Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • OUTSTANDING ISSUE So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics ex

    OUTSTANDING ISSUE

    So far the only outstanding argument is whether metaphysics exist in the plural(languages) or singular (physics), and hopefully I will get to that one in the next week or so.

    But in general, you’re going to be wrong on ANY criticism of P. You’re going to be wrong on possibility of successful revolution under P. You are probably wrong on the desirability of the policies I’ve recommended under P. You might not be wrong on whether I am pitching the best government under P. You are most likely right that the demographics are such that we need ideology and religion in addition to law.

    I did my job. But please stop wasting my time.

    I mean all you (the idiots) are doing is proving my point that public speech should be limited to that under which due diligence has been performed.

    Because you’re no different than the enemy and their lies. Because you use the same technique as the enemy and their lies. Undermine western civilization because you are addicted to lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-22 11:03:00 UTC

  • “Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the

    —“Curt, I don’t hold an objective view of empiricism as, in my understanding the facts are temporary until the community gains further knowledge, which is a long way of saying subjective by my ken. Who do I need to read to understand the objective viewpoint? Am I even wrong in my understanding?”—- Jarrod Marma

    I cannot quite be sure I’m answering you correctly, but if your statement means that:

    – All premises are forever contingent;

    – that all theories serve to search for opportunity fields;

    – that the application of the theory to transformative action – tests the precision of the opportunity field, and the search;

    – and that survival of that application of actions increases the persuasive power of the theory (search and field),

    Then yes.

    But they that’s just the scientific method right? This is the 20th century’s lesson:

    “Mathiness is a proofy thing and contingency is a truthy thing, and never the two shall meet.”

    Which has been the curse of mathiness since the greeks.

    Empiricism doesn’t PROVE anything it ELIMINATES ERROR by compensating for limitations in our perception and cognition.

    The question is,how do we do we apply those rules to speech ABOUT those theories?

    And then we need a system of measurement to test it.

    That system is P’s testimonialism.

    And when you say “Objective” I assume you mean ‘Operational’ and so yes you will need the “Point of View” in Operational grammar. What I suspect (from my observations of your argument) is that you already praxeologically (operationally) walk through any given model. As such I suspect that you do not need the ‘training’ that Operational speech provides. Op speech is just a completion of praxeology.

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-22 08:19:00 UTC

  • A BLACK PILL Here is the harder question. What if all knowledge that begins with

    A BLACK PILL

    Here is the harder question.

    What if all knowledge that begins with the scientific revolution – a term which means ‘that which is beyond human scales of ordinary perception’ – is past the means of comprehension of average people, …

    And (a) it is no longer possible for people to comprehend any of the sciences – and now, with P, even the social sciences.

    And that (b) the reason for the postwar conquest of our people by Abrahamism version 2 (marxism/postmodernism) is because they cannot tolerate tolerate a world beyond their comprehension and therefore are susceptible to the pseudosciences of marxism, the sophisms of postmodernism, and the pseudoscience and sophism of feminism and outright denialism.

    In other words, what If, by completing the sciences, including language(metaphysics), psychology, and social science, and by providing a single commensurable language of all sciences, means that without education (training) it is no longer possible for ordinary people to understand ANY OF THE SCIENCES, not just the physical sciences.

    And so it is not possible to obtain their consent on a constitution of those sciences, only on the policy that results from them – and one’s (my,our, ruling class’s) warranty of those sciences….

    So what if we are just recovering to the level of civic development of Roman civilization today and we are repeating the peak. And without harnessing hydrocarbons we would not have surpassed them. And that without rapid and extensive eugenics, humans can never evolved past the limits of those unable to reason beyond human scale of perception.

    And so devolution is necessary in the present world as it was in the past, and dark ages are going to continue not end. And with each cycle we lose more and more of our hunter-gatherer reserves, until the genome is exhausted and we devolve like the middle east in to ever decreasing genetic ability.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 19:43:00 UTC

  • (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, s

    (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:00:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098598371441422341

    Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480

  • WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason,

    WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL?

    (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.)

    (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.)

    ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.)

    (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.)

    ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.)

    ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.)

    (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. )

    (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. )

    (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence.

    (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.)

    (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.)

    (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.)

    (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.)

    (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism.

