Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • We heretics are the Galileos, Newtons, and Darwins of social science, and “they”

    We heretics are the Galileos, Newtons, and Darwins of social science, and “they” are the established church of pseudoscientific faith. We should expect the same treatment as past heretics: “they” find the Truth unbearable and will hold to their false faith regardless of cost.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-15 23:54:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294784591346184192

    Reply addressees: @MrMatt444 @MinorityOfOne75 @jbossy56 @IonaItalia @charlesmurray

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1294770909740445696

  • We heretics are the Galileos, Newtons, and Darwins of social science, and “they”

    We heretics are the Galileos, Newtons, and Darwins of social science, and “they” are the established church of pseudoscientific faith. We should expect the same treatment as past heretics: “they” find the Truth unbearable and will hold to their false faith regardless of cost.

    Reply addressees: @MrMatt444 @MinorityOfOne75 @jbossy56 @IonaItalia @charlesmurray

  • Sure. Not sure if you’re a follower. If not, thought for you: Justificationism(p

    Sure. Not sure if you’re a follower. If not, thought for you:

    Justificationism(phil) vs Falsificationism(sci) vs Adversarialism(law): Logically Constructible(Internally Consistent) and Externally Correspondent(Observable) and Survives in the Market for Application(Existential).

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-10 18:41:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292893740835704832

    Reply addressees: @Mowiztheflow

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292882719807082496

  • Sure. Not sure if you’re a follower. If not, thought for you: Justificationism(p

    Sure. Not sure if you’re a follower. If not, thought for you:

    Justificationism(phil) vs Falsificationism(sci) vs Adversarialism(law): Logically Constructible(Internally Consistent) and Externally Correspondent(Observable) and Survives in the Market for Application(Existential).

    Reply addressees: @Mowiztheflow

  • Consciousness and Understanding ‘the Grammars’ Is About as Important as Understanding Basic Physics.


    (a) This Paper uses the “lego” system of postmodern pseudoscience by accumulating cites while proposing no operational dependencies just loose analogies. (b) it’s true we don’t know if frequency ‘matters’. (c), slow speed of human memory feedback(recursion) in hierarchies …

    … explains the persistence of experience. (d) economics(information, delay) rather than physics (energy, immediate) better explains brain function for the same reasons. (d) geometric (spatial) modeling in the hippocampal region explains consciousness. (e) the same for …

    … competition for attention (economics). (f) action is calculated along with prediction, so explains why we detect choice before aware of it – explaining reaction times. (g) dorsal interrupt allows capture of state (control) for impulsive reactions. (h) cerebellum appears to…

    … produce timing across actions (very complex), (i) We know the brain structures …that produce each of these phenomena. As far as I know, the mind including consciousness is solved, variation in geometry trivial, variations in experience minor, …

    … weights (personality) limited, and the primary difference in experience due to predictions (imagination), given wide variation in experiences. So while task performance is marginally indifferent between individuals, predictive performance and emotional reaction to ….

    … those predictions account for what we perceive as wide variation in experience. In other words, we vary greatly in prediction and evaluation, but not sense-perception. This is rather obvious in retrospect.However, it allows not only adaptation but division of cognitive labor.

    .. and this division of cognitive labor is just as important to our evolutionary history as is language to transmit information between us.

    … To understand the operational function of the brain it’s better to follow Jeff Hawkins, and Joscha Bach, etc. and the research they cite. Computational and economic(real) thought is a profound improvement over mathematics and physics(ideal) b/c accounts for causality and time.

    … FYI: I was asked to comment on this paper b/c it’s an area of my work. And the author blocked me for this thread. But just as physics is supporting a vast population of pseudoscientists, so is almost every other area of the academy other than applied math, compsci, and biochem.

    … If you can’t state it’s dependencies (realism, naturalism ) measure it (categories) or operationalize (transformations) you don’t understand it (narration).

    … It’s this difference between verbal-idealism(words), mathematical-physical idealsism(existence), and computational-economic thought (action).

    … At this point I’m convinced that understanding ‘the grammars’ is about as important as understanding basic physics.

    RE: Author Complaint: I wasn’t responding to you, but to the audience that asked me to comment, given that I do work on the operational explanation of mind. You claimed you presented a ‘theory’ but didn’t. I explained why, as another illustration of what’s wrong with the academy and how to reform it.

  • Consciousness and Understanding ‘the Grammars’ Is About as Important as Understanding Basic Physics.


