Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • THE SCIENCE OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH: TESTIMONIALISM Operationalism provides a *measur

    THE SCIENCE OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH: TESTIMONIALISM

    Operationalism provides a *measurement* of ordinary language by fully expanding all sentences, reducing all sentences to a series operationally and therefore subjectively testable statements. Then using precise definitions of terms, stated in operational language, whose limits we have calculated by enumerating all related terms in a series. Science requires measurements as a means of falsifying against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, fictionalism, and deceit. Strictly constructed, algorithmic expression of arguments in operational grammar: “actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result and resulting externalities”, produces a value neutral, subjectively (humanly) testable, language of truthful speech for the production of law, contract, argument, criticism, and illustration independent of value judgement.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-05 19:21:00 UTC

  • Algorithmic Natural Law is a New Form of Measurement and Calculation. It’s Hard

    Algorithmic Natural Law is a New Form of Measurement and Calculation. It’s Hard.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 11:43:00 UTC

  • ON WORDINESS – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY. – Operational Language is WORDY. –

    ON WORDINESS

    – Analytic Philosophy is WORDY.

    – Operational Language is WORDY.

    – Programming Algorithms is WORDY.

    – Algorithmic Natural Law is gonna be WORDY.

    Technical Languages evolve to speak precisely.

    Precise language containing technical terms is wordy.

    Why if all the other sciences require technical language, to you think that speaking scientifically – meaning TRUTHFULLY – about the the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy?

    Grow the f–k up. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 10:55:00 UTC

  • WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE???? Um. You don’t get it. 1 – The reason I

    WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING DOOLITTLE????

    Um. You don’t get it.

    1 – The reason I have done so much work is that by my own definition, ***I cannot make a truth claim without producing a full accounting*** of internal consistency and external consequences. (That’s why you write books about theories and, not papers. And why you write papers about experiments not books.)

    2 – The vast majority of what I do online is explore a single theory consisting of three questions: i) Can we extend the involuntary warranty of due diligence in the commons (the market) from products and services to speech? ii) If we do extend it, what will be the consequences? iii) How can we provide institutions that provide the institutions that satisfy market demands and do so truthfully? iv) is truth enough? The answer to those question so far, is yes, we can do it; the consequences will be profoundly beneficial on the scale of the scientific and industrial revolutions; we can provide those institutions my relatively minor changes to the constitution; and yes, truth is enough to restore the west *AND* to maintain the west’s traditional advantage: no other people seem to be able to create a truth speaking high trust society.

    3 – I can make my policy recommendations understood by common folk. I can make the general theory of the cycles of history as one of lies-vs-truth between the west/east, and center. I can give activists moral arguments. I can make my general theory understood by people with sufficient education in economics and politics. I can sometimes make very smart people able to understand how to construct arguments in propertarian and operational language. I can as yet make very few people understand the epistemology of testimonialism and why it completes the scientific method and unites science, biology, morality, philosophy, politics, and law into a single field of ‘testimony’. This distribution of ability and narrative is what we should expect. I probably am not a good person to talk with ordinary folk about technical issues. I simply can’t do the translation. I really love it on the few occasions where people understand most of the scope of work. But in a division of knowledge and labor my job, our job, is to produce a distribution of people who understand each level of sophistication. That’s all.

    4 – However, I do enjoy talking to ordinary guys about the things they are concerned with. And the truth is I wish I could ‘reach’ them better than I do. Because it is ordinary guys who have been most screwed over by the 20th century scams, and it’s they who I feel most need to be saved from the destruction of the west via our women and our underclasses. So I want to care for my brothers in arms most of all. But most of all, because I believe these ordinary guys will be the warriors that change from the current order to the restoration of western civilization. if for no other reason than they have the most to gain from our doing so.

    5) We do not need millions in the streets to produce a revolution. We need a solution to demand, and a small number of people to raise the cost of the status quo until we obtain our objectives. In that sense I care about a few intellectuals, a few leaders, a few advocates, and enough warriors to conduct revolution. The majority of the people once they understand the policy demands and how greatly they will benefit from them, will gladly burn the parasitic classes and reap the rewards of doing it for purely practical reasons. So they will not *resist* the transition. The only people who will resist it are the (immoral) academic, (immoral) political, and (immoral) financial classes, and the left that despises all meritocracy for good reason: they are dysgenic peoples who are but parasites upon the rest. So we do not need a mass movement. We need simply to eliminate the middle and working class’ desire to resist.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-04 09:45:00 UTC

  • “Curt, to what extent do you agree with this quote? “[W]e mean by any concept no

    —“Curt, to what extent do you agree with this quote? “[W]e mean by any concept nothing more than a set of operations; the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations””—Bob Robertson

    Um. Great question. I understand what the author means but it’s not stated correctly.

    “We mean that any concept that one understands enough to make a truth claim can be described as a set of testable operations – and if one doesn’t describe it as such, or if it cannot be expressed as such, then either one cannot claim one understands his claim enough to speak truthfully, or one is in fact speaking untruthfully.”

    After saying that,

    “We use very precise ‘meanings’ by translating into and working with concepts that consist of nothing more than a set of operations expressed in an operational grammar – wherein the concept is synonymous with the corresponding set of operations stated in that grammar.”

    So yes, as the author means it, it’s correct. As the author STATES it, it’s not sufficient. As not sufficient it’s not quite true.

    But this was a good opportunity to correct it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-02 02:12:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian ju

    PROPERTARIANISM FOR HOPPEIANS

    In simplest terms I translated hoppe’s “kantian justificationism” into anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of praxeology that is the innovation.

    The primary difference is that i show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract.

    Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition and this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy except with purely empirical natural law.

    In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 22:01:00 UTC

  • GRADUATE COURSE IN EPISTEMOLOGY – CLASS TWO – BOOM! (continuing with testimonial

    GRADUATE COURSE IN EPISTEMOLOGY – CLASS TWO – BOOM!

    (continuing with testimonialism’s synthesis of science, philosophy, morality and law)

    —“Denying apriorism whilst simultaneously making a priori truth claims = hopelessly confused.”—

    Actually, ah, but that’s not what I did, right? I deflated Kant to unite science, philosophy, morality and law and the techniques of deceptive argument by claims of distinctions without a difference that were used by the marxists-postmodernists, rothbardians and straussian neocons. (Which is what others will tell you.)

    (In other words, I ‘hardened’ philosophy by uniting it with science and law.)

    I said:

    – That analytic truth(thought), ideal truth(words), “testimonial truth”or existentially possible truth(actions) describe a spectrum of increasing differences in information between the statement and reality.

    – That all a priori statements are special cases of the single theoretical method that encompasses all of conceivable and actionable reality.

    – That Reality consists of a number of actionable dimensions, and that the various statements of a priori reasoning reflected the most simple of those dimensions.

    – That we can test each dimension of reality for consistency.

    – That any test of any dimension consistency requires appealing to the test of at least the next dimension, and that any test of reality requires appealing to the full set of dimensions of reality.

    – That survival of each dimensional test does not determine that the statement is true, but that it is non false within the scope of the limits defined.

    – That because of causal density, the application of economic theories can describe trends but not cases.

    – That we cannot know a subset of cases will follow the general rule without investigation.

    – That all not only can all cases not be determined, or not all trends be observable, but that all economic phenomenon cannot be and have not been discovered by deduction but by empirical observation (ie: sticky prices), because much economic phenomenon is beyond our perceptions without measurements.

    – That the predictability of economic phenomenon is (likely) determined by symmetries within intermediary states (in math “lie groups”) and that these are not deducible without empirical observation due to the limits of the human mind to model. But that once modeled will be understandable by the human mind.

    – That this epistemological method will apply even with the addition of new dimensions (which is the likely consequence of the current mathematical and physical investigation into symmetries. Symmetries we cannot conceive of. But once observed we can operationally explain.

    OR AS POPPER TOLD US:

    All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent. All scientific investigation is social and moral.

    OR AS I’M STATING MORE COMPLETELY

    All knowledge of the world is temporal and contingent, and demand for completeness of truth claims is in fact nothing but demand for warranty of due diligence given the the externalities of the display, speech or action.

    THE LAW

    The ‘Law’ of the Analytic(thought), Ideal(word), Real(action), Reasonable(choice), Moral(reciprocal):

    – Analytic: i can or cannot think that.

    – Ideal:I think I can or cannot say that.

    – Real:I claim I can or cannot do that.

    – Reasonable: I can or cannot but would or would not do that.

    – Moral: I would or would not do that, but I should or should not do that.

    HOW CAN WE REDUCE THIS TO GENERAL RULES?

    (a) All non trivial statements about the reality require prior experience.

    (b) All non trivial propositions are contingent.

    (c) All non trivial tests of dimensional consistency are incomplete

    (d) These statements are all contingent.

    (e) All statements we know how to make are contingent, because all knowledge is contingent.

    (f) All display, speech, action, and externality

    CLOSING

    In other words, I eliminated the special pleading intended by, and made possible by kant by the mandation of ignorance, as a resistance against the tide of science. Which is why Rothbard used rationalism, just as abrahamic religious dogma was used: to place artificial constraints on our actions by placing artificial constraints on our reason.

    FWIW

    I use people like you as educational foils. Because while I understand that these advances are probably too difficult for you, they are not too difficult for everyone, and these conversations function as advertising and marketing by which I can locate those who CAN understand such things (likely because of a combination of education and intelligence). And what we have come to understand over the past few years, is that one generally must have an understanding of the methods of the sciences as well as economics, if not learned from computer science the difference between mathematics (arithmetic operations), logic (set operations), programming (algorithmic operations). The reason being, that algorithmic operations must be informationally complete, and training the human mind to think by decidability (informational sufficiency) rather than choice (informational possibility) is rather challenging.

    THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-17 20:07:00 UTC

  • “Is there a foundation for reality? For us and the universe?”— The test of rea

    —“Is there a foundation for reality? For us and the universe?”—

    The test of reality is theory, action, and consequence. While our reason and understanding may be incomplete, our actions exist and the universe responds by resisting and changing.

    There is only one test of reality: if one is willing to put a loaded gun to one’s head and pull the trigger to demonstrate one’s belief, then one can demonstrate honesty in one’s belief. If not then you are just lying for intellectual discount, for psychic benefit to the self esteem and confidence, for psychic benefit of virtue signaling to others, to signal shared fidelity in a shared deception with others for political purposes, or to engage in a deception – or all of the above.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-16 12:13:00 UTC

  • 1) identity tests categories. 2) logic tests internal consistency. 3) action tes

    1) identity tests categories.

    2) logic tests internal consistency.

    3) action tests correspondence. (empirical, operational)

    4) rational action tests incentives.

    5) reciprocity tests morality.

    6) Narrative analogy to perception describes reality (coherence)

    Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 17:48:00 UTC

  • LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE DEFLATION IS AND HOW CHEAP CONFLATION IS Lies are cheaper tha

    LOOK HOW EXPENSIVE DEFLATION IS AND HOW CHEAP CONFLATION IS

    Lies are cheaper than truth.

    Look how much work we have to do to deflate statements into terms and series and operational sequences to refute a lie-by-conflation-and-fictionalism.

    It’s costly. That’s why we have to punish the hell out of people for it, so that we reduce universal transaction and opportunity costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:11:00 UTC