Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?

    1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
    So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).

  • Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?

    1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
    So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).

  • ONLY HUMANS CAN MAKE TRUTH CLAIMS. We cannot know the truth proper (the most par

    ONLY HUMANS CAN MAKE TRUTH CLAIMS.

    We cannot know the truth proper (the most parsimonious statement possible by humans if possessed of perfect information) even if we speak it. We can only know that we do not speak in error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit.

    If we perform due diligences (proofs of survival) in an attempt to falsify our statements, then we demonstrate that 1) we speak as truthfully as humanly possible in the moment, 2) we speak morally, and if we err will not be judged harshly by our peers, 3) and we progress toward the truth even if we later discover that we err.

    The verb to-be is a pleasant shortcut, but our primary source of overconfidence in our speech. And if we eliminate the verb to-be then we cannot say ‘this phrase is true’. We can only say “I promise I speak truthfully when I say this phrase.”

    We are often confused by conflating honesty, proof, analytic truth, truthfulness, and ‘truth’ proper.

    But only humans can make truth claims. We speak truthfully or not. we testify to the truthfulness of symbols and measures. Symbols and measures cannot promise so they cannot speak truthfully. Only their authors can.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 11:12:00 UTC

  • WHAT DOES THAT WORD ‘TRUE’ MEAN? Look. You dont understand the word ‘true’. We c

    WHAT DOES THAT WORD ‘TRUE’ MEAN?

    Look. You dont understand the word ‘true’.

    We construct mathematical, logical, empirical, operational proofs of consistency, and by doing so demonstrate possibility.

    You claim to testify truthfully, that your statements are possible.

    In other words, an expression isn’t ‘true’. It’s a proof and you claim to speak truthfully because of that proof.

    You can’t depersonalize truth. Because only you can make the promise of speaking truthfully.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-11 10:46:00 UTC

  • MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK C

    MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK

    Curt Doolittle

    It’s hard to believe but truth is enough.

    There is certainly room for a new fundamentalism.

    Natural Law fundamentalism.

    A violent expansionist fundamentalism more aggressive than islam.

    Joel Davis

    —“I dont see imperialist war as economically viable or morally just.

    The argument that we should protect what we have I agree with, and I think we can find mutual respect with other nations if we respect their autonomy…..”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Expansion has been, throughout history, the only means of limiting the imposition of costs permanently.

    In other words, it is the only means of cheaply solving a cost that will only increase.

    Joel Davis

    —“Our governments and corporations have economic and political hegemony. Why use the military when you can use trade agreements and the CIA? Surely that is more cost effective?

    The rest of the world needs access to our consumers, technology and capital. We are in a very strong bargaining position.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Why are you afraid of TRUTH?

    Violence is TRUE.

    Wars of conquest are PROFITABLE.

    Complete defeat ends a threat rather than constantly paying to keep it at bay

    Forcibly converting a group from a low trust to higher trust polity is moral.

    So it is more moral, cheaper, more permanent, and more honest to conquer, subject to rule of law, to defend yourself through conquest whenever you can.

    Chinese history in a nutshell.

    (The world does not need access to our consumers, it needs access to our technology and rule of law)

    Joel Davis

    —“Your argument is logical and rather compelling.

    I agree the world needs access to our technology and our system has benefitted many nations we (anglo-saxons) have defeated considerably.. Japan, Korea (partially), India and the Phillipines are the best examples of the top of my head.

    I’m not sure if all out wars of conquest is exclusively required however. We have nukes and clandestine prowess, surely we can infiltrate other nations and bend them to our will without requiring all out war (the US has done this all over the world since WW2, unfortunately they have cared only about corporate profit and have abandoned the white man’s burden)

    Also, how do you suppose we conquer India, Pakistan or China (or potentially Iran and North Korea) on account of their nuclear capabilities?

    Surely it is impossible?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    Now, just a form of self-testing, what can you reduce the general criticism —“logical but not compelling”—?

    Because AFAIK, what that reduces to is “true but not preferable”. Where ‘preferable’ refers to ‘personal’. By which you mean ‘to you’. So it’s true but you don’t like it.

    Secondly, black or what fallacy. just because you Can conquer a hostile islam, does not mean we need to conquer a divergent but not hostile china.

    You are engaging in the (religious) form of argument we call ‘general rules’ by applying them (illogically) to specific instances. Rather than applying logical and scientific analysis to provide decidability in specific cases.

    That’s analogous to interpersonal racism and political universalism: confusing the properties of a class with those of an individual, or those of an individual with those of the class.

    In other words, you’re speaking illogically in an attempt to justify a prior not discover the truth.

    So, rather than rely upon a general rule, lets just measure the COSTS, and PRICE THE RISK, of acting and not acting.

    The question isn’t one of general rules, but of pricing of cost and risk.

    Which is what I”m advocating.

    MORAL ACCOUNTING IN FACT VS MORAL GENERAL RULES OF APPROXIMATION AND GUESSWORK

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-07 12:00:00 UTC

  • “If we can’t explain it, that’s because do not posses the “Operational to criter

    —“If we can’t explain it, that’s because do not posses the “Operational to criteria” claim it’s true. If we can’t claim it’s true then we can’t claim to apprehend it. If we can’t claim to apprehend it we can’t claim comprehend it. If we can’t claim comprehend it we can’t remember the truth.” — Bill Joslin

    (did ‘ja see what I did there?)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-05 13:21:00 UTC

  • If you can’t make an operational argument for the implementation of and persiste

    If you can’t make an operational argument for the implementation of and persistence of an idea then it’s not an idea its nonsense. #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 00:26:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/805206616895291392

  • If you can’t make an operational argument for the implementation of and persiste

    If you can’t make an operational argument for the implementation of and persistence of an idea then it’s not an idea its nonsense. #NewRight

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 19:26:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT. (a) Ope

    OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT.

    (a) Operationalism is the next step in analytic philosophy.

    (b) Our failure to solve the question of operationalism in the early 20th is the reason that we were subject to social and economic pseudoscience during the 20th and 21st.

    (c) most questions of analytic philosophy, including the liars paradox are solved by operationalism. Most questions of philosophy evaporate as nothing more than word games. All philosophical paradoxes evaporate.

    (d) Consider this sequence: identity(category), sets(logic), constant-relations(math), existence(operations), moral(reciprocal), models/simulations(equilibria).

    (f) Consider that the objective of epistemology is not to develop theories (narratives for discovering candidates) but to catalog existentially possible operations (recipes for constructing possibilities) at all scales of existence. I believe this is the conceptual change we are currently transitioning to.

    (e) You can learn to write operationally using E-Prime. You can research E-Prime online. I’ve written extensively on this question if you search my website.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 08:08:00 UTC

  • THE REASON WE USE OPERATIONALISM the reason we place emphasis on operations is t

    THE REASON WE USE OPERATIONALISM

    the reason we place emphasis on operations is to force the author to articulate causal relations (so we know there is one), and to use a consistent grammar of existence (operation(observer), intention(actor), or experience(perceiver)). Since intentions or experiences are subjective nonsense, we ask for a consistent perspective: the observer. This prevents loading and framing, as well as substituting experiences or intentions for facts.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 18:00:00 UTC