Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545266743 Timestamp) —“Western civilization is Greek philosophy, Roman law and statecraft, British science,and German engineering”—AH edited a bit… lol

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545266743 Timestamp) —“Western civilization is Greek philosophy, Roman law and statecraft, British science,and German engineering”—AH edited a bit… lol

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545788481 Timestamp) There is no war between science and religion – only between science the natural law, and false religion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1545788481 Timestamp) There is no war between science and religion – only between science the natural law, and false religion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546126223 Timestamp) The structure of aphorism, and the use of aphorism, is a signal in and of itself. Western Aphorism, Chinese Koan, Scriptural Quote. Science, Reason, and Deceit.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546464457 Timestamp) —“Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi As I understand my work, given that science is an extension of the law, these are the three options: 1) Law, Sciences(Logics/Mathematics), Measurements. -vs- reality, competition, and testimony w/ warranty THE TRUE (EXISTENTIAL/REAL) – I consider this a ‘a science’. -vs- 2) Philosophy, Literature, History, -vs- sophism, justification, and deceit w/o warranty THE IDEAL – I consider this an ‘art’. -vs- 3) Theology, Scripture, Mythology -vs- supernaturalism, authoritarianism, and deceit w/o warranty THE FANTASY(IMAGINARY) – i consider this a ‘fraud or deceit’ In other words, I am not sure that the old versions of these terms have any meaning. I consider philosophy that which is yet unsolved in the narrow sense, OR the imagination of possible worlds (fantasy literature) in the broader sense. So in the narrow sense I see philosophy closed (completed), and what was philosophy of ‘the big questions’ are solved. In the broad sense of imagining and reconstructing relations that we might prefer or that might be good, there will never be an end to that category of philosophizing. As far as I know theorizing about the true and possible has replaced philosophizing, and theorizing completely under testimonialism has replaced the limited theorizing of the 19th and 20th century sciences. So I tend to say I am a philosopher of natural law because it is all people can understand in the historical context of the available term. But, technically speaking, what I understand that I am doing is the science of the law. Which in itself I think is what natural law must eventually mean. Where natural law and the laws of nature are separated only by conscious choice. And so I don’t see any difference between science and law other than warranty. And as we have seen, science without warranty of due diligence is largely pseudoscience. and pseudoscience is just another term for fraud. So as I understand it, truth = law, and all else are sub-grammars of that law if that is all that is required to solve that problem, or deciets that violate that law. 1) The Physical Laws (invariability), 2) the Natural Law (decidability), 3) History, and Literature (meaning), … … are the only non-false domains and methods of inquiry remaining. Drug addicts defend their habits. There are many ways of drugging the mind. Lies are the most common of them. And stoicism, family, oath-feast-festival, and our nation of all those that came before, all those that are, and all those that are yet to be, are the cure for that addiction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546440685 Timestamp) I am going to enjoy increasing the scope of my reputation by gutting Taleb’s pseudoscience, and in doing so explain why a certain tribe commits so much evil.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546464457 Timestamp) —“Curt, is your field (philosophy) art or science?”— Francesco Principi As I understand my work, given that science is an extension of the law, these are the three options: 1) Law, Sciences(Logics/Mathematics), Measurements. -vs- reality, competition, and testimony w/ warranty THE TRUE (EXISTENTIAL/REAL) – I consider this a ‘a science’. -vs- 2) Philosophy, Literature, History, -vs- sophism, justification, and deceit w/o warranty THE IDEAL – I consider this an ‘art’. -vs- 3) Theology, Scripture, Mythology -vs- supernaturalism, authoritarianism, and deceit w/o warranty THE FANTASY(IMAGINARY) – i consider this a ‘fraud or deceit’ In other words, I am not sure that the old versions of these terms have any meaning. I consider philosophy that which is yet unsolved in the narrow sense, OR the imagination of possible worlds (fantasy literature) in the broader sense. So in the narrow sense I see philosophy closed (completed), and what was philosophy of ‘the big questions’ are solved. In the broad sense of imagining and reconstructing relations that we might prefer or that might be good, there will never be an end to that category of philosophizing. As far as I know theorizing about the true and possible has replaced philosophizing, and theorizing completely under testimonialism has replaced the limited theorizing of the 19th and 20th century sciences. So I tend to say I am a philosopher of natural law because it is all people can understand in the historical context of the available term. But, technically speaking, what I understand that I am doing is the science of the law. Which in itself I think is what natural law must eventually mean. Where natural law and the laws of nature are separated only by conscious choice. And so I don’t see any difference between science and law other than warranty. And as we have seen, science without warranty of due diligence is largely pseudoscience. and pseudoscience is just another term for fraud. So as I understand it, truth = law, and all else are sub-grammars of that law if that is all that is required to solve that problem, or deciets that violate that law. 1) The Physical Laws (invariability), 2) the Natural Law (decidability), 3) History, and Literature (meaning), … … are the only non-false domains and methods of inquiry remaining. Drug addicts defend their habits. There are many ways of drugging the mind. Lies are the most common of them. And stoicism, family, oath-feast-festival, and our nation of all those that came before, all those that are, and all those that are yet to be, are the cure for that addiction.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1546440685 Timestamp) I am going to enjoy increasing the scope of my reputation by gutting Taleb’s pseudoscience, and in doing so explain why a certain tribe commits so much evil.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1546803700 Timestamp) STEREOTYPES ARE THE MOST ACCURATE MEASURE IN SOCIAL SCIENCE via Brandon Hayes, via Rosenborg Predmetsky
    (worth repeating) (just like IQ the most accurate measure in psychology). from: http://www.spsp.org/news-center/blog/stereotype-accuracy-response/ THE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE This blog is not the place to review the overwhelming evidence of stereotype accuracy, though interested readers are directed to SPSR and our updated reviews that have appeared in Current Directions in Psychological Science (Jussim et al, 2015) and Todd Nelson’s Handbook of Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination (Jussim et al, 2016). Summarizing those reviews: Over 50 studies have now been performed assessing the accuracy of demographic, national, political, and other stereotypes. Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology. Richard et al (2003) found that fewer than 5% of all effects in social psychology exceeded r’s of .50. In contrast, nearly all consensual stereotype accuracy correlations and about half of all personal stereotype accuracy correlations exceed .50.[1] The evidence from both experimental and naturalistic studies indicates that people apply their stereotypes when judging others approximately rationally. When individuating information is absent or ambiguous, stereotypes often influence person perception. When individuating information is clear and relevant, its effects are “massive” (Kunda & Thagard, 1996, yes, that is a direct quote, p. 292), and stereotype effects tend to be weak or nonexistent. This puts the lie to longstanding claims that “stereotypes lead people to ignore individual differences.” There are only a handful of studies that have examined whether the situations in which people rely on stereotypes when judging individuals increases or reduces person perception accuracy. Although those studies typically show that doing so increases person perception accuracy, there are too few to reach any general conclusion. Nonetheless, that body of research provides no support whatsoever for the common presumption that the ways and conditions under which people rely on stereotypes routinely reduces person perception accuracy.