Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Why Are Libertarians And Economists, Who Support Ludwig Von Mises’ Theories, So Ridiculed And Dismissed By Other Mainstream Economists?

    Because it’s (a) it’s justified, and (b) anyone quoting mises or rothbard is a more than little like quoting Marx: ridiculous. Why? Mises created a pseudoscience. He had a basic insight he took from Simmel, and another he took from Weber, and he worked very hard to create an operational logic with which to test empirical statements.

    You can read the full workup on facebook. I’ll eventually get it into book form but I have too much in progress and it’s too low on my priority list.

    And yes I’m correct and I’ll debate anyone living. Even though Hoppe is the only one capable…

    Go to Facebook, and search for ‘scientific.praxeology’.

    The first article says ‘READ ME FIRST’. It’s the outline.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-libertarians-and-economists-who-support-Ludwig-von-Mises-theories-so-ridiculed-and-dismissed-by-other-mainstream-economists

  • What Is The Difference Between Classical Economics And The Austrian School Of Economics?

    Here is a list of the major economic schools currently operating, and how they differ in accessible (or at least reasonably) accessible language.

    Curt Doolittle’s answer to What are the shortcomings of the Austrian School of Economics’ understanding of economics?

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-classical-economics-and-the-Austrian-School-of-economics

  • Why Are Libertarians And Economists, Who Support Ludwig Von Mises’ Theories, So Ridiculed And Dismissed By Other Mainstream Economists?

    Because it’s (a) it’s justified, and (b) anyone quoting mises or rothbard is a more than little like quoting Marx: ridiculous. Why? Mises created a pseudoscience. He had a basic insight he took from Simmel, and another he took from Weber, and he worked very hard to create an operational logic with which to test empirical statements.

    You can read the full workup on facebook. I’ll eventually get it into book form but I have too much in progress and it’s too low on my priority list.

    And yes I’m correct and I’ll debate anyone living. Even though Hoppe is the only one capable…

    Go to Facebook, and search for ‘scientific.praxeology’.

    The first article says ‘READ ME FIRST’. It’s the outline.

    Cheers

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-libertarians-and-economists-who-support-Ludwig-von-Mises-theories-so-ridiculed-and-dismissed-by-other-mainstream-economists

  • As far as I know, Ravens IS extremely predictive (correlative) – certainly withi

    As far as I know, Ravens IS extremely predictive (correlative) – certainly within half a standard deviation, and certainly below 130.

    as far as I know we DO have a working theory of intelligence.

    as far as I know we DO have a working neurological intelligence

    as far as I know we DO have a working theory of ‘that which interferes with our agency’.

    as far as I know intelligence is the most influential personality trait.

    as far as I know industriousness is second.

    As far as I know both are explicable by physical structures in the brain in relation to the productivity of our endocrine systems.

    The human brain is actually quite SIMPLE. It’s just VAST, with high causal density, and we are very … limited in our ability to divine and describe causes in high causal density.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-13 11:49:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, Ravens IS extremely predictive (correlative) – certainly withi

    As far as I know, Ravens IS extremely predictive (correlative) – certainly within half a standard deviation, and certainly below 130. as far as I know we DO have a working theory of intelligence. as far as I know we DO have a working neurological intelligence as far as I know we DO have a working theory of ‘that which interferes with our agency’. as far as I know intelligence is the most influential personality trait. as far as I know industriousness is second. As far as I know both are explicable by physical structures in the brain in relation to the productivity of our endocrine systems. The human brain is actually quite SIMPLE. It’s just VAST, with high causal density, and we are very … limited in our ability to divine and describe causes in high causal density.

  • (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the sam

    (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt

  • (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the sam

    (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron)

    I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them.

    Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century.

    And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were.

    And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state.

    But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest.

    1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology.

    2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict.

    3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy.

    4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories.

    etc. (quite a few more).

    So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself.

    Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates.

    So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere?

    Thanks (sincerely)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-13 10:15:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the sam

    (from elsewhere)(re: christ langan)(thx to Chris Cameron) I’m subject to the same criticism’s Chris, for the same reasons, and I sympathize with the problem of working outside the existing paradigms, career reinforcement, and institutional defense of them. Moreover I understand that due to the world wars, we experienced a catastrophic intellectual failure in the early 20th century. And the Marxist-Postmodernist pseudo-scientific religion has obtained near dominance of the non STEM academy, as well as the media and state – places dominated by those on “Island 120″ and the pretentious who wish they were. And so some of us (albeit the very bright) are experimenting with compensating for that failure, and counteracting the pseudoscientific religion of the academy, media, and state. But I can identify the dependencies upon which my arguments rest. 1 – operational language as a grammar of decidability for the elimination of pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology. 2 – reciprocity as means of decidability in matters of conflict. 3 – eugenic vs dysgenic as a means of decidability in matters of policy. 4 – the contingency of all non trivial premises, facts, and theories. etc. (quite a few more). So, while I have known *about* you for years, I haven’t looked into your work. And not for the reasons the Island 120 complain (a series of logical dependencies beyond ordinary people’s ability to construct and maintain constant relations) but because a) I don’t have any idea why ‘god’ matters (and I don’t care), and b) I don’t know (and can’t find) your dependencies, and c) I can’t afford to invest in your work and discover them myself. Because all axiomatic systems can eventually be internally justified, but it’s the survivability of the axioms (criteria of decidability) that they are dependent upon, rather than the explanatory power, and benefits of that explanatory power, that permit their survival as truth candidates. So, can you point me to some set of such ideas? I have a set of fundamental ideas in raw form that people have criticized as a means of gaining entry into a complex system of though. Do you have those somewhere? Thanks (sincerely) Curt

  • Early Irish People

    (by Simon Strom) The Irish Bell Beaker people were genetically like modern north Europeans, and not only did LN-EBA Irish look like that autosomally, they also had R1b and sported significant IBD signals of genealogical relatedness to Yamnaya and even Afanasevo specimens from Siberia. Which shows that not only were the Irish white already 5,000 years ago, they were also part of the vast Indo-European dominion of the Bronze Age resulting from having expanded in all directions from the homeland in ~Ukraine. The people inhabiting Ireland before the beakers were largely similar to modern South Europeans.

  • EARLY IRISH PEOPLE (by Simon Strom) The Irish Bell Beaker people were geneticall

    EARLY IRISH PEOPLE

    (by Simon Strom)

    The Irish Bell Beaker people were genetically like modern north Europeans, and not only did LN-EBA Irish look like that autosomally, they also had R1b and sported significant IBD signals of genealogical relatedness to Yamnaya and even Afanasevo specimens from Siberia. Which shows that not only were the Irish white already 5,000 years ago, they were also part of the vast Indo-European dominion of the Bronze Age resulting from having expanded in all directions from the homeland in ~Ukraine. The people inhabiting Ireland before the beakers were largely similar to modern South Europeans.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-11 08:09:00 UTC