Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • You just haven’t graduated from rationalism (internal consistency) to science in

    You just haven’t graduated from rationalism (internal consistency) to science in operational terms. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 16:11:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764494594520285186

    Reply addressees: @ontologicalepi @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764493929509027840

    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/764493929509027840

  • The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in

    The physical sciences place higher emphasis on empiricism and operationalism in measurement; the law, that branch of economics we call incentives; and that discipline we call programming on existential possibility from a sequence of possible operations, and the logical and rational disciplines higher emphasis on internal consistency and non-contradictions.

    But physical science cannot use rationalism and non contradiction nor direct experience in its quest for knowledge beyond that which we can ourselves perceive and experience. Even in what we can perceive and experience, our perception and experience are ‘dirty’ or perhaps ‘noisy’ signals that we can trust if and only if we launder them through observations that compensate for our ‘dirty’ and ‘noisy’ perceptions.

    So science is not synonymous with empiricism. Positive Science refers to that discipline in which we construct methods by which we can extend our perception and launder our experiences of ‘dirt’ and ‘noise’: error, bias, and wishful thinking.

    Negative Science refers to that discipline with which we construct methods by which we can launder the statements of others, such that we remove suggestion, loading (framing and overloading), pseudoscience, and deceit in its many forms.

    Science consists of a toolbox of methods for ensuring that we speak truthfully. It does not consist of a toolbox of methods by which we explore the universe. we construct all the tools and methods that we need to extend our perception and to reduce what we cannot observe to an analogy to experience that we can, so that we can make comparisons and judgments.

    But we reason and measure what we imagine, and then we launder the results of our imaginations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-07 04:07:00 UTC

  • ( Don’t you get it? Aspies are evolutionary specialists in operational construct

    ( Don’t you get it? Aspies are evolutionary specialists in operational construction. I just needed to give them a language. The future is just as dependent upon them as in the past we were dependent upon lawyers with good memories, mathematicians, and engineers. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 18:20:00 UTC

  • Q&A: “CURT, WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM?” —“How far can empiricism go? C

    Q&A: “CURT, WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF EMPIRICISM?”

    —“How far can empiricism go? Can it only go so far, telling us how we can construct our government so that it will work? Can it only be mostly right at best?”—

    You’re thinking like a justificationist. Empiricism is a method of testing the survival of an idea. Same with identity, logic, and operational description. It’s not that empiricism or logic is superior, its that if anything survives all those tests of identity, logical consistency, empirical consistency, operational possibility, it just has a pretty good chance of being true. Conversely, if it doesn’t survive all those tests, it’s got a good chance of being error or deception.

    We can construct government with the people we have, and eliminate the people that harm our ability form a government that allows us to successfully compete against alternative tribes and governments.

    But we cannot construct a government that consists of (a) people we do not have, and (b) assumptions of what men can know that they demonstrably cant, and (c) assumptions of shared interest, and (b) assumptions of beliefs counter to the evidence produced by our investigations.

    In this sense TRUTH can take us a very great distance. If we understand science is merely the craft of discovering truthfulness, by the process of eliminating falseness, then science can take us a very great distance. As for empiricism, it has been more successful than reason and rationalism in assisting us in practicing the craft of science in the pursuit of truth.

    Why? Because the universe does not err or lie. We are part of it and must act within it. We can change it by bending it to our will. But to do so we must understand it. And to eliminate error and deceit, we must understand man. For error and deceit are properties of man not the universe.

    And it is these properties of man we must eradicate if we wish to transform into the gods we seek.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 04:20:00 UTC

  • LITERARY PHILOSOPHY IS FICTION It’s probably about time to classify Continental

    LITERARY PHILOSOPHY IS FICTION

    It’s probably about time to classify Continental Philosophy as little more than a bridge between historical and fictional literature.

    – operational documentation,

    – descriptive historical literature,

    – propositional philosophical literature,

    – authoritarian psudoscientific literature

    – authoritarian supernatural mythical literature

    – escapist fanciful fictional literature,

    – parable

    – poetry

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-05 07:18:00 UTC

  • THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSA

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-stone&_r=0ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE.

    Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension;

    Say, like:

    -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) ->

    And like:

    -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion ->

    We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like:

    -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism

    We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – internal consistency (logic)

    3 – external consistency (empiricism)

    4 – existential possibility (operationalism)

    5 – rational possibility (morality)

    6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony)

    So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline:

    “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.”

    If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in:

    1 – error

    2 – bias

    3 – wishful thinking

    4 – suggestion

    5 – overloading

    6 – obscurantism

    7 – pseudoscience

    8 – deceit

    Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood.

    That is the best that we can do.

    And this is what it means to “Testify”.

    And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 09:46:00 UTC

  • THEY HIERARCHY OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS —Observations vs Operations vs Explanatio

    THEY HIERARCHY OF TRUTH PROPOSITIONS

    —Observations vs Operations vs Explanations—

    1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.”

    2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe”

    3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law”

    (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.)

    Observation: reporting of facts

    Operations: production of processes.

    Explanations: describing causal relations

    That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 01:28:00 UTC

  • TESTIMONY: A RECIPE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EXPERIENCE CORRESPONDENT WITH REAL

    TESTIMONY: A RECIPE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EXPERIENCE CORRESPONDENT WITH REALITY

    “Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.”

    “Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.

    For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 04:24:00 UTC

  • Imperial: human-scale measurements are superior. ——————————-

    Imperial: human-scale measurements are superior.

    ————————————————————————

    – one hundred degrees (intolerable), to zero degrees (intolerable)

    – an inch: the width of your thumb (if you work for a living)

    – a foot: the length of your foot

    – a yard: the length of your arm and about the length of your step.

    – one-hundred yards: actionable distance in which you can operate using sprints at full speed. and the maximum range of a spear or javelin throw (hunting and fighting distance)

    – a mile: one thousand paces (two steps), and about as far as humans can run ‘fast’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-24 15:02:00 UTC

  • The analytic movement in philosophy will look like nothing compared tot he opera

    The analytic movement in philosophy will look like nothing compared tot he operational movement in philosophy. And testimonialism will change the world for hundreds of years.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 02:05:00 UTC