Theme: Science

  • I had to master every field. It was necessary to unify fields (“Consilience”). T

    I had to master every field. It was necessary to unify fields (“Consilience”). The end result is an extraordinary simplicity only difficult because of what we must unlearn or relearn.

    Justification was a failure. Falsification a step. Adversarialism the solution. For us to… https://t.co/KpBvuWllUq


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-22 18:36:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882135367249510796

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882130923015295219

  • If you spend time on that question you will find the opposite. Neuroscience

    If you spend time on that question you will find the opposite. Neuroscience.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-22 18:17:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882130391081144367

    Reply addressees: @ArgonGruber @RussellJohnston

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882130156573401509

  • Correct. The question remains: have philosophy and science been disambiguated, a

    Correct. The question remains: have philosophy and science been disambiguated, and is the result truth vs choice? And it is.

    Counsel is that I should refer to my work as metascience. But I prefer unification.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-22 18:13:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882129519307559095

    Reply addressees: @RussellJohnston @ArgonGruber

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1882115084677247157

  • Just posted a clarification. Not that you’re wrong, but that ‘scientific’ is pro

    Just posted a clarification. Not that you’re wrong, but that ‘scientific’ is probably point not a direction.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-21 18:50:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881776473402748993

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881775471530291528

  • WHAT DOES SCIENTIFIC MEAN? 😉 Given that we failed to define science and the sci

    WHAT DOES SCIENTIFIC MEAN? 😉
    Given that we failed to define science and the scientific method in the 20th century, and my work that it’s the production of testimony which is why it evolved out of the greek political system (courts), is only over the past 15 years, I think you’d need to rephrase any assertion of when natural philosophy evolved into empiricism and then into science.
    In general we separate rational, from logical, from empirical, from scientific, from operational.
    In my understanding that’s the evolution of epistemology necessary for the production of increases in precision of testifiable testimony

    Reply addressees: @RichardArion1


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-21 18:50:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881776338216124416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881774820544880955

  • WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER? 😉 (I consider myself a scientist, even

    WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHER? 😉
    (I consider myself a scientist, even if that science is largely epistemology. For what is science but epistemic?)
    Philosophy is best understood as a record of the history of our attempt at understanding by the middle and upper middle class’ attempt to persuade the aristocracy to modify their and collective behavior. I didnt study philosophy until I wanted to know what went wrong. And then I studied it from recent to historical – backwards. This is why I have a low opinion of people who try to USE philosophy, despite saying philosophy is often very hard.
    You almost can’t grasp all the traps and errors in human thinking whether present or historical without that study, but you can’t really find any answers there. The answers are in history (evidence) and science (and in my case, operationalism which is the end point of science.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-21 18:22:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881769414959452160

  • MORE FALSIFYING OF TALEB’S NONSENSE ON IQ Kareem: I’ve addressed this issue for

    MORE FALSIFYING OF TALEB’S NONSENSE ON IQ
    Kareem:
    I’ve addressed this issue for years now, and it resurfaces with every generation of college grads. One of the virtues of the internet and social media is that ideas—good and bad—become widely accessible.

    Unfortunately, bad ideas have extraordinary durability, much like rumor, gossip, bad faith, undermining, and sedition.

    Why? Because post-1960 college education trains people to be witty and utilitarian in persuasion, not smart, true, or moral. (and they are trying to redefine moral as infantilizing out of responsibility rather than ‘adulting’ into responsibility.

    You might already understand the differences in mathematical, algorithmic, physical, operational, and verbal reducibility—the limits of each, especially mathematics. Certainly Wolfram is trying to address the first two.

    However, you may not be aware of the intuitionistic movement in mathematics, the operational movement in physics, the praxeological(Operational) movement in economics, or the operationalist movement in psychology. These are all responses—albeit only marginally successful—to the challenge of explaining the limits of mathematics, logic, and philosophy.

    As an operational epistemologist, I require that a claim not only reflect correlation in data but also be constructible from first principles (think universal laws at each scale of emergent complexity that overcome entropy) – each of those sales reflecting the disciplines.

    I posted a similar response yesterday, but as you can see from my archives, I’ve debated this issue with Taleb for years. He has blocked me on every platform because of it.

