Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • VOXDAY’s Neologisms of Science and Their Explanations and Minor Corrections

    VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”— Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection. For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology) Scientody: the process (the method) Scientage: the knowledge base Scientistry: the profession —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”— Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet. As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available. However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement. (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable ) Apr 20, 2018 9:16am

  • VOXDAY’s Neologisms of Science and Their Explanations and Minor Corrections

    VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”— Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection. For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology) Scientody: the process (the method) Scientage: the knowledge base Scientistry: the profession —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”— Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet. As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available. However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement. (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable ) Apr 20, 2018 9:16am

  • The difference between well meaning fools and scientists is the use of economics

    The difference between well meaning fools and scientists is the use of economics and demographics in intertemporal affairs. There are many well meaning fools, and they are well meaning because they have never had the responsibility for the organization of persisting populations in a market for survival with competing interests, whether at commercial, industrial, or political scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 10:28:00 UTC

  • VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS. —“t

    VOXDAY’S NEOLOGISMS OF SCIENCE, THEIR EXPLANATIONS, AND MINOR CORRECTIONS.

    —“the great irony is that scientistry now stands condemned by its beloved scientodific metric. The New Atheists reasoned that religious faith must be false on the basis of presuming the eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence to the contrary being false, but now we actually know, we do not merely reason, that it is faith in science that is false due to irreproducibility.”—

    Well, that just means people are NOT in fact practicing science, but pseudoscience. Under falsificationism, we can’t claim something is true until we can’t possibly find a way for it to be false. All pseudoscience works by justification instead “it’s true because of x”, or it “would lead us to the conclusion x because of y”. Physicists, materials scientists(engineers), chemists, and most molecular biologists do in fact practice science. But it’s rather obvious that philosophers, sociologists and psychologists, and to a lesser degree economists, practice pseudoscience. ALthough I should point out that economists are not in fact in the pursuit of truth but utility, and as such largely engage in selection bias (cherry picking). And we can test this by the correlation between political intuitions, and subdiscipline self selection.

    For those that do not understand the neologism (new terminology)

    Scientody: the process (the method)

    Scientage: the knowledge base

    Scientistry: the profession

    —“The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific”—

    Given my love for deflationary language I sort of approve, although for my purposes I don’t know if I’ll switch from using “Scientific Method” to “Scientody” quite yet.

    As for the Alt Right’s Scientific bias, the criteria a,b,c, are those of (a) poppers critical rationalism, (b) a consequence of popper’s critical preference, and (c) the increasing costs of marginal expansions of knowledge requiring increasingly granular investigations. This last “c” is where Popper went wrong, as nearly all philosophers go wrong, in that decidability is provided by the economics of the return: least cost, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the first, cheapest, option available.

    However, contrary to the OP, science is not based on democracy but *the market* for status signaling. The problem is, like any other status signal, status via publication within the scientific method requires high investment, and therefore those investments are often defended. So the market may change slowly and only after a paradigm shift caused by exhaustion of the market for signals either by market failure, or market replacement.

    (h/t: thanks to Bill Anderson, whose OP is not sharable )

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-20 09:16:00 UTC

  • Male and Female Reproductive Cognitive Biases

    Science helps us in matters of mutual misunderstanding between men and women (Or the male brain and female brain): 1) There is a female, genetic, cognitive bias, toward Solipsism, or what women generally refer to as “personalizing” an argument; 2) Just as there is a related female, genetic, cognitive bias to argue the person rather than the argument; 3) just as there is a related female genetic, cognitive bias to NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) – which is the failure to intuit the difference between a distribution (curve) and equality (line); 4) Just as there is a related female genetic cognitive bias to conflate the desirable/undesirable, with the good/true. And… you are demonstrating all those female, genetic, cognitive biases that evolution gave you, so that you would protect your children from any form of outcasting (negative differentiation, boycott) that would limit their chances of prosperity – or even survival. I am not a woman, with solipsistic cognitive biases for the purpose of protecting my offspring, but a man, with analytic cognitive biases for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the competitive capacity of the tribe that consists of my brothers our mates, and offspring. As such while it is in your reproductive interest to be ‘confused’ to some degree, it is in my reproductive interests to not be. You cannot afford to fail to grasp the world of threats to your offspring as it is, just as I cannot afford to fail grasp the world of threats to my tribe as it is. Ergo, I don’t confuse the good/bad with the true/false, nor make the mistake of equality vs distribution, nor deny the overwhelming evidence of demonstrated human nature (prostitution vs war) throughout all of human and pre-human history. What I understand you to be saying is that you do not want the public to hold a low opinion of women like you because it would put you at an even greater status disadvantage than you had been in the past. And that I can understand. But conversely, I don’t make the mistake of saying that because males disproportionately commit violent crime, that there is any chance I will commit violent crime. Nor would I say it was bad or false to say that they do so. Truth is truth. Period. Apr 19, 2018 5:21am