    (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 10:51:00 UTC

  • Testimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian CalculusTestimonial Pragmatism & Propertar

    Testimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian CalculusTestimonial Pragmatism & Propertarian Calculus

    SINGULAR SPEECH·THURSDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2018

    Presuppositions of the Scientific Process

    The scientific process allows us to create and test hypothesis such that we can use them to explain phenomena (within a degree of precision) and act on that knowledge (within the scope given by precision); but even such use comes with presuppositions (inherent limits).Presuppositions = [ Regularity | Shared Language ]One needs to presuppose that the phenomena under investigation have useful regularities which we can capture in a model (precise enough for us to act on it). If no regularity existed, our model would fail to help us make any prediction with any degree of reliability, and as such, it would work no better than fiction.Regularity := Unpredictable > Heuristic > Probabilistic > Deterministic > ConstantRegularity (constancy) sets an ideal limit on testing criteria, whose repeated application tests the consistency of models as they evolve, this guarantees constant maintenance of coherent models as a response to advances in instrumentation and logic.Science requires a common set of testing criteria, since without such common criteria, anyone could claim scientific status for their propositions. Science must work by the mapping of the “platonic folds” where theories fail to correspond enough with our data as to have any practical use.Shared Language := Nonsense > Associative > Meaningful > Operational > SynchronousSimultaneity (synchronism) sets an ideal limit on shared languages, which allows us to elaborate descriptions and constrain our imagination to that which someone seeks to communicate.Without (at least) an operational shared language, others will not execute commands (to measure, compare and transform) as intended. Deviations from shared language can result in many self-proclaimed “scientific” communities talking past each other.

    Assumptions & Tools in Specific Disciplines

    Beyond the core presuppositions that define science itself, specific disciplines adjoin premises (which complement the method), procedures (which sets a standard of action), techniques (which defines a common set of operations), and instruments (which expand the scope of exploration).Assumptions = [ Premises | Procedures | Techniques | Instruments ]Premises either evolve all the way from initial hypothesis towards its foundational status (in the scientific field) or result from the addition of ontological and logical assumptions from an expanded shared language.Ontological premises increase the vocabulary of a particular discipline beyond that of the scientific method, thus it provides the basic conceptual framework for further discussion. Scientific revolutions often result from the inspection into the “platonic foldings” (which define limits) for these systems.Logical premises restrict the range of linguistic operations upon which formal models get constructed. One can find the limits of a theory by mapping the points of failure where those limited set of operations predict beyond an acceptable margin of error.Techniques and Instruments evolve along with advances in technology (which expand that our physical senses), developments in the formal logic (which restrict our mental operations), and establishment of social institutions (which organize the community).Procedures evolve along with the tools of science (techniques and instruments) as operational definitions that convert theoretical constructs into measurable, comparable and transmutable data which one can then use.

    Testing Criteria and Testimonial Constraints

    Testing Criteria = [ Categorical | Logical | Empirical | Operational | Moral ] Testimonial Constraints = [ Scope | Information | Time ]The Categorical (which we may also call naming or identity) criterion refers to the proper avoidance of conflation by making explicit the ontology of a theory through labels and definitions, this allows us to eliminate a great deal of ambiguity and vagueness.The Logical (which we may also call internal consistency) criterion refers to the correct use of logical structures in our formal models of a theory and consistent narrative in informal models, this allows to eliminate ambiguity, restrict linguistic operations and to make further inferences.The Empirical (which we may also call external consistency) criterion refers to the use of data obtained from observations and experiments (through procedures) in order to verify predictions from theory.The Operational (which we may also call existential) criterion refers to the use of procedures in order to map from categories extant in our models into data which we can measure, compare and transform.The Moral (which we may also call reciprocal) criterion refers to the preservation of human cooperation, and for such to happen, our transactions must remain productive, symmetrical, warrantied, voluntary, and without negative externality.The Scope (which we may also call falsifiability) constraint refers to the use of empirical data and logical systems to find the limits where a theory fails to work with enough precision for us to act on it.The Information (which we may also call full accounting) constraint refers to the proper accounting of all relevant information through bias removal mechanisms such as double-blind, controlled, randomized trials; evaluation of construct validity; and market judgement (survival upon application).The Time (which we may also call survival) constraint refers to the survival of ideas after repeated exposure to testimonial judgement by all previous criteria to such an extent that we just integrate them into our assumptions.The Categorical, and Logical, and Empirical, and Operational, and Moral criteria judge the regularity of theories on (independent) dimensions of truthfulness, whereas the Information, and Scope, and Time criteria define constraints and obligations upon the application of all.