    Why? Because he has an agenda—a career built on that agenda—which is not only a malinvestment, but false, immoral and unethical. His attacks on IQ are just another attempt to perpetuate that malinvestment and failure – a failure which undermines his important insight of black swan events on one hand, and mandelbrot’s understanding of mathematical and computational representation.

    LINK TO THE FOLLOWING POST
    https://t.co/D02Jl5EByP

    TEXT OF THE POST

    Q: Curt—”Excuse me if you’ve already expounded upon this, but what are your thoughts on Taleb’s (@nntaleb) argument?”–
    Joe Waldmann @J58039716

    A: I’ve written about this, made a video, argued with Taleb, and been blocked by him on every platform. So yes, I’ve expounded on it. 😉

    Here’s a rough summary, with links below:

    Taleb’s Sophistry:
    He’s employing the same sophistry he used in his commentary on the stock market. He defends individuals who act with lower ethical standards, doing so as part of his “ethnic defense.” The character Fat Tony, for example, is not moral. Neither is Taleb. Their strategies rely on exploiting high-trust cultures where the majority act morally—making their amoral behavior profitable. This dynamic highlights why the West is particularly vulnerable to Semitic deceptions. Taleb resides in New York, within one of the least moral demographics in the most moral country capable of the highest capital formation, not in the Middle East, where such ethics are ordinary but capital formation is impossible.

    The Graph:
    Taleb’s argument centers on individual returns on intelligence, not the returns on the distribution of intelligence within a polity. This reflects his bias toward individualism and tribalism over European commons-oriented thinking.

    Key Points:

    (a) Conscientiousness outweighs intelligence for wealth accumulation, regardless of IQ.

    (b) Intelligence grants access to novelty and increasing scales of complexity, but its primary benefits are error reduction and risk mitigation—not necessarily creativity or innovation.

    (c) Intelligence is most effective in producing returns within a population whose members are within a certain percentage of your ability. (This might require further explanation, but it’s intuitive once understood.)

    (d) The higher one’s intelligence, the harder it is to create marginal differences with peers, even with conscientiousness and extraordinary work capacity.

    (e) Highly intelligent individuals rely less on wealth accumulation because they already possess significant “intelligence capital.”

    (f) Ergo, diminishing marginal returns on intelligence arise from decreasing incentives, smaller audiences capable of engaging with your knowledge, and fewer opportunities for direct application. (Ideas must be simplified as they cascade through populations of declining comprehension.)

    LINKS TO MORE MATERIAL:
    Video and Script:
    https://t.co/8VrdgNqMez

    Response to @jollyheretic:
    Intelligence in evolutionary context:
    https://t.co/GfF2Ud0IKj
    Incentives behind Taleb’s IQ denial:
    https://t.co/vmMg9dxtk5
    Taleb’s campaign of immorality:
    https://t.co/vcWE6m1gi7

    More Material:
    Comments on Weinstein Brothers and Taleb:
    https://t.co/rIi5cb9rft
    To Nassim Taleb re: A Decline in Violence is Not a Decline in Predation – But A Shift:
    https://t.co/2ExVpMsXla
    Limits of 20th-Century Thought:
    https://t.co/iNu5GW6RW9

    There’s more, but this should suffice.
    CHEERS
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @kareem_carr


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-20 18:35:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881410259228725248

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881356963864596558

  • Yes. Esp. South america. Well studied. Use Perplexity for cites

    Yes. Esp. South america. Well studied. Use Perplexity for cites.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-20 00:58:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881144198759690551

    Reply addressees: @curtmorehouse @robkhenderson

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1881008005770273150

  • Rebuilding wasn’t so much necessary as continuing the process of increasing prec

    Rebuilding wasn’t so much necessary as continuing the process of increasing precision given the increases in knowledge in and across domains. The resulting simplicity was the surprise.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-19 03:04:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880813443235946830

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyOnX

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880768166768566276

  • EVOLUTIONARY KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREDICTION AND CONSTRAINT

    EVOLUTIONARY KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PREDICTION AND CONSTRAINT.
    The universe cannot predict per se, as that requires neurons and nervous systems. That said the universe can CONSTRAIN innovation and adaptation by limiting experimentation and expenditure of energy… https://twitter.com/WalterIII/status/1880562693079552021


    Source date (UTC): 2025-01-18 19:54:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1880705393439162628