    (a) This Paper uses the “lego” system of postmodern pseudoscience by accumulating cites while proposing no operational dependencies just loose analogies. (b) it’s true we don’t know if frequency ‘matters’. (c), slow speed of human memory feedback(recursion) in hierarchies …

    … explains the persistence of experience. (d) economics(information, delay) rather than physics (energy, immediate) better explains brain function for the same reasons. (d) geometric (spatial) modeling in the hippocampal region explains consciousness. (e) the same for …

    … competition for attention (economics). (f) action is calculated along with prediction, so explains why we detect choice before aware of it – explaining reaction times. (g) dorsal interrupt allows capture of state (control) for impulsive reactions. (h) cerebellum appears to…

    … produce timing across actions (very complex), (i) We know the brain structures …that produce each of these phenomena. As far as I know, the mind including consciousness is solved, variation in geometry trivial, variations in experience minor, …

    … weights (personality) limited, and the primary difference in experience due to predictions (imagination), given wide variation in experiences. So while task performance is marginally indifferent between individuals, predictive performance and emotional reaction to ….

    … those predictions account for what we perceive as wide variation in experience. In other words, we vary greatly in prediction and evaluation, but not sense-perception. This is rather obvious in retrospect.However, it allows not only adaptation but division of cognitive labor.

    .. and this division of cognitive labor is just as important to our evolutionary history as is language to transmit information between us.

    … To understand the operational function of the brain it’s better to follow Jeff Hawkins, and Joscha Bach, etc. and the research they cite. Computational and economic(real) thought is a profound improvement over mathematics and physics(ideal) b/c accounts for causality and time.

    … FYI: I was asked to comment on this paper b/c it’s an area of my work. And the author blocked me for this thread. But just as physics is supporting a vast population of pseudoscientists, so is almost every other area of the academy other than applied math, compsci, and biochem.

    … If you can’t state it’s dependencies (realism, naturalism ) measure it (categories) or operationalize (transformations) you don’t understand it (narration).

    … It’s this difference between verbal-idealism(words), mathematical-physical idealsism(existence), and computational-economic thought (action).

    … At this point I’m convinced that understanding ‘the grammars’ is about as important as understanding basic physics.

    RE: Author Complaint: I wasn’t responding to you, but to the audience that asked me to comment, given that I do work on the operational explanation of mind. You claimed you presented a ‘theory’ but didn’t. I explained why, as another illustration of what’s wrong with the academy and how to reform it.

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • It’s Not Clear Funding Instincts is Good for Us

    –“Replicating past research, the study showed that higher levels of gender equality were associated with larger differences in personality between the sexes.”—

    [T]his is again, politically manipulative. The correct answer is that wealth and freedom to pursue instincts produces investigation of, development of expertise in, and specializtion in those instincts.

    That pursuit of instincts produces competing factions in the short term, OR produces speciation in the long term, OR both: competing factions, AND speciation (This is my understanding.).

    This evidence leads to the opposite possible interpretation: (a) that following of instincts is somehow ‘good’, when most of civilizaation consists of institutions both normative and informal and institutional and formal for domesticating instincts, and (b) that we are failing integration into civilization in favor of instincts that evolved prior to civilization and lead to de-civilization.

    In ther words, are we are funding selfishness. My present understanding is that compromises are necessary where they are necessary. And again,that homogenous ethonicentric people can tolerate instinctual specialization, but as diversity increases we cannot.

    —“Countries with very high levels of gender equality, such as Sweden and Norway, showed differences in personality between the sexes that were around twice as large as countries with substantially lower levels of gender equality, such as China and Malaysia.

    Furthermore, women generally rated themselves as more worried (neuroticism), social (extraversion), inquisitive (openness), caring (agreeableness) and responsible (conscientiousness) than men, and these relative differences were larger in gender equal countries.

    “Insofar as these traits can be classified as stereotypically feminine, our interpretation of the data is that as countries become more progressive men and women gravitate towards their traditional gender norms. But, we really don’t know why it is like this, and sadly our data does not let us tease out the causal explanations,” says Erik Mac Giolla, Ph.D. in Psychology”—

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The Fal

    “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/08/10/science-itself-is-a-testable-claim-in-p-law-and-we-can-use-it-to-end-the-false-religion/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-08-10 17:46:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1292880087507968002

  • “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The Fal

    “Science” Itself Is A Testable Claim in P-Law – And We Can Use it To End The False Religion https://t.co/dlTPfTCodn