Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • FACT VS THEORY The relationship between a fact and a theory in the context of sc

    FACT VS THEORY
    The relationship between a fact and a theory in the context of scientific understanding is one of interdependence and mutual reinforcement.

    Here’s a brief explanation:

    Fact: In science, a fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. Facts are the world’s data. They are the observations about something in the natural world.

    Theory: A theory, on the other hand, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Theories provide explanatory frameworks that make sense of a range of facts.

    The dependency relationship between a fact and a theory can be understood as follows:

    Facts depend on theories: While facts are observations about the world, the process of identifying and interpreting these facts often relies on existing theories. Theories provide the framework that allows us to understand what we should look for, how we should interpret what we see, and how different facts relate to each other.

    Theories depend on facts: Theories are built upon facts. They are developed to explain the observed facts and are often tested by making predictions about what facts will be observed under certain conditions. If the facts do not support the theory, the theory may need to be revised or discarded.

    In summary, facts and theories are interdependent. Facts provide the observations that theories need to explain, and theories provide the explanatory frameworks that help us identify and understand facts.

    I was also taught that facts exist within theories and do not exist without theories. This assists us in falsifying fact claims, just as facts can assist us in falsifying theory claims.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 16:50:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683519935622914054

  • That is probably a the result of your age and exposure. There is a difference be

    That is probably a the result of your age and exposure. There is a difference between pseudoscience and simply being theoretically wrong, and being pragmatically warong. For example, Marx Boaz, Freud, The Frankfurt School, were pseudoscientists and sophists. There is no sciencender what they claim, only mythicism (fictionalization) to suit their bias. Was einstien a pseudoscientist? He was wrong, and in some ways ridiculous, but his math worked out. Did he know he was a pseudoscientist? It’s not clear.

    Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 16:04:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683508569403011072

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683501817769123841

  • Of course, that’s the mainstream engaging in what is merely scientific fraud (cl

    Of course, that’s the mainstream engaging in what is merely scientific fraud (claiming greater certainty than one can testify to) due to motivated reasoning.

    My mom died of it as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 14:16:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683481309916590081

    Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683472506685112320

  • And being told you’re wrong isn’t the same thing as pseudoscience. It turns out

    And being told you’re wrong isn’t the same thing as pseudoscience. It turns out that it’s easy to identify pseudoscience because there is a motive other than truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 13:22:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683467605045026820

    Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683465940707713026

  • I understand your point; it’s just not how we define pseudoscience today. A clai

    I understand your point; it’s just not how we define pseudoscience today. A claim of Science must meet a set of criteria satisfying testifiability. The most important of which is realism (absence of magic etc) and determinism (regularity of causality). I can enumerate each of the criteria of testifiability if needed. Pseudoscience is different from scientific fraud (which is pervasive today) because of the publication incentive.

    Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 13:20:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683467303998849024

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683465940707713026

  • ^What??? Pseudoscience is an endemic thing. lol Otherwise I wouldn’t have a job

    ^What??? Pseudoscience is an endemic thing. lol
    Otherwise I wouldn’t have a job countering it. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-24 13:11:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683464861487865856

    Reply addressees: @batchestgirl @Dek01907133

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683460782678487041

  • WHY IS PHILOSOPHY NOW RELEGATED TO THE PAST AS WAS THEOLOGY? Painful truth: (a)

    WHY IS PHILOSOPHY NOW RELEGATED TO THE PAST AS WAS THEOLOGY?
    Painful truth: (a) science (truth) and philosophy(choice) are fully demarcated, a process which began with Darwin and ended in the 60s with the failure of the analytic movement’s last attempt to save it. (b) philosophy is still predicated on premises insufficient for it’s ambitions (sets). (c) I’m referred to as a philosopher and a social scientist only because we have not yet fully disambiguated the distinction between the two. But I consider myself a scientist, in all four of the domains: formal, physical(before), behavioral(during), evolutionary(after).

    Can one produce a science (epistemology) and resulting logic (paradigm of first principles, grammar, vocabulary) of decidability, and subsequently of testimony (truth), ethics(cooperation), and scale (politics, group strategy), and aesthetics( goods)? Of course. At present, as far as I know, the discipline of philosophy is capable only of integrating findings of science (testimony), into various paradigms of *choice* instead of truth. Truth is settled science. And with that philosophy is limited to the selection of preferences within that which is not false and not irreciprocal (immoral) and not devolutionary (harmful).

    However, given that anthropomorphism, mythology, thoeology, philosophy, history, the sciences, the logics place increasing burdens on human knowledge and cognition, and especially burdens on bias and priors, then there will always be those who are trapped within the limits of their abilities to reason by more complex means just as there are those trapped within the limits of their ability to use mathematics. In particular my struggle (our organization’s struggle) is the repetition of the problem of transitioning people from mysticism to empiricism.

    However, the tendency to oversimplify to ideal types, or slihgtly better use of sets, is human cognitive nature, while converting from ideal types and sets to series (measurements) and supply vs demand (adversarial equilibria) is somethign that appears very difficult to teach people to do, just as it is difficult to teach them calculus and analysis. Despite that those measures within human experience are much easier to grasp than the abstract relations we use with number systems.

    IMO studying philosophy is useful largely in the suppression of human ignorance and error It is not sufficient for the provision of problem solving that has been achieved through the greater complexity of the sciences of testimony.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 12:12:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683087565790801923

  • Very articulate. Evolutionary Hierarchy: Embodiment > Anthropomorphism (naming)

    Very articulate.
    Evolutionary Hierarchy:
    Embodiment > Anthropomorphism (naming) > Mythology(counting) > Theology(arithmetic) > Philosophy(Geometry) > Empiricism (Natural Philosophy, Algebra) > Science (testimony, Calculus) > Operationalism (Computation,Simulation).

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 11:15:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1683073302225379330

    Reply addressees: @JonBear48176174

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682479187414724609

  • Probably before you were born. Imperium also. But the scientific clarity of Quig

    Probably before you were born. Imperium also. But the scientific clarity of Quigley, Huntington, and Fukuyama are more useful. The german obsession with moral drama is only slightly less tedious as french sophomoric utopianism or jewish literature of hatred by the social construction of sedition by pilpul and critique. Spengler and less so Schmidt were insightful but their skepticism of anglo rule of law that required higher trust people, particularly in the upper and elite classes prevented them, like nietzsche from producing solutions to their observations.

    Reply addressees: @FrescoJk @ArtyArtHistory

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 05:47:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682990881257684992

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682967005492568064

  • I did my first serious philosophical work ‘sciencing’ art criticism by creating

    I did my first serious philosophical work ‘sciencing’ art criticism by creating an analytic model for disambiguatin and measurement by triangulation as a solution to the problem of overcoming bias in teaching art hisory and theory. I’m not confident that its possible – especially with the fall of Yale – that such education is possible any longer. meaning the world is dependent on independent scholars of art and history to counter the war by the “march through the institutions of cultural production” undermining the western demand for individual responsibility for improving the world for having lived in it, by the heroic duty of truth, excellence and beauty produced as our legacy of the hand of man in the transformation of nature’s disorder into a garden of order as a monument to the potential virtue of mankind, as we into the gods we imagine – those that are better than those that we have.

    Reply addressees: @ArtyArtHistory

    Source date (UTC): 2023-07-23 02:41:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682944095390449665

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1682937917625311234