Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Propertarianism Isn’t an Ideology.

    October 16th, 2018 4:22 PM PROPERTARIANISM ISN’T AN IDEOLOGY. IT’S THE LOGIC OF RECIPROCITY (Propertarianism) AND THE SCIENCE OF TESTIMONY, COMBINED INTO A FORMAL RATIO-EMPIRICAL SYSTEM OF LAW (Decidability) FOR ETHICS, AND POLITICS. In other words, it’s the solution to social science.

    —“This is crucial for people that want to claim they don’t adhere to the propertarian ideology. It is not an ideology. It is a methodology and much like science it focuses on empirical evidence and the falsification of proposed truth claims. Most people that say they don’t agree with propertarian ideology have an ideology of their own that has been found to be based on lies via propertarian methods – and that’s the real objection.”– Curtus Maximus (A Sock/Alias of Someone Else)

    [Y]ou cannot defeat it. Sorry. You can however, state that despite your ideology being parasitic, predatory(immoral) and dishonest (fraudulent) that you cannot compete by meritocratic (market, evolutionary, eugenic) means, (meaning you’re inferior) and therefore must resort to parasitism, predation, and deceit (fraud), to survive by parasitism, predation, and fraud. It’s ok to do that. It’s just the truth. But you can’t make any kind of moral argument to support it.

  • ATHEISM ISN’T A RELIGION. AT BEST IT’S AN IDEOLOGY Atheism isn’t a religion (and

    ATHEISM ISN’T A RELIGION. AT BEST IT’S AN IDEOLOGY

    Atheism isn’t a religion (and casting it as such is a fraud), it’s a statement of Science (measurement) and used as an Ideology (political change), and arguably a Prosecution (law against fraud and harm).

    The only reason atheism is ridiculous is because we haven’t restored the oath, stoicism (mindfulness), ancestor, and nature worship (celebration). (native western religion)

    As such Criticism without Replacement is rather IDEOLOGICAL, for the simple reason that intuition(emotions) DO REQUIRE training, just as do our bodies, reason (reason, calculation, computation), and memories (knowledge, skills).

    Religion is just one of the layers of education. We can perform that education by various means. The whole ‘lies’ nonsense isn’t a necessary means. There is no evidence of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-16 16:38:00 UTC

  • sigh…. how many french reactors have gone?

    sigh…. how many french reactors have gone?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-15 23:26:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051977614666190850

    Reply addressees: @ShellenbergerMD @PaulEich11

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051976890355859456

    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/1051976890355859456

  • Different issue. Closing for seismic vulnerability is one thing. We still have n

    Different issue. Closing for seismic vulnerability is one thing. We still have no viable alternative to nuclear reactors and all evidence is that no other competitor is on the horizon. We can’t afford to police int’l trade any longer. Either power or 40% decline in std of living.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-15 23:23:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051976956697292801

    Reply addressees: @PaulEich11 @ShellenbergerMD

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051975001811771393

    IN REPLY TO:

    @PaulEich11

    @ShellenbergerMD @curtdoolittle Sits on land covered in geological faults next to the ocean which could be engulfed by a tsunami. What could go wrong? Fukushima anyone? The Japanese still haven’t cleaned that one up and it continues to spew radioactive poison into the Pacific and it has reached California.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1051975001811771393

  • Conservatism Understood as Empiricism: Quote and Counter Explanation

    October 13th, 2018 9:31 AM CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD AS EMPIRICISM: QUOTE AND COUNTER EXPLANATION

    —“Edmund Burke was an English politician who wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France to express his disdain for the destructive havoc wrought by the French Revolution. As a traditionalist-conservative, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. Studying the anti-Enlightenment differs from the study of the Enlightenment because traditional conservatives of the Burkean school reject the idea of formulating a theory upon which to base society. Their views can be more accurately characterized as attitudes or dispositions. Social change is possible, but it must reflect the thinking of “the man on the Clapham omnibus.” Thinkers like Burke and Devlin place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions.”—

    [T]his is a misrepresentation – individuals are not ‘subordinate’ to society and its traditions. It’s that man in every era overestimates his ability and insight (dunning-kruger), so the use of intergenerational contract property and exchange limits intertemporal action to the empirical just as contract and property do in the temporal, and prices and property and exchange do in the immediate. British (Anglo Saxons) are empiricists. They have been empiricists for a very long time. Burkean Conservatism (“Conservatism”) is merely the application of EMPIRICISM to all affairs, using time, property, contract, and markets to limit the hubris of the well intentioned, and the evil of the ill intentioned. ALL DOMINANT MALES ARE NATURALLY BURKEAN (CONSERVATIVE): EMPIRICAL.

