Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#53e0d3204c7cI was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a) a pack of money seeking bureaucratic parasites, (b) a bunch of well meaning political fools (c) a set of scientists of extremely questionable ethics providing malincentives to a+b. Personally my company lost 2M via the Clinton foundation, and I lost about 200k, in November of 09 when it came out that the data had been ‘creatively manipulated’ and ‘counter evidence’ had been actively suppressed. I try not to do business with the government, but it was at MSFT’s request, so we did it. And while I gotta say the POLITICIANS were good well intentioned people, the bureaucracy was fucking corrupt as hell, the two major ‘private’ agencies were corrupt as hell, and the scientists were profit seeking bullshitters. And the left and the public are sheep.

    (Pointing out that, according to a friend, this is a survey of people in the oil industry in Alberta. But every chance I have to discredit the activist community I’m taking…)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 09:24:00 UTC

  • ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague. And

    ON “MATHINESS” IN PHYSICS

    ‘Mathiness’ is a f–cking pseudoscientific plague.

    And people wonder why Hayek called the 20th century an age of mysticism, and I call it the age of pseudoscience.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness

    MATHINESS = SCIENTISM = PSEUDOSCIENCE = “LITERATURE”

    I think the pejorative “Scientism” refers to pseudosciences (overreach in particular), just as “Mathiness” Refers to pseudoscience (“Overreach”).

    FROM THE ARTICLE

    —“Physicists today “write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — you have all the trappings of science,” he says. “But for me, physics is all about making successful predictions. And that’s been lacking.””—

    —“Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can’t explain what was not observed. And they’re not even good at that.”—

    THE ANSWER FROM ECONOMICS

    As far as I know the problem is (a) we have far too many unproductive academics paid to write papers rather than spending money on experiments. And (b) the low hanging fruit has been captured and we may not be able to (yet) capture and use enough energy to perform necessary experiments.

    SCIENCE IS THE DISCIPLINE OF TESTIMONY AND TESTIMONY REQUIRES OBSERVATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS REQUIRE TESTS

    Tests can be “PRE-dictive” if the production of the data is controlled, or “DE-scriptive” if the production of the data is uncontrolled.

    But if we don’t have an observation, and a system of measurement then we don’t have science.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 08:43:00 UTC

  • And then I saw your post….

    –“Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and talking about Aquinas’s attempts to reconcile the Aristotle’s empirical views with christianity. That aquinas didn’t want christianity to follow the path of the muslims in banning any form of empirical logic, but at the same time kept knowledge of God through the bible as paramount. And in my speech I jump to Francis Bacon as being the one to refine the empirical method as a seed of the scientific method that we have today. Bacon, while relying on Aristotle’s empiricism simultaneously despised the flaws in how Aristotle carried them out, felt it was too discursive. Bacon simplified the method to focus on observations and systematically describing the object while being careful to avoid generalizing in the inductive reasoning process of what the observed facts can demonstrate. And then I saw your post…..”— A Friend I think anyone who knows the of the development of scientific thought knows this. It’s cannon. I think we’d say it’s Roger Bacon > { Newton + Francis Bacon + Galileo + Descartes} > … And while we find arguments to the influence of Francis Bacon, and Descartes, they are minor compared to Newton and Galileo. They were all relative contemporaries. Bacon and Galileo corresponded. But it was Galileo that gave us science finally, and he and Descartes led the battle against the church on behalf of Copernicus.

  • And then I saw your post….