  • Male and Female Reproductive Cognitive Biases

    Science helps us in matters of mutual misunderstanding between men and women (Or the male brain and female brain): 1) There is a female, genetic, cognitive bias, toward Solipsism, or what women generally refer to as “personalizing” an argument; 2) Just as there is a related female, genetic, cognitive bias to argue the person rather than the argument; 3) just as there is a related female genetic, cognitive bias to NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) – which is the failure to intuit the difference between a distribution (curve) and equality (line); 4) Just as there is a related female genetic cognitive bias to conflate the desirable/undesirable, with the good/true. And… you are demonstrating all those female, genetic, cognitive biases that evolution gave you, so that you would protect your children from any form of outcasting (negative differentiation, boycott) that would limit their chances of prosperity – or even survival. I am not a woman, with solipsistic cognitive biases for the purpose of protecting my offspring, but a man, with analytic cognitive biases for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the competitive capacity of the tribe that consists of my brothers our mates, and offspring. As such while it is in your reproductive interest to be ‘confused’ to some degree, it is in my reproductive interests to not be. You cannot afford to fail to grasp the world of threats to your offspring as it is, just as I cannot afford to fail grasp the world of threats to my tribe as it is. Ergo, I don’t confuse the good/bad with the true/false, nor make the mistake of equality vs distribution, nor deny the overwhelming evidence of demonstrated human nature (prostitution vs war) throughout all of human and pre-human history. What I understand you to be saying is that you do not want the public to hold a low opinion of women like you because it would put you at an even greater status disadvantage than you had been in the past. And that I can understand. But conversely, I don’t make the mistake of saying that because males disproportionately commit violent crime, that there is any chance I will commit violent crime. Nor would I say it was bad or false to say that they do so. Truth is truth. Period. Apr 19, 2018 5:21am

  • MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COGNITIVE BIASES Science helps us in matters of mut

    MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE COGNITIVE BIASES

    Science helps us in matters of mutual misunderstanding between men and women (Or the male brain and female brain):

    1) There is a female, genetic, cognitive bias, toward Solipsism, or what women generally refer to as “personalizing” an argument;

    2) Just as there is a related female, genetic, cognitive bias to argue the person rather than the argument;

    3) just as there is a related female genetic, cognitive bias to NAXALT (“not all x are like that”) – which is the failure to intuit the difference between a distribution (curve) and equality (line);

    4) Just as there is a related female genetic cognitive bias to conflate the desirable/undesirable, with the good/true.

    And… you are demonstrating all those female, genetic, cognitive biases that evolution gave you, so that you would protect your children from any form of outcasting (negative differentiation, boycott) that would limit their chances of prosperity – or even survival.

    I am not a woman, with solipsistic cognitive biases for the purpose of protecting my offspring, but a man, with analytic cognitive biases for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the competitive capacity of the tribe that consists of my brothers our mates, and offspring.

    As such while it is in your reproductive interest to be ‘confused’ to some degree, it is in my reproductive interests to not be. You cannot afford to fail to grasp the world of threats to your offspring as it is, just as I cannot afford to fail grasp the world of threats to my tribe as it is.

    Ergo, I don’t confuse the good/bad with the true/false, nor make the mistake of equality vs distribution, nor deny the overwhelming evidence of demonstrated human nature (prostitution vs war) throughout all of human and pre-human history.

    What I understand you to be saying is that you do not want the public to hold a low opinion of women like you because it would put you at an even greater status disadvantage than you had been in the past. And that I can understand.

    But conversely, I don’t make the mistake of saying that because males disproportionately commit violent crime, that there is any chance I will commit violent crime. Nor would I say it was bad or false to say that they do so. Truth is truth. Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-19 05:21:00 UTC

  • The Alt Right Is a Western Ideology that Believes in Science, History, Reality, and The Right of A Genetic Nation to Exist and Govern Itself in Its Own Interests.

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html?m=1 TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests. CURT’S TAKE: ——— SELF DETERMINATION (SOVEREIGNTY): Kin, Excellence, Eugenics, Nationalism (Europe, east asia), – vs – OTHER DETERMINATION (COLLECTIVISM): Corporate, Quantity, Dysgenic, Universalism (india, brazil, levant) ——— In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. Apr 17, 2018 12:39pm

  • The Alt Right Is a Western Ideology that Believes in Science, History, Reality, and The Right of A Genetic Nation to Exist and Govern Itself in Its Own Interests.

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-alt-right-is.html?m=1 TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests. CURT’S TAKE: ——— SELF DETERMINATION (SOVEREIGNTY): Kin, Excellence, Eugenics, Nationalism (Europe, east asia), – vs – OTHER DETERMINATION (COLLECTIVISM): Corporate, Quantity, Dysgenic, Universalism (india, brazil, levant) ——— In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. Apr 17, 2018 12:39pm

  • The Cost of Running Civilizational Tests

    Ancient (primitive) peoples could not afford to perform experiments that tested the theories (promises, testimony) of the priesthoods. And some of those theories were untestable. We have run those tests today. Even though we could not afford them. And the result was the dark ages, and the continental enlightenment/marxist/postmodernist attempt to return to them. Apr 18, 2018 12:26pm