Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • September 23rd, 2018 12:06 PM Working on operational reclassification of crimes

    September 23rd, 2018 12:06 PM Working on operational reclassification of crimes today. (ack). Crimes are currently organized by severity rather than function, which fails to educate the people in the (simple) constraints upon their behavior. Was fairly easy to restore the right of men to fight and discipline one another for bad manners, and gossip, shaming, and rallying.

  • “One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way i

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 18:45:00 UTC

  • AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION,

    AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE

    We can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not.

    No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility.

    Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony.

    As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.)

    Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 11:46:00 UTC

  • September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM —“One of things that led me to follow you and the

    September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

  • September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLA

    September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

  • September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM —“One of things that led me to follow you and the

    September 21st, 2018 6:45 PM

    —“One of things that led me to follow you and the other guys on here is the way in which your use of operational speech is clear and simple to understand. But what I’ve learned through trying to contribute a few comments here and there, is that writing in this way is not easy. There’s a cost involved. Constructing arguments operationally and ensuring they are free from error, bias etc takes time and effort (and I make no pretense of being any good at this yet). No wonder the left takes the cheap and easy route of using lies.”—- Andy Lunn

  • September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLA

    September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.

  • September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS (wort

    September 21st, 2018 11:11 AM LANGUAGE IS CALCULATING WITH MORE DIMENSIONS
    (worth repeating) [W]e tend to think of mathematics as calculation (it is) but language is also a form of calculation, and we have just (or I have just) begun to understand that language is a means of calculating (transforming inputs and outputs) in a market (competition) for signaling and influence, that produces continuous improvements in knowledge IF not impeded by error (supernatural, magical, ideal) all of which prohibit precision and increase error counter to the natural, scientific, and operational descriptions.

  • CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM. —“Ontological confusions:

    CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM.

    —“Ontological confusions:

    Both children and adults tend to confuse aspects of reality

    (i.e., “core knowledge”) in systematic ways (Lindeman,

    Svedholm-Hakkinen & Lipsanen, 2015). Any category mistake

    involving property differences between animate and

    inanimate or mental and physical, as examples, constitutes

    an ontological confusion. Consider the belief that prayers

    have the capacity to heal (i.e., spiritual healing). Such

    beliefs are taken to result from conflation of mental phenomenon,which are subjective and immaterial, and physicalphenomenon, which are objective and material (Lindeman,Svedholm-Hakkinen & Lipsanen, 2015). On a dual-processview, ontological confusions constitute a failure to reflecton and inhibit such intuitive ontological confusions (Svedholm& Lindeman, 2013). Ontological confusions may also be supported by a bias toward believing the literal truth of

    statements. Thus, ontological confusions are conceptually

    related to both detection and response bias as mechanisms

    that may underlie bullshit receptivity. As such, the propensity

    to endorse ontological confusions should be linked to

    higher levels of bullshit receptivity.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-20 07:55:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism: The Central Idea

    September 17th, 2018 10:22 AM PROPERTARIANISM: THE CENTRAL IDEA
    (from the introduction) The central idea is the completion of the scientific method, and its application to the entire spectrum of human knowledge. Although understanding the full scope of what that means isn’t at all obvious from that statement. The completion of the scientific method is contained in Propertarianism’s Testimonial Truth (Epistemology). Acquisitionism (Psychology), Propertarianism (sociology), and Natural Law (Ethics, Politics, and Group Competitive Strategy). The rest of the work consists of application of that scientific method to the scope of human knowledge: “Here is the completed scientific method. If we apply the completed scientific method to the full scope of human knowledge, organized by combining categories of philosophy and social science into a single hierarchy, the result is all of these ideas.” The consequence of completing such a reformation of the scope of human knowledge, is our ability to explain not only all of human behavior, but to compare all human civilizations and explain why each excelled (The West), developed (China), fell into stasis (India), or regressed (Islam, Australian aboriginals, and possibly central africans), were conquered (far too many), or Collapsed (Mesoamericans). This reformation is on the same scale of the previous generations of the scientific method: aristotelian reason and stoic psychology of the late ancient world, anglo empiricism of the early modern era, anglo-germanic science of the 19th and 20th centuries, and brings the social soft-sciences from pseudoscientific into the hard sciences. But, given human defense of malinvestment in falsehoods, I suspect these arguments will take as long to propagate through our civlization as did those previous reformations of human knowledge. Whether you consider Propertarianism the Completed Scientific Method, Natural Law (social science), or the codification of the strategy of western civilization, depends upon your interest: intellectual (method), institutional (natural law), or anthropological (the reasons for western rapidity of progress in the ancient and modern worlds.) My original purpose was only to provide a scientific language for describing the group competitive and evolutionary strategy of western civlization. The result is the completion of the scientific method, an explanation for the success of the west, a reformation of human knowledge, and a Constitution of Natural Law by which any and all may live.