Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Why Is The Koran Open To Interpretation?

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION? If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been? If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law? Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT. In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation. Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation. In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements. In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies. Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity. With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation. The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law. At which point it will be untenable. Which is why it has not been done.

  • CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH? The scientific method

    CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH?

    The scientific method CAN produce the truth. (The most parsimonious statement of correspondence by reduction to experientially decidable measurements that is possible.) The problem is, that we can very rarely KNOW it’s the truth in other than non-trivial terms for the simple reason that it is very hard to identify when information is missing. (For example, it is hard to imagine that there is much left to understand in the function of chemistry’s periodic table, only its application. But we could change the meaning of ‘Chemistry’ in the future. That would not mean that our existing statements were false, only that we had changed the context of the promise.

    That’s why I use the term “Truthful” to deflate the traditional conflation ( under the form of idealism you favor speaking in ) of Truth (idealism) into:

    1 – Truth (the most parsimonious statement possible in the context of the question),

    2 – “Truthful” Truth (warranty of due diligence under testimonialism’s full set of dimensions),

    3 – Truth (Warranty of due diligence in one’s Testimony to the best of one’s rational ability),

    4 – Truth (honesty in the absence of due diligence).

    Now, I probably should deflate the term ‘concept’ as well, into its constituent parts… but I think names, properties, categories, relations, recipes, actions, transformations, and narratives, are all well understood, whereas truth is more frequently used in ideal and conflated variations.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:37:00 UTC

  • THE ARGUMENT FOR NORMATIVE DECIDABILITY IN NON-OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE (CD: for tho

    THE ARGUMENT FOR NORMATIVE DECIDABILITY IN NON-OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    (CD: for those that cannot make the leap to operationalism, joel does a wonderful job of using traditional language to make the point.)

    —

    by Joel Davis

    A social structure emerges from the conceptual structures held by the participants which have relevance to interpersonal interaction.

    These conceptual structures emerge from conceptual valuation, and conceptual valuation functions via relative conceptual hierarchies of valuation.

    These hierarchies of values then become the criteria from which a social structure formulates its interpersonal hierarchies.

    To peacefully preserve a particular social structure, a society must have at least a significant convergence (or ideally, a consensus) between its participants in regard to conceptual valuation relevant to interpersonal interaction.

    Without this convergence, participants in the social structure who hold competing conceptual hierarchies will support competing interpersonal hierarchies, rendering conceptual divergence doomed to social chaos and violence only resolvable via the tyrannical imposition of a victorious conceptual structure.

    In the West, we addressed this problem with markets via the superordinate metavaluation of the twin concepts of rationality and honor during antiquity and reason and liberty during modernity.

    However, rationalism and honor were defeated by Catholic (and Islamic) conceptual tyranny, and now reason and liberty are on the brink of complete disintegration via a regression to chaotic conceptual divergence as a result of the counter-enlightenment.

    The only wall that can truly protect our society is the revived convergent, superordinate metavaluations of reason and liberty. Physical walls to keep out those who challenge their superordinance would then be merely a natural consequence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:17:00 UTC

  • Logical=Internally Consistent, Empirical=Correlative(Correspondent), Operational

    Logical=Internally Consistent, Empirical=Correlative(Correspondent), Operational=Causal, Moral=Reciprocal, Testimonial=Fully-Accounted(all)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-02 18:47:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/870713539287273473

  • YES, I AM CREATING DECIDABILITY USUALLY LIMITED TO QUANTITATIVE, FOR THAT WHICH

    YES, I AM CREATING DECIDABILITY USUALLY LIMITED TO QUANTITATIVE, FOR THAT WHICH WE CONSIDER QUALITATIVE.

    —“My impression of Curts work is that is precisely what he’s trying to do – develop a means of quantifying data that has been traditionally regarded as qualitative so that it can be evaluated more objectively and applied as absolute law.

    Am I incorrect?” — John Derbyshire

    Technically, I’m making it *decidable* by binary where necessary, qualitative where possible, and quantitative where possible. So the term you’re looking for is ‘decidable’. It’s just conventional that we use the word ‘quantifiable’ because so much of science has been dependent upon scale measurement.

    But yes, you are correct John.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 13:05:00 UTC

  • Consider yourself owned. Marxism. lol. ( BTW: I can claim ‘philosopher’ for the

    Consider yourself owned. Marxism. lol.
    ( BTW: I can claim ‘philosopher’ for the explanation of the failure of operationalism alone. lol )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 18:48:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867452151605469186

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867450755246116864

    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/867450755246116864

  • The difference between computer science and mathematics, is operational calculab

    The difference between computer science and mathematics, is operational calculability vs deducibility (decidability/excl. middle)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 16:46:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867421462877138945

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867393003765321729

    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/867393003765321729

  • (Operational language defeats postmodern, Marxist, Jewish(Pilpul) word games. Th

    (Operational language defeats postmodern, Marxist, Jewish(Pilpul) word games. That is why I use it. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 14:36:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867388791258050561

    Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867386226030129153

    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/867386226030129153

  • meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of unde

    meaningless untestable statement. man must act. action is the only frame of understanding not false.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-08 20:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861679097373741057

    Reply addressees: @schopee

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/861622288940126208

    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/861622288940126208

  • Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements,

    Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements, not just meanings. You can say something meaningful that is not truthful, but it is very hard to say something both meaningful and truthful that consists entirely of measurements that themselves are not false.

    All language can be restated as measurement.

    This is frightening for those who wish to lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 15:11:00 UTC