    –“Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and talking about Aquinas’s attempts to reconcile the Aristotle’s empirical views with christianity. That aquinas didn’t want christianity to follow the path of the muslims in banning any form of empirical logic, but at the same time kept knowledge of God through the bible as paramount. And in my speech I jump to Francis Bacon as being the one to refine the empirical method as a seed of the scientific method that we have today. Bacon, while relying on Aristotle’s empiricism simultaneously despised the flaws in how Aristotle carried them out, felt it was too discursive. Bacon simplified the method to focus on observations and systematically describing the object while being careful to avoid generalizing in the inductive reasoning process of what the observed facts can demonstrate. And then I saw your post…..”— A Friend I think anyone who knows the of the development of scientific thought knows this. It’s cannon. I think we’d say it’s Roger Bacon > { Newton + Francis Bacon + Galileo + Descartes} > … And while we find arguments to the influence of Francis Bacon, and Descartes, they are minor compared to Newton and Galileo. They were all relative contemporaries. Bacon and Galileo corresponded. But it was Galileo that gave us science finally, and he and Descartes led the battle against the church on behalf of Copernicus.

  • “Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and ta

    —“Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and talking about Aquinas’s attempts to reconcile the Aristotle’s empirical views with christianity. That aquinas didn’t want christianity to follow the path of the muslims in banning any form of empirical logic, but at the same time kept knowledge of God through the bible as paramount. And in my speech I jump to Francis Bacon as being the one to refine the empirical method as a seed of the scientific method that we have today. Bacon, while relying on Aristotle’s empiricism simultaneously despised the flaws in how Aristotle carried them out, felt it was too discursive. Bacon simplified the method to focus on observations and systematically describing the object while being careful to avoid generalizing in the inductive reasoning process of what the observed facts can demonstrate. And then I saw your post…..”— A Friend

    I think anyone who knows the of the development of scientific thought knows this. It’s cannon.

    I think we’d say it’s Roger Bacon > { Newton + Francis Bacon + Galileo + Descartes} > …

    And while we find arguments to the influence of Francis Bacon, and Descartes, they are minor compared to Newton and Galileo.

    They were all relative contemporaries. Bacon and Galileo corresponded. But it was Galileo that gave us science finally, and he and Descartes led the battle against the church on behalf of Copernicus.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-02 14:21:00 UTC

  • There are Lawgivers, Historians, and Scientists, in and then there are Prophets.

    There are Lawgivers, Historians, and Scientists, in and then there are Prophets. The former errs. The latter lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-02 13:32:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002905804654211076

  • There are Lawgivers, Historians, and Scientists, in and then there are Prophets.

    There are Lawgivers, Historians, and Scientists, in and then there are Prophets. The former errs. The latter lies.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-02 09:32:00 UTC

  • Once You See It You Can’t Unsee It

    1 ) Via Positiva vs Via Negativa 2 ) Additive vs Subtractive 3 ) Reason vs Science 4 ) Logic vs Correspondence 5 ) Rationalism vs Empiricism 6 ) Justification vs Falsification 7 ) (((Pilpul vs Critique))) 8 ) (((Marxism))) vs Postmodernism 9 ) (((Abrahamism))) vs Natural Law 10) Conflation vs Deconflation 11) Ambiguation vs Disambiguation It’s: Pilpul Via-Positiva Justification (deception) -vs- Critique via Negativa Falsification (deception). The invention of lying through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion under cover of appeals to reasonableness, rather than Truth.

  • Once You See It You Can’t Unsee It

    1 ) Via Positiva vs Via Negativa 2 ) Additive vs Subtractive 3 ) Reason vs Science 4 ) Logic vs Correspondence 5 ) Rationalism vs Empiricism 6 ) Justification vs Falsification 7 ) (((Pilpul vs Critique))) 8 ) (((Marxism))) vs Postmodernism 9 ) (((Abrahamism))) vs Natural Law 10) Conflation vs Deconflation 11) Ambiguation vs Disambiguation It’s: Pilpul Via-Positiva Justification (deception) -vs- Critique via Negativa Falsification (deception). The invention of lying through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion under cover of appeals to reasonableness, rather than Truth.

  • RT @iosif_lazaridis: “We further show that these ancient Icelanders are markedly

    RT @iosif_lazaridis: “We further show that these ancient Icelanders are markedly more similar to their source populations in Scandinavia an…

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-31 19:02:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002263976288440320