Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is tha

    I’m a scientist. I look at the empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is that the most monstrous of the arts is writing in the grammar and semantics of fictionalism (pseudo-science, pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-mythology), and in particular the conflation of all of the above.

    The greatest cause of death in history, other than the great plagues and malaria, is the conflationary grammar of fictionalism. The origin of the conflationary grammar of fictionalism is Pilpul – which is argumentatively indifferent when applied to wisdom myth, literature, history, law, astrology, and numerology.

    So whether men do evil directly, promote evil by intent, or inspire evil indirectly, there is no difference between the evil wrought at interpersonal, social, and civilizational scale – except, that scale. And of those evils, there is none greater than the use of fictionalism. And no good greater than truth that defeats it.

    All people are capable of free association. Common people lack the agency to separate the great arts of men, from their great crimes. Simple people never grasp the art, only artist – they are incapable otherwise.

    But the truth is, without exception, men of low character produce low art. Unfortunately, there is a large market demand for low art by people of low character, whether it be decoration, craft, design, art, myth, literature, history, law, science, or … magic, mysticism, astrology, or numerology.

    Woody Allen is about as bad a person as walks the earth – which was obvious from his works at the time for those of who have an education in the arts. What difference is it if he produces moving pictures from scripts rather than plays, versus the writings of rousseau (far worse than woody allen) or the works of Foucault (a bad person for certain), or the works of Picasso who was terribly ill mannered, and very close if not certainly a pedophile.

    And I can’t think of a reason not to destroy their works, for in retrospect, they were all results of the sick minds that made them, and perpetuation of that memory is harmful.

    But if we are to destroy works, how do we select what to destroy? This is the hard question. And this is why we don’t destroy (many) works – we instead create new ones that demonize the producers and their work.

    The world will not be harmed by the burning of certain films. Although, it is often better to leave the example of their criminality and evil in the historical literature as a warning to those who might venture into similar territories once again, if they had not that reference to draw from.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-28 17:14:00 UTC

  • Mises Position In Intellectual History

    (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over: 0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations. 1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions). 2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits). 3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions. 4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable). 5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting. 6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments 7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit. 8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality. 9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence. For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense. If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism. But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse. But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress. The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Mises Position In Intellectual History

    (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over: 0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations. 1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions). 2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits). 3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions. 4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable). 5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting. 6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments 7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit. 8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality. 9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence. For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense. If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism. But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse. But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress. The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY (from elsewhere) Too long an answer for t

    MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

    (from elsewhere)

    Too long an answer for this forum. If I remember you correctly you’re a smart fellow so here is an analytic reduction for you to mull over:

    0 – There are only so many dimensions of actionability available to man, about which he can speak in continuous relations.

    1 – A statement of continuous relations