Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Yes, I’ve read it. I don’t want to countersignal Joseph because I’m a promoter o

    Yes, I’ve read it. I don’t want to countersignal Joseph because I’m a promoter of his, he has promise, and I want him to continue to develop and produce. But this paper is a correlative reach, in that while there is some truth to it, I think the overreach is enough that no one who understands the paper will take it seriously, and people who don’t understand it, might.
    The causal density of the problem is much more multi-dimensional, and much easier to explain by nothing more than ending the priority of granting elites to universities the government hires from, overemphasizing education over demonstrated loyalty and competency, entry of hostiles, malincentives of education costs favoring foreigners, the capture of education by hostiles, and the resulting voluntary redirection of our best to the finance sector and elsewhere instead of the ruling classes.
    The rest is of course asymmetric reproduction due to the absurd costs of urbanization.

    Reply addressees: @NorseJarl @William68332190 @TheAutistocrat @EPoe187

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:49:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671938504064991240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671936720177180674

  • “the botched who have always existed became the elite”– Correct. Though I would

    –“the botched who have always existed became the elite”–

    Correct.

    Though I would say the problem with the pseudo-elite just like pervasive behavioral pseudoscience was created knowingly and intentionally by ‘Credentialists’ who lacked loyalty to the country, meritocracy, empiricism, and rule of law, and made possible by the demand generated for them by the expansion of the State, in competition with the slow progress of developing natural elites and natural aristocracy with loyalty to the country.

    There were still meritocratic people in academy and government as late as 1960, but the ‘activists’ ended the elite academy and government with their intentional ‘march through the institutions of cultural production beginning with education’.

    Read Gramsci. Read Adorno et al. Read Friere. Destruction by design.

    Reply addressees: @William68332190 @NorseJarl @TheAutistocrat @EPoe187

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:36:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671935149129302040

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671932897681457167

  • “Q: WHAT IS SCIENCE? AND HOW DID WE ‘SCIENCE’ THE FORMAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

    “Q: WHAT IS SCIENCE? AND HOW DID WE ‘SCIENCE’ THE FORMAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. (FINALLY)”

    I should just point people to our videos and let them sink or swim, rather than try to help them along. 😉

    But just the difference between the mathematical (continuous descriptions),… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1671927180253708290

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:29:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671933490793791503

  • WHAT IS SCIENCE AND HOW DOES IT SCALE IN COMPLEXITY? (RE: “Thats Not Science!”)

    WHAT IS SCIENCE AND HOW DOES IT SCALE IN COMPLEXITY? (RE: “Thats Not Science!”)
    (with links to our videos)

    1. Science consists of producing testimony by compensating for human frailty in sensation, perception, auto-association, prediction, valuation, and cognition. We do so by some means of testing observables, whether external (instrumental) or internal (logically consistent).

    2. The endpoint of all scientific research is the production of irreducible first principles (laws), where the spectrum of laws evolves from the mathematical (continuous descriptions) to categorical (consistent sets), to the computational (discreet operations). (Note that this might be hard for you to understand without an advanced education.)

    3. The commonality(consistencies) between laws produces the first principle (ternary logic of evolutionary computation) of all existence (persistence), and construction from that first principle survives falsification both the first principle (vertical) and the resulting first principles and their applications (horizontal).

    4. This hierarchy of first principles forms a universally commensurable value natural constructive logic of falsification across all domains. Conversely, we can enumerate the dimensions of possible testifiability (realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, constructability, correspondence, rational choice, coherence, completeness(full accounting) within stated limits) and falsify all possible truth claims utterable by man.

    5. Constructability makes use of the ternary logic of behavior, that because sex differences are the result of cognitive bias differences, is rather simple consisting of sex differences in cognition, by the spatial and temporal division of labor, and the need for negotiation on agreement in order to identify survival to evolutionary opportunities.

    6. Likewise, the much more complex ternary logic of the grammars (language), including sex differences in choice, negotiation, and lying, tells us how we try to ‘cheat’ (obtain discounts) on cooperation (parasitism, predation).

    7. We can catalog those *grammars* (methods, techniques) including those of lying and how they are constructed from human cognitive biology, processes, biases.

    8. This means we can, and have, ‘scienced’ both truth and lying, and everything in between. (we have a large spreadsheet of the grammars and the evolution of both truth and lying.

    9. This means all human speech is open to deconstruction (analysis), and that analysis informs us that the vast majority of human speech consists of communication, coercion, persuasion, negotiation, and most of all that is some form of discount-seeking: lying.

    10. Ergo, we have a relatively complete science of decidability and constructive logic of cognition, behavior, and speech.

    11. And as such, we can deconstruct the female and male biases in methods of lying and how both sexes apply them differently.

    12. And as such, we can demonstrate (and have) the sex differences in cognition, in lying, and the Abrahamic (vs the greco-roman) methods of deception, whether by intuition and instinct, or by habit, or by wishful thinking, or by malicious intent.

    So no. You are simply not knowledgeable in such matters, and yes they are somewhat challenging.