    Assertions and Arguments under Testimonial Pragmatism

    Assertions := Conceptual > Preferential > Practical > Moral > Rational > Decidable > Objective > IdenticalIdentical (tautological) propositions set an ideal limit on assertions, such that they describe with the greatest parsimony and precision possible.Arguments = [ Emotional | Normative | Logical | Analogical | Empirical | Economic | Testimonial ]Emotional arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by relating it to an emotional response upon the subject. It also includes arguments based on one’s intuitions.Normative arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by comparing it against the rules and norms which one considers to apply, whether its origin is biological, social, economic, or religious.Logical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by analysis of the conceptual (its categorical consistency) and linguistic structure of the argument (its internal consistency).Analogical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by means of a comparison with similar assertions about events in different contexts, such as the reference to specific examples.Empirical arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by using procedures to obtain data (measurement) and compare it with an assertion derived from an hypothesis (its external consistency).Economic arguments support (or contradict) an assertion by means like those of empirical arguments, but whose data comes from uncontrolled variable which one cannot measure directly.Testimonial arguments make use of normative, logical, analogical, empirical, and economic arguments in order to make practical, moral, rational, decidable, and objective assertions that survive the tests of categorical, logical, empirical, and operational consistency under the scope, information, and time constraints.

    Evolutionary Epistemology under Testimonial Pragmatism

    The scientific process works by use of its scientific method, which refers to the application of testing criteria as a way to filter out that which one finds untrue, rather than selection of that which is true.Assumptions := Association > Hypothesis > Theory > Law > AssumptionOne can visualize the process, being one of inquiry, as starting with a problem and proceeding towards a solution, but it does not impose limits upon how one arrives to the initial hypothesis, one is free to engage in creative association.Upon achieving crucial ideas by free association (of ideas), one needs to formulate an hypothesis by proper organization of concepts (hypothesis must survive identity and logical tests) and their operational definitions (which allows one to apply empirical tests).The hypothesis which survives further testing (by our application of empirical tests) become theories which we will perpetually submit to further testing as we evolve beyond our previous assumptions.Once a theory survives application in the markets it becomes a law, which in the case of human cooperation includes the test of reciprocal consistency. Those laws which survive the tests of time (continuous application of tests over time) may evolve into assumptions (our collective premises).While the previous description applies to the evolution of knowledge into premises, similar series apply to the evolution of other discipline specific assumptions such as procedures, techniques, and even instruments.

    Knowledge beyond Testimonial Pragmatism

    Knowledge = [ Presuppositions | Assumptions | Traditions | Experiences ]One can also consider a broader pragmatic hierarchy, where testimonial pragmatism remains at the center as its core (along with its presuppositions). Beyond this core we see each discipline add further assumptions, which must still submit to testimonial judgement.Beyond core presuppositions and discipline specific assumptions one can include inherited traditions and personal experiences. Time tested heuristics (embedded in traditions) have survival value, even if we cannot ascertain its reason in declarative propositions.Personal experiences which do not contradict testimonial law also take part on the hierarchy. Such experiences may help one to compose their own personal morality and may aid in the discovery phase of the scientific process.

    Demonstrated Property under Propertarian Calculus

    Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.

    Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.

    Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.

    Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.

    Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares.

    Common Property – Citizenship, Artificial Property.

    Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.

    Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

    {TO BE CONTINUED…}

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 17:03:00 UTC

  • MORE ON METAPHYSICS ….the idea of ‘proven’ is something I think is meaningless

    MORE ON METAPHYSICS

    ….the idea of ‘proven’ is something I think is meaningless – instead: “remove all reasonable doubt”. Because nothing can be ‘proven’ other than tautologies because nothing is premise-independent other than tautologies. Therefore as far as I know, the question is only one of reasonable doubt.

    And given that only demonstrated preference shows us what one in fact ‘believes’ rather than ‘signals’ including ‘signaling to the self’, only tests of action with skin in the game tell us – even if we desperately want to be honest – what is in fact ‘true’.

    Ergo, as far as I know, there is only one physics, and one metaphysics (most parsimonious paradigm) and many false physics(paradigms) and many false metaphysics (paradigms) we can use to describe the physical. And the only metaphysics we can determine we are not signaling (lying) to ourselves and others about is that of ACTION.

    All else is fiction.

    Anyway. That’s my understanding.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-19 10:25:00 UTC

  • RT @DegenRolf: When research results violate the narrative, people tend to turn

    RT @DegenRolf: When research results violate the narrative, people tend to turn into “intuitive theologians”, bending over backwards to pro…

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-19 04:24:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097713630274093057

  • That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means That which we c

    That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means
    That which we can observe
    That which we can experience
    That which we can deduce from experience
    That which we cannot experience (lack of introspection)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 15:53:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1097524390315610117

  • That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means That which we c

    That which we can observe through instrumental and logical means

    That which we can observe

    That which we can experience

    That which we can deduce from experience

    That which we cannot experience (lack of introspection)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-18 10:52:00 UTC