s a cognitive bias. An evolutionary instinct. And another instinct or cognitive bias that is no longer useful in our current state. Does science train us out of it? I think so. We still have people, and I think we try to create people, who obtain their awe from scientific, or in the case of TED viewers, pseudoscientific, rather than imaginary exploration? But without operationalism the ‘conversion’ of scientific man is incomplete. Maybe that is what the 20th century represented? The last throws of mysticism? Our attempt to hold onto the imaginary garden of eden where we are unburdened by reality? Is that fascination in the 20th century a reaction to the vast increases in scale that affected all of our lives? Is it a distraction from alienation, disempowerment, the loss of our traditions, and the desperate need to feel we could regain previous sense of control and certainty. Is our job to complete the transformation? To abandon our last mysteries? So that we can RESTORE OUR CIVIL SOCIETY and once again eliminate our alienation? The central problem of modernity?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:33:00 UTC

  • 20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH Operationalism construct

    20th CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS WERE SEEKING POWER, NOT TRUTH

    Operationalism constructs rigid correspondence, eliminates the problem of imprecise language, even non-existent language, by creating names for operations rather than allegories, normative usage, or worst of all, relying upon names of experiences rather than the actions that cause them.

    It has become increasingly frustrating, if not dismissive, to read the philosophical arguments of the 20th century, which seek to find truth in language through a variant of set operations – which of course, must be nothing more than circular. When the answer was just sitting there for everyone to pick up and run with.

    But It was apparently much better to seek truth as a means of persuasion of others, rather than to seek truth as a means of testing the content of one’s testimony. And I think the psychologists and intellectual historians could spend a lot of time analyzing that particular bit of 20th century mysticism. Or perhaps pseudoscience. Or more graciously ‘error’.

    What vanity, or error would lead a body of people to seek authority rather than duty?

    I hope the depth of that question comes across.

    We all seek power. But the truth is just as likely to impede our ambitions as assist in them. But the academy, sought to take power from the church. Moral power. Reason and Science were the first blow. Darwin was the second. The Universalist State the third. It was all in pursuit of power.

    Philosophers of the 20th century, knowingly or not, were seeking power, not truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 04:08:00 UTC

  • I suppose that I could draw a grid with the fields of inquiry on the left, and p

    I suppose that I could draw a grid with the fields of inquiry on the left, and proof criteria across the top. But I’d just rather keep it simple.

    Truth (testimony) in which you attest to some subset of the following:

    – Proof of Construction (causality in the form of actions of measurement reducible to sympathetic testing: ie: empiricism and instrumentalism)

    – Proof of Consistency (Internal Consistency: math, logic, protocol/test)

    – Proof of Falsification (parsimony)

    – Proof of Correspondence/Verification (correlation)

    Regarding a:

    – Theory (general rule of arbitrary precision) or if possible;

    – Theory (general rule of perfect parsimony)

    While paradigmatic shuffles are affected by changes in basic concepts, as far as I can tell, all statements reduced to operations, and satisfying the test of construction will result in increases in precision, not in falsification.

    At least, I can’t think of any exception to this theory that is not a mere verbalism, or mistake in understanding of the nature of precision. But it’s possible I am wrong.

    I could also take a clue from popper’s use of the funnel of time to illustrate a sort of spectrum of proofs. But I’ll have to think about it.

    What bothers me most is that we have ruined the term ‘truth’ in the vernacular and in science and philosophy. It is used as an allegorical, and general term for a multitude of cases most of which are not truths whatsoever, but mere analogies to truth. Worse, Popper brought his mystical heritage with him and conflated perfect parsimony (ultimate truth), with proof (demonstration of truth) and testimony (truth telling). Only one of those three things can exist – the last.

    Sigh….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-09 05:41:00 UTC

  • Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)

    (Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.

  • Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)

    (Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.

  • AMAZING INSIGHT TONIGHT Drifting off to sleep. Woke with a start. Figured out op

    AMAZING INSIGHT TONIGHT

    Drifting off to sleep. Woke with a start. Figured out operational definition of Karl Popper’s work vs anglo empirical tradition.

    Its a difference in ethics. Alex Naraniecki was right. Popper is a Cosmopolitan. Implicit cosmopolitan ethics. Inescapable.

    Reverse Russian and operationalists were correct. Popper is correct in the sense that he means ‘try any way to get there you can think of, then harden it’. Whereas the operationalists an intuitionist say ‘try any way to get there that you can think of then construct a proof of it.” The Popperian form of truth is individualistic and utilitarian, and the anglo empirical form of truth is political.

    When I tested the argument that production, technical, and scientific methods were the same. That we just valued different outputs from the scientific method, I was right.

    I didnt expect the cause of so much difference in philosophy to be one of ethics. But once we discover that the underlying question is the nature of truth, then the differences in philosophical frameworks become obvious expressions of cultural differences in ethics.

    We spent a century looking for a logical answer that was in the end an ethical one.

    Our metaphysical judgements frame everything we do.

    Fuck. I did it.

    The world is a different place starting tomorrow.

    Damn.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 19:11:00 UTC

  • Operations are not analogies. That’s what’s great about them. No information los

    Operations are not analogies. That’s what’s great about them. No information loss, no information ‘gained’ that isn’t there.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 15:50:00 UTC