Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • I don’t psychologize because that would be pseudoscience. I merely practice law

    I don’t psychologize because that would be pseudoscience. I merely practice law of torts, which is to determine the incentives to acquire, and whether it was done in operational language, by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer free of externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-16 12:39:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953245206140325888

    Reply addressees: @Imperius__13

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/953242132562743296

    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/953242132562743296

  • What Does Truth Mean?

    (edited for clarity) Truth can only mean ‘descriptive testimony free of error, bias, suggestion, obscurantism and deceit’. In other words, speech, the semantic content of which corresponds with existentially possible reality. One speaks TRUTHFULLY, or UNTRUTHFULLY, or HONESTLY or DISHONESTLY. To be precise, one speaks HONESTLY not having done due diligence, nor warrantying one’s speech. One speaks TRUTHFULLY having done due diligence, and warrantying one’s speech. Truthful speech evolved from and refers to testimony for which you are accountable (have skin in the game). So you might speak honestly – not having done due diligence on your speech. But that is not the same as speaking truthfully – having done due diligence on your speech. So you might give your honest opinion, but that differs from doing diligence that such an opinion survives criticism – meaning tests of correspondence with reality. Both the physical sciences and law specialize in the art of due diligence. (Although much law has adopted the art of lying, testimony in court tends not to.) As an extension of law, anglo analytic philosophy attempts to specialize in the art of due diligence. Strangely, continental philosophy does the opposite. But if speaking truthfully requires that we perform due diligence, and warranty our speech, then how does one perform such due diligence? How do we test correspondence? In the most simple of terms, a truth statement must be: 1. CATEGORICALLY consistent (non conflationary) 2. INTERNALLY consistent (logical), 3. EXTERNALLY correspondent (empirical), 4. OPERATIONALLY possible (existentially possible), 5. COHERENT categorically, internally, externally, and operationally (consistent across all tests) 6. FULLY ACCOUNTED (you haven’t cherry picked cause and/or consequence) And if you want to claim it’s ethical and moral (and objectively legal): 1. RATIONAL: consisting of nothing but a series of fully rational choices 2. RECIPROCAL: consisting of nothing other than productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of imposition upon others by externality. HONESTY AND TRUTHFULNESS IN THE USE OF THE WORD “TRUTH” We use the word ‘Truth’ in many, many contexts. Most of them somewhere between a convenience and a dishonesty. True, honest, logical, and good are independent concepts frequently conflated to attribute authority where it is absent.

  • Again. The logical, empirical, and operational relations are simply beyond you –

    Again. The logical, empirical, and operational relations are simply beyond you – which is why you only hold an intuitionistic an ‘moralistic’ opinion, and why you search for bias confirmation from an echo chamber.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-12 14:21:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951821314477690880

    Reply addressees: @RyanRoach5 @CurtisHouck @RichLowry @joanwalsh

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/951812946325209089

    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/951812946325209089

  • THE TECHNOLOGY OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH [S]cience is a moral discipline wherein we cri

    THE TECHNOLOGY OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH

    [S]cience is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully:

    1 — We test our relations for categorical consistency (identity)

    2— We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency.

    3— We test our observations with external correspondence.

    4— We test the existential possibilities of our premises by defining them in operational language

    5— We test the rationality of our choices by subjective testing of incentives – all human action is rationally self interested.

    6— We test the morality of our display, word, and deed by reciprocity: reciprocal tests of rationality.

    7— We test the consequences of our theories for externalities (involuntary transfers).

    8— We test the completeness of our statements with a tests of full accounting and limits.

    9— We test the coherence of our statements with this list of constant relations both categorical, internal, external, existential, complete, and limited, including the rational when a matter of personal action, and reciprocal when a matter of interpersonal and political action.

    Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm.

    Because scientific method consists of due diligences necessary to warranty that we speak truthfully. And by truthfully we mean consistent, correspondent, complete, rational, and moral, and laundered of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-29 08:51:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operation

    (from elsewhere) I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operational definitions of those ideas about which people are frequently ignorant, confused, wishful thinkers, or dishonest. I am really, really, really good at my job. Don’t waste my time

  • (from elsewhere) I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operation

    (from elsewhere)

    I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operational definitions of those ideas about which people are frequently ignorant, confused, wishful thinkers, or dishonest.

    I am really, really, really good at my job.

    Don’t waste my time

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-21 11:40:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operation

    (from elsewhere) I don’t do ‘stupid’. I do my job. Which is to provide operational definitions of those ideas about which people are frequently ignorant, confused, wishful thinkers, or dishonest. I am really, really, really good at my job. Don’t waste my time

  • not in operational language it isnt

    not in operational language it isnt….

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 02:49:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936426877065015297

    Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/936419301057351680

    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/936419301057351680

  • DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which res

    DEFINITIONS ARE RECIPES

    by Bill Joslin

    The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes).

    Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments.

    We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments.

    The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument.

    By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 16:57:00 UTC

  • Definitions Are Recipes

    by Bill Joslin The only definitions (identity) which rest in the commons are operational descriptions (recipes). Operational descriptions stand on their own as a set of arguments – thus definitions simply assign a name to a set of operational arguments. We then use names, for sake of brevity, to build new, higher order arguments. The relation of lower order and higher order definitions are two-fold – either a lower order argument has a causal relation to a higher order one (a primary or fundamental ) or the higher order argument provides superordinate to the lower order argument. By categorizing according to arguments versus object-properties we may open up new meta-relations which are not available with an object-property mentality.