Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • FIVE TROPES OF TRUTH DENIERS Cherry Pick Evidence Believe in Conspiracy Theories

    FIVE TROPES OF TRUTH DENIERS
    Cherry Pick Evidence
    Believe in Conspiracy Theories
    Rely on Fake Experts (denigrate real experts)
    Engage in illogical reasoning
    Demand science be perfect – that it’s about proof, rather than warranty.

    Can only mitigate not debunk it for these people.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-14 20:50:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448753128447389697

  • I just do the science man. 😉 The science works. -cheers

    I just do the science man. 😉
    The science works.
    -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-12 01:46:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447740311875227648

    Reply addressees: @Logos_Elect

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447739408388661254

  • Well, that’s assuming that we would maintain the existing processes. In other wo

    Well, that’s assuming that we would maintain the existing processes. In other words, I can’t bet against innovations in science. On the other hand if I’m right about evolutionary computation you’d HAVE to be right.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-11 18:22:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447628792248274945

    Reply addressees: @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447628205523939337

  • God didn’t need to be particularly cunning, he just needed to use the right rule

    God didn’t need to be particularly cunning, he just needed to use the right rule. He used one: Evolve.
    Me: “Excuse me God. Did you ever consider that evolution kind of sucks for those of us evolving?”
    God: “Yeah, well, it’s the only way to get there – so get on with it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-10 00:48:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1447001141091389451

  • No. That’s you’re tendency to attribute intent to a difference in priorities of

    No. That’s you’re tendency to attribute intent to a difference in priorities of animals. They solved a problem. All solutions include trade offs. The politicization of the issue caused a bias in trade offs. LEARN that your paranoia is a defect in your reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 14:44:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446849121038577667

    Reply addressees: @hoeberian @WorMartiN @VeritateIn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446844685864013834

  • This isn’t worth my time. I stay out of the vaxx discussion on purpose because t

    This isn’t worth my time. I stay out of the vaxx discussion on purpose because the science is not clear enough to make a judicial argument. Ergo the problem is choice. The herd people are afraid of those who choose differently. Violates social proof. You can’t change them.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-09 03:32:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446679904343445506

    Reply addressees: @hoeberian @VeritateIn

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446679531167825927

  • More Against Critics of Sabine Hossenfelder

    —“Isn’t her work about superdeterminism?. The maths thing is just her daft opinion about why progress isn’t fast enough for her. Maybe she is just annoyed her theory isn’t taken more seriously.”—
    In physics (like all sciences) there are different disciplines. People who produce theories. People who design tests. People who produce data. People who work with data, people who synthesize data that’s been worked on. This is the division of labor in almost every field in or out of the sciences. It’s the same even in entrepreneurship.
    There is a human tendency to evade seeking to understand, seeking to produce alternative arguments, and seeking to deny their need to cognitively and behaviorally adapt by the use of ‘gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, canceling, and denial.’ (GSRRM for short). 
    You’re making an ad hominem attack on the individual, not on the argument. It means you can’t defeat the argument. If you can defeat the argument you might be able to explain the incentives that that person is following. But GSRRM so to speak is claiming you have knowledge and understanding that you do not demonstrably possess.
    In Sabine’s case she makes a very clear set of arguments (and she’s right) and this debate has existed in mathematics and physics since Hilbert. While most fields reformed SOME of science – requiring we limit claims to testimony that is in fact testifiable – the failure of mathematicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to avoid foundations in set theory and instead in computation re-idealized mathematics.
    This has resulted on a conflict between what is testifiable in physics under the limitations of mathematics that is insufficient for the description of observables. And it has resulted in mathematical observables not physical observables. And this is all an extension of ‘just calculate’. Which is where ‘math and physics went wrong’.
    S0 the failure of our physics community over the past seventy years is largely due to the incorrect founding of mathematics in sets, producing a mathematics of analogies rather than existence, and a resulting physics of analogies rather than existence, and limited to testimony that causes the failure to transform the discipline back to realism, naturalism, materialism, and away from ‘infectin’ by idealism.
    You may or may not be able to understand that and I’m one of the top two or three people living that understand this problem – and all of us have a background in computer science and artificial intelligence (and me in economics and law), where it’s well known that mathematics has a limit and ‘we’re at it’.

  • More Against Critics of Sabine Hossenfelder

    —“Isn’t her work about superdeterminism?. The maths thing is just her daft opinion about why progress isn’t fast enough for her. Maybe she is just annoyed her theory isn’t taken more seriously.”—
    In physics (like all sciences) there are different disciplines. People who produce theories. People who design tests. People who produce data. People who work with data, people who synthesize data that’s been worked on. This is the division of labor in almost every field in or out of the sciences. It’s the same even in entrepreneurship.
    There is a human tendency to evade seeking to understand, seeking to produce alternative arguments, and seeking to deny their need to cognitively and behaviorally adapt by the use of ‘gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing, psychologizing, undermining, canceling, and denial.’ (GSRRM for short). 
    You’re making an ad hominem attack on the individual, not on the argument. It means you can’t defeat the argument. If you can defeat the argument you might be able to explain the incentives that that person is following. But GSRRM so to speak is claiming you have knowledge and understanding that you do not demonstrably possess.
    In Sabine’s case she makes a very clear set of arguments (and she’s right) and this debate has existed in mathematics and physics since Hilbert. While most fields reformed SOME of science – requiring we limit claims to testimony that is in fact testifiable – the failure of mathematicians during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to avoid foundations in set theory and instead in computation re-idealized mathematics.
    This has resulted on a conflict between what is testifiable in physics under the limitations of mathematics that is insufficient for the description of observables. And it has resulted in mathematical observables not physical observables. And this is all an extension of ‘just calculate’. Which is where ‘math and physics went wrong’.
    S0 the failure of our physics community over the past seventy years is largely due to the incorrect founding of mathematics in sets, producing a mathematics of analogies rather than existence, and a resulting physics of analogies rather than existence, and limited to testimony that causes the failure to transform the discipline back to realism, naturalism, materialism, and away from ‘infectin’ by idealism.
    You may or may not be able to understand that and I’m one of the top two or three people living that understand this problem – and all of us have a background in computer science and artificial intelligence (and me in economics and law), where it’s well known that mathematics has a limit and ‘we’re at it’.

  • You can’t even imagine it exists. It’s a bit like traveling back two hundred yea

    You can’t even imagine it exists. It’s a bit like traveling back two hundred years and discussing genetics, cognitive science, transistors, computers, with church fathers. Darwin was a lightweight by comparison. Seriously.

    You’re obsolete. You just don’t know it yet.

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-08 00:26:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446270790597582858

    Reply addressees: @OrganLawOffices @SCR1124 @woodruffbets

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446268670280445953

  • I just published Context for Sabine Hossenfelder’s RI Explanation of Dark Matter

    I just published Context for Sabine Hossenfelder’s RI Explanation of Dark Matter https://link.medium.com/aa6y58grakb

    Source date (UTC): 2021-10-07 18:41:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446183949970067459