    VIDEOS
    The Method:
    Preface:
    https://t.co/NpYt7jWSIE
    Introduction:
    https://t.co/gHjIm7vRcu
    What’s Wrong with Public Speech
    https://t.co/lqaFttQFHD
    An Overview of the Method
    https://t.co/BY6VZ2n6uV
    Basic Concepts
    https://t.co/KvYSdLwiyk
    Disambiguation
    https://t.co/FdgjRsIhrW
    Operational Sentences (Prose)
    https://t.co/FCnzHglZfy
    The Grammars
    https://t.co/m8y74Jkl4K
    Introduction to First Principles
    https://t.co/xcEk75OvAA
    First Principles: Acquisitionism
    https://t.co/k8hVqMcUba

    You can also watch the cognitive science videos in this playlist:
    Foundations: Brain Mind Consciousness.
    https://t.co/x5xWzs58hX

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @enhanced_vibes

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-22 17:04:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671927179855249411

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671915356238102529

  • Intellectual diversity requires lying. Scientific competition requires testifiab

    Intellectual diversity requires lying.
    Scientific competition requires testifiability.
    The liars search for the good at the expense of the true – and create decline and dysgenia.
    The testifiers search from the true and construct construct the good by eliminating the bad.
    This is the difference between philosophical and theological justification, and scientific and logical falsification.
    The good is produced by the eradication of the false, irreciprocal, and bad.
    Thus incentivizing the good.
    All else, all lies of convienicnce, conviction, and care do nothing but incentivize the irresponsible, decadent, bad, declining, and dysgenic.
    That’s what science means.
    That’s why science succeeded.
    Intellectual diversity is just another term for dialectic: Lying.
    Period.
    End of story.
    And there is no thinker live or dead nor will there ever be, who can or will falsify those statements.
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @EPoe187 @AporiaMagazine

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 17:07:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671565571693981696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671164210867482624

  • Let me help: 1) how does logic differ around the world, in different civilizatio

    Let me help:
    1) how does logic differ around the world, in different civilizations, classes, and sexes?
    2) Why did europeans develop reason, logic, empiricism, and science? And why was it such a leap in human development?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 15:20:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671538651304546304

    Reply addressees: @Glace15840573 @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671537233361338368

  • Ah, There you go. Smart. Why do we need empiricism, instrumentation, science, an

    Ah, There you go. Smart.
    Why do we need empiricism, instrumentation, science, and logic?

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 15:11:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671536432186261506

    Reply addressees: @Glace15840573 @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671535616293470208

  • Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, and they are the mo

    Stereotypes are the most accurate measure in social science, and they are the most observably consistent human behavior.

    A biological fact like a statistic can be justified.
    Demonstrated behavior cannot.

    You’re showing your European ‘believe the science’ bias. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 14:49:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671530908850036738

    Reply addressees: @Glace15840573 @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671529961578954753

  • The only kind of person that would pursue exhaustion of undecidability as I have

    The only kind of person that would pursue exhaustion of undecidability as I have in producing the method, grammars, science, and the law, is one who exhausts all possibility of error before coming to a conclusion.

    And yes, you probably would call that stubborn. 😉

    I call it…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 14:44:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671529506341781506

    Reply addressees: @DanAnde23836316 @TheAutistocrat @PaulGottfried6 @ConceptualJames

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671524155945111553

  • WAS THE CHURCH ANTI-SCIENCE? YES BUT ONLY SELECTIVELY: THEY WERE AGAINST LITERAC

    WAS THE CHURCH ANTI-SCIENCE? YES BUT ONLY SELECTIVELY: THEY WERE AGAINST LITERACY AND INDEPENDENT THOUGHT IN THE LAITY.
    It was all well and good if science (natural philosophy as they understood it) was produced and captured by the church whose members feared for their livelihood and often their lives if they contradicted the faith. And outside of the church’s political influence, the europen home was still a religion of the hearth(pagan) – the church participants then were similar in status to the woke bureaucracy today – in fact almost identical. So the state wias still military, technological, and legalistic in operation with the church responsible for ‘the little people’ – more so in western europe and less so in eastern.

    So:
    (a) A common mistake: the Church was captured by the aristocracy (second and third sons under primogeniture) as a land-holding corporation for each local manor – and the church, as an extension of the manor, desired an ignorant, pliable, and cheaply governable labor force (peasantry).
    One of the reasons the Byzantines organzied and forced christianity on the west, and prevented the restoration of the aristocracy and destroyed the arts, letters, institutions, schools, and killed or outcast the philosophers, was because Rome and Constantinople had lacked the population to administer and enforce rule of law (truth) and had learned from the middle east that while the aristocracy could rely on reason and empiricism, the dumb ignorant underclasses of the middle east were (are) intellectually incompetent for anything OTHER than superstition and mythology (lies). (European IQ ~100, and Semitic IQ ~84, meaning more than half of the middle eastern population the byzantines were governing, and only about 15% of europeans were that dumb).

    (b) Ergo the church’s ambition was rule and control by maintaining popular ignorance. So the only anti-science they demonstrated was whenever it challenged church dogma or authority sufficiently to threaten to disempower them.
    This is why religion rapidly collapsed among the literate after the invention of the printing press, and why luther was so determined to give people a bible in their own language and to spread literacy – to end the corruption of the church that held the people in virtual serfdom (half of the land in europe was under the church).
    We can’t often imagine that Rome had faced a labor shortage, ad upon the fall of the roman state, and the loss of the legions, that meant feudalism(self-defense by alliances of warrior landlords) was the only possible means of maintaining any economic survival.

    Economics = Incentives. Writen prose is just the excuses we tell to justify what we’re doing about it. That’s history. And that’s why historical explanation was difficult before we began to understand economics. It’s obvious why empiricism, enlightenment, economic productivity, legal precision and testimony, resulted in histories we now understand were fairly accurate representations in at least the pre-war period. And slightly better now, with Yuval harari and Howard Zin the laggarts. 😉

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @CrastoMervin @OtonielFilho5

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 17:59:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671216142424080399

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671210152933081088