  • Conservatism Understood as Empiricism: Quote and Counter Explanation

    October 13th, 2018 9:31 AM CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD AS EMPIRICISM: QUOTE AND COUNTER EXPLANATION

    —“Edmund Burke was an English politician who wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France to express his disdain for the destructive havoc wrought by the French Revolution. As a traditionalist-conservative, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. Studying the anti-Enlightenment differs from the study of the Enlightenment because traditional conservatives of the Burkean school reject the idea of formulating a theory upon which to base society. Their views can be more accurately characterized as attitudes or dispositions. Social change is possible, but it must reflect the thinking of “the man on the Clapham omnibus.” Thinkers like Burke and Devlin place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions.”—

    [T]his is a misrepresentation – individuals are not ‘subordinate’ to society and its traditions. It’s that man in every era overestimates his ability and insight (dunning-kruger), so the use of intergenerational contract property and exchange limits intertemporal action to the empirical just as contract and property do in the temporal, and prices and property and exchange do in the immediate. British (Anglo Saxons) are empiricists. They have been empiricists for a very long time. Burkean Conservatism (“Conservatism”) is merely the application of EMPIRICISM to all affairs, using time, property, contract, and markets to limit the hubris of the well intentioned, and the evil of the ill intentioned. ALL DOMINANT MALES ARE NATURALLY BURKEAN (CONSERVATIVE): EMPIRICAL.

  • CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD AS EMPIRICISM: QUOTE AND COUNTER EXPLANATION —“Edmund

    CONSERVATISM UNDERSTOOD AS EMPIRICISM: QUOTE AND COUNTER EXPLANATION

    —“Edmund Burke was an English politician who wrote his Reflections on the Revolution in France to express his disdain for the destructive havoc wrought by the French Revolution. As a traditionalist-conservative, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. Studying the anti-Enlightenment differs from the study of the Enlightenment because traditional conservatives of the Burkean school reject the idea of formulating a theory upon which to base society. Their views can be more accurately characterized as attitudes or dispositions. Social change is possible, but it must reflect the thinking of “the man on the Clapham omnibus.” Thinkers like Burke and Devlin place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions.”—

    This is a misrepresentation – individuals are not ‘subordinate’ to society and its traditions. It’s that man in every era overestimates his ability and insight (dunning-kruger), so the use of intergenerational contract property and exchange limits intertemporal action to the empirical just as contract and property do in the temporal, and prices and property and exchange do in the immediate.

    British (Anglo Saxons) are empiricists. They have been empiricists for a very long time. Burkean Conservatism (“Conservatism”) is merely the application of EMPIRICISM to all affairs, using time, property, contract, and markets to limit the hubris of the well intentioned, and the evil of the ill intentioned.

    ALL DOMINANT MALES ARE NATURALLY BURKEAN (CONSERVATIVE): EMPIRICAL.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-13 09:31:00 UTC

  • The Scientist Is “the One Who Knocks”

    October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

    —“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

    [W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.

  • The Scientist Is “the One Who Knocks”

    October 12th, 2018 9:54 AM THE SCIENTIST IS “THE ONE WHO KNOCKS”

    —“As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander?”—- Quora User

    [W]ell, I’m an anti-philosophy Philosopher. I use the framework of philosophy (Aristotle’s Categories) and some of the terminology to undermine the sophistry so common in nearly all of philosophy; and I argue fairly frequently that philosophy shares more with religion’s sophism, conflation, fictionalism, and lack of external correspondence. In my understanding, I write Law (Testimony). Law requires tests of the logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal and complete (limits and full accounting). So law requires far more survival criteria than do logic, physical science, and the soft sciences of psychology and sociology. As I understand it, what I do is in fact, Science – if science consists of ‘necessary due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit.’ I find plenty of folly in religion, literature, philosophy, economics, law, soft science, hard science, logic, and mathematics. So every field has it’s people who presume. And the reason they tend to presume is that they understand the FRAMES of just one discipline rather than either Frames of ALL disciplines, or the ONE frame that remains constant across all disciplines: Hypothesis, Due Diligence, Testimony, and Warranty. So while logic and mathematics can intrude on science, and science can intrude on philosophy, and philosophical rationalism can intrude on theology, the opposite cannot be true (ever). The reason being that what we can testify to decreases as we move from math, to logic, to science, to philosophy, to theology. And without testifiability we cannot make truth claims. Because that is what truth means: testimony that is consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete. The universe is not complicated. It’s the host of little comforting lies we tell ourselves that cloud our reason, intuition, and comprehension. And so to borrow an edgy quote, I don’t fear a scientist knocking at my door. Because “I am the one who knocks”.

  • My answer to As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists bol

    My answer to As a philosopher or theologian, how do you feel when scientists boldly venture into your field, making dogmatic statements? Should what is good for the goose also be good for the gander? https://www.quora.com/As-a-philosopher-or-theologian-how-do-you-feel-when-scientists-boldly-venture-into-your-field-making-dogmatic-statements-Should-what-is-good-for-the-goose-also-be-good-for-the-gander/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-12 13:54:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050746494821773312