Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Psychology Is A Pseudoscience – A Philosophy Gradually Overcoming 150 Years Of Outright Nonsense. Here Is The Alter

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

  • If You Were Given 10 Trillion Dollars, A Team Of The World’s Best Scientists And The Use Of Any Scientific Facility Or Facilities In The World And You Were Told To Solve One Scientific Problem What Would It Be?

    There are a few well known ‘hard problems’.

    1) The unnecessary senescence of cells
    2) A battery with the energy density of gasoline.
    3) The constitution of dark matter (the missing ‘charges’)
    4) General Artificial Intelligence.

    I suspect that we will solve them in reverse order.
    All of the problems are seemingly solvable – just very expensive.

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-given-10-trillion-dollars-a-team-of-the-worlds-best-scientists-and-the-use-of-any-scientific-facility-or-facilities-in-the-world-and-you-were-told-to-solve-one-scientific-problem-what-would-it-be

  • If You Were Given 10 Trillion Dollars, A Team Of The World’s Best Scientists And The Use Of Any Scientific Facility Or Facilities In The World And You Were Told To Solve One Scientific Problem What Would It Be?

    There are a few well known ‘hard problems’.

    1) The unnecessary senescence of cells
    2) A battery with the energy density of gasoline.
    3) The constitution of dark matter (the missing ‘charges’)
    4) General Artificial Intelligence.

    I suspect that we will solve them in reverse order.
    All of the problems are seemingly solvable – just very expensive.

    https://www.quora.com/If-you-were-given-10-trillion-dollars-a-team-of-the-worlds-best-scientists-and-the-use-of-any-scientific-facility-or-facilities-in-the-world-and-you-were-told-to-solve-one-scientific-problem-what-would-it-be

  • WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE). Human nature invests

    WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW (SCIENCE) NOT PHILOSOPHY (CHOICE).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems.

    Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see.

    I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected.

    —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”—

    Well, exactly.

    –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”—

    The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence).

    Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons.

    In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it.

    People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism.

    And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism.

    So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth).

    Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-25 12:42:00 UTC

  • Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

  • Why I Write Natural Law (Science) Not Philosophy (Choice).

    Human nature invests minimum to gain maximum and is quite lazy when it comes to unnecessary precision, but then attempts to use imprecise terms (and ideas) to solve precise problems. Human experties in sciences (deflationary grammars) serves to deflate any given level of abstraction. I have a chart you need to see. I understand the unification of the sciences and I think plenty of other people do – but it’s just very different from what we’d expected. —“the inference would be that a corresponding language of specificity would be a part of that.”— Well, exactly. –“However, that is not why we have failed at achieving”— The reason we failed is that there is a market for agency via deception (non-correspondence, inconsistency, and in-coherence), just as much as there is a market for agency via truthfulness(correspondence, consistency, and coherence). Ergo, just as we have eliminated the markets for violence, theft, fraud, free riding, etc, we can eliminate the market for falsehoods: by law. The problem was (and is no longer) a criteria for warranty of due diligence against falsehood of information entered intot he informational commons. In other words, I’m not ‘selling’. I’m not interested in convincing people that crime is crime, only in producing law that states what crime is, and therefore outlaws it. People will then respond accordingly – as they always have done – to incremental suppression of parasitism. And that is the means by which we have produced civilization: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the incremental expansion of the law, by the discovery and cataloging the means by which man engages in parasitism. So I am not really writing philosophy (choice and preference), but law (necessity and truth). Hence my lack of concern for what ‘people think’. People have ‘thought’ that outlawing each form of parasitism was bad in every generation because it forces them into survival in the service of others in the market – and non-survival if they do not.

  • Do You Have A Problem With Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs, In Psychology (or Philosophy)?

    It’s ‘fanciful freudianism’ that makes sense the same way horoscopes make sense.

    That said it can be stated scientifically as humans, like every other organism, seek to acquire. As they accumulate near term satisfactions they increasingly seek to accumulate longer term satisfactions – for the simple reason that we constantly seeks satisfactions no matter what level of satisfaction we currently possess.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-a-problem-with-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs-in-psychology-or-philosophy

  • Do You Have A Problem With Maslow’s Hierarchy Of Needs, In Psychology (or Philosophy)?

    It’s ‘fanciful freudianism’ that makes sense the same way horoscopes make sense.

    That said it can be stated scientifically as humans, like every other organism, seek to acquire. As they accumulate near term satisfactions they increasingly seek to accumulate longer term satisfactions – for the simple reason that we constantly seeks satisfactions no matter what level of satisfaction we currently possess.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-a-problem-with-Maslows-Hierarchy-of-Needs-in-psychology-or-philosophy

  • Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?

    Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.

    THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH

    4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
    Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)

    3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
    Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.

    2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
    The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.

    1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
    The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.

    So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.

    POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes

  • Do You Think That Postmodernism Has Had A Negative Or Positive Effect On Education, Especially In Literature Classes?

    Postmodernism can be best understood in the context of a revolt against science and reason, that is a repetition of the enlightenment revolt against empiricism, and the ancient world’s revolt against reason.

    THE GENERATIONAL REVOLTS AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH

    4 – The Revolt Against Science – Using Publishing and Major Media (19th-20th)
    Marxism/Freudianism/Boazianism(Pseudoscience) > Cultural Marxism(Propaganda) > Postmodernism (Pseudo-rationalism: denial of reality, logic, science and truth.)

    3 – The Revolt Against Empiricism – Using the Printing Press (17th-18th)
    Rousseau(Literary) > Kant(Rationalism) > Continental Philosophy(“Moral Fictionalism”) – the attempt to recreate Germanicized Christianity in secular prose.

    2 -The Revolt Against Reason – Using Writing and Pulpit (1st-7th)
    The reaction to greek idealism and adoption by Rabbinical Judaism (Revolt against the rationality and aristocracy) > Christianity(undermine from within) > Islam (conquer). The revolt of the pastoralists against the Agrarians.

    1- The Revolt Against The Invention of Aristocracy – Using “Writings of the Gods” (~1500bc)
    The European vs Indo-Iranian divide and the invention of scriptural religion.

    So, we see the same process of destruction of Western Civilization, by the same means the the great civilizations of the ancient world were destroyed by Christianity (western roman empire), and Islam (Byzantium, North Africa, Persia, and Levantine – creating the Abrahamic Dark Age.

    POSTMODERNISM IS A REVOLT AGAINST SCIENCE, REASON, AND TRUTH. SO, HOW CAN IT BE ANYTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE ANOTHER DARK AGE?

    https://www.quora.com/Do-you-think-that-postmodernism-has-had-a-negative-or-positive-effect-on-education-especially-in-literature-classes