Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Evolutionary Spectrum: Literary, Empirical, and Scientific Conservative Authors

    October 18th, 2018 10:22 AM EVOLUTIONARY SPECTRUM: LITERARY, EMPIRICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS [P]ropertarianism (law of cooperation) is a proof system (logic of falsification) for all cognitive dimensions, and survives falsification in all cognitively possible dimensions (science). Once you have the proof system (tests of falsification), ‘experiential stories’ and ‘opinions’ can be tested. In other words, it’s one thing to have other author’s options and another to show that they are TRUE. So It’s possible to show that the LITERARY conservatives of the Continental Tradition (secular theology) Nietzsche, Evola, Kuhnelt-Leddhin, Stirner, Kirk , Spengler and the EMPIRICAL conservatives (Social Science) Locke, Hume, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, Spencer, et all, were right. But it required SCIENTIFIC conservativism (Hayek, Doolittle) to explain WHY.

  • Evolutionary Spectrum: Literary, Empirical, and Scientific Conservative Authors

    October 18th, 2018 10:22 AM EVOLUTIONARY SPECTRUM: LITERARY, EMPIRICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS [P]ropertarianism (law of cooperation) is a proof system (logic of falsification) for all cognitive dimensions, and survives falsification in all cognitively possible dimensions (science). Once you have the proof system (tests of falsification), ‘experiential stories’ and ‘opinions’ can be tested. In other words, it’s one thing to have other author’s options and another to show that they are TRUE. So It’s possible to show that the LITERARY conservatives of the Continental Tradition (secular theology) Nietzsche, Evola, Kuhnelt-Leddhin, Stirner, Kirk , Spengler and the EMPIRICAL conservatives (Social Science) Locke, Hume, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, Spencer, et all, were right. But it required SCIENTIFIC conservativism (Hayek, Doolittle) to explain WHY.

  • Religion was the “Hard Problem of Social Science”

    October 18th, 2018 9:48 AM

    [I]’ve said this before but religion was the “Hard Problem of Social Science”. I understood the problem of calculation early because of my work in software and AI. It took me only about year to solve the problem of government. It took me about a year to solve the problem of truth. It took about two years (cumulatively) to solve the problem of law and grammars, but cumulatively it took me almost three years to solve the problem of Fitness + Religion + Education + Training.

  • Religion was the “Hard Problem of Social Science”

    October 18th, 2018 9:48 AM

    [I]’ve said this before but religion was the “Hard Problem of Social Science”. I understood the problem of calculation early because of my work in software and AI. It took me only about year to solve the problem of government. It took me about a year to solve the problem of truth. It took about two years (cumulatively) to solve the problem of law and grammars, but cumulatively it took me almost three years to solve the problem of Fitness + Religion + Education + Training.

  • The Universe

    October 18th, 2018 12:41 PM

    “The universe is acausal, and requires no precedence. It has always been, otherwise nothing would be here.” “All existence is consequence of the continuous change by entropy from excited density to calm exhaustion.” “All life serves the only function of concentration and conservation of energy,” “All sentience seves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy” “All consciousness serves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy” “All self perpetuating life forms serve the only function of preserving information necessary to increase the conservation of energy”

  • The Universe

    October 18th, 2018 12:41 PM

    “The universe is acausal, and requires no precedence. It has always been, otherwise nothing would be here.” “All existence is consequence of the continuous change by entropy from excited density to calm exhaustion.” “All life serves the only function of concentration and conservation of energy,” “All sentience seves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy” “All consciousness serves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy” “All self perpetuating life forms serve the only function of preserving information necessary to increase the conservation of energy”

  • “The universe is acausal, and requires no precedence. It has always been, otherw

    “The universe is acausal, and requires no precedence. It has always been, otherwise nothing would be here.”

    “All existence is consequence of the continuous change by entropy from excited density to calm exhaustion.”

    “All life serves the only function of concentration and conservation of energy,”

    “All sentience seves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy”

    “All consciousness serves the only function of increasing the conservation of energy”

    “All self perpetuating life forms serve the only function of preserving information necessary to increase the conservation of energy”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-18 12:41:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTIONARY SPECTRUM: LITERARY, EMPIRICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS

    EVOLUTIONARY SPECTRUM: LITERARY, EMPIRICAL, AND SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATIVE AUTHORS

    Propertarianism (law of cooperation) is a proof system (logic of falsification) for all cognitive dimensions, and survives falsification in all cognitively possible dimensions (science).

    Once you have the proof system (tests of falsification), ‘experiential stories’ and ‘opinions’ can be tested.

    In other words, it’s one thing to have other author’s options and another to show that they are TRUE.

    So It’s possible to show that the LITERARY conservatives of the Continental Tradition (secular theology) Nietzsche, Evola, Kuhnelt-Leddhin, Stirner, Kirk , Spengler and the EMPIRICAL conservatives (Social Science) Locke, Hume, Smith, Hamilton, Burke, Spencer, et all, were right.

    But it required SCIENTIFIC conservativism (Hayek, Doolittle) to explain WHY.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-18 10:22:00 UTC

  • Religious Justification (excuse) vs Scientific Falsification (survival)

    October 17th, 2018 11:01 AM RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION (EXCUSE) VS SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION (SURVIVAL)

    —“Accepting scientific authority without conducting the experiments and doing the research yourself is an expression of faith.”— Clay Caldwell

    [L]ikewise, accepting supernatural authority without direct, testifiable, experience of the people and events, and miracles(magic) is an act of faith. Whereas due diligence in science is an effort to disprove a theory, not prove one. we cannot prove science. We can only find possibilities and seek to falsify them until we can’t. When we can’t falsify them (because of coherence, consistency, and correspondence, and explanatory power, and parsimony) then we have to admit to ourselves that it’s likely true. So it’s not true that one has ‘faith in science’ but one simply does the hard work of falsifying our fantasies such that only that which we cannot make false remains – that’s the entire point of scientific research: to perform due diligence against your imagination, by producing measurements that eliminate the possibility of your imaginings. The problem is that one can read either the research or other’s fictionalism or sensationalism of that research. And it takes great knowledge to understand such research, while only takes the mind of a child to understand mythology by intuition and imitation. So knowledge < wisdom < parable describe a means of graceful failure from those who possess knowledge and ability to those that possess neither. We can train people’s intuition many ways, and it turns out that abrahamic religion, like marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, is just the worst way possible.

  • Religious Justification (excuse) vs Scientific Falsification (survival)

    October 17th, 2018 11:01 AM RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION (EXCUSE) VS SCIENTIFIC FALSIFICATION (SURVIVAL)

    —“Accepting scientific authority without conducting the experiments and doing the research yourself is an expression of faith.”— Clay Caldwell

    [L]ikewise, accepting supernatural authority without direct, testifiable, experience of the people and events, and miracles(magic) is an act of faith. Whereas due diligence in science is an effort to disprove a theory, not prove one. we cannot prove science. We can only find possibilities and seek to falsify them until we can’t. When we can’t falsify them (because of coherence, consistency, and correspondence, and explanatory power, and parsimony) then we have to admit to ourselves that it’s likely true. So it’s not true that one has ‘faith in science’ but one simply does the hard work of falsifying our fantasies such that only that which we cannot make false remains – that’s the entire point of scientific research: to perform due diligence against your imagination, by producing measurements that eliminate the possibility of your imaginings. The problem is that one can read either the research or other’s fictionalism or sensationalism of that research. And it takes great knowledge to understand such research, while only takes the mind of a child to understand mythology by intuition and imitation. So knowledge < wisdom < parable describe a means of graceful failure from those who possess knowledge and ability to those that possess neither. We can train people’s intuition many ways, and it turns out that abrahamic religion, like marxism, postmodernism, and feminism, is just the worst way possible.