Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • September 20th, 2018 7:55 AM CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM.

    September 20th, 2018 7:55 AM 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.”—

  • September 20th, 2018 7:55 AM CONFLATION. WE CAN’T HELP IT. HENCE OPERATIONALISM.

    September 20th, 2018 7:55 AM 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.”—

  • JH: Not sure if it will be meaningful but when you use the trait reference ‘want

    JH: Not sure if it will be meaningful but when you use the trait reference ‘want of novelty'(psychological) the operational translation would be ‘consumption’. Proportionality (equality) of Consumption (Subsidy) vs Proportionality of Cost (Reciprocity in Exchange)? thx
    @JonHaidt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-08 18:43:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1038498064951070721

  • Um. You use the term ‘valid’ when you mean ‘functional’ or ‘successful’. Validit

    Um. You use the term ‘valid’ when you mean ‘functional’ or ‘successful’. Validity in general is an iffy word, and certainly iffy when applied outside of its domain. 😉 But yes it is a successful strategy. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-09-01 12:31:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035867832058298369

    Reply addressees: @xmjEE

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035859683976912896

    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/1035859683976912896

  • No More Lies.

    NO MORE LIES: 1) SCIENCE = LAW, 2) PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, 3) THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain. Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony. Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism). In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying). The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.

  • No More Lies.

    NO MORE LIES: 1) SCIENCE = LAW, 2) PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, 3) THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain. Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony. Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism). In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying). The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.

  • Well you know this is the value of operational description rather than conflatio

    Well you know this is the value of operational description rather than conflationary names. What actions did they take, which content did they make use of, and what function did they perform in society? Were they educators in doctrine of supernatural law competing w/ state?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 16:48:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035569978915864576

    Reply addressees: @ZeusHypatos

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035566144520892417

    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/1035566144520892417

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=288981125032118&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 13:33:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1035521025423888385

  • NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM Scien

    NO MORE LIES: SCIENCE = LAW, PHILOSOPHY = SOPHISM, THEOLOGY = FICTIONALISM

    Science consists of performing due diligence such that we can warranty our testimony in operational terms each of which is testable by the audience (jury). In other words, science (which emerged out of western customary law) In science we attempt to falsify until only truth existentially possible candidates remain.

    Philosophy as the term is used, and as the consists of justificationism. It is an attempt to bridge the legal(scientific), and Imaginary (fictional). Just as theology is an attempt to exit the legal(scientific). In other words, both philosophy and theology seek to circumvent the demand for testimony.

    Law/Science (falsification) > Philosophy (justification) > Theology justificationary fictionalism).

    In other words, you either practice law or your practice sophism (fraud) or you practice fictionalism (lying).

    The question is, if you can’t state your testimony in legal (scientific) language, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or your lying for one reason or another, because you CAN’T DO OTHERWISE.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-31 09:33:00 UTC

  • Operationally Constructed Law Ends Pilpul and Talmudism

    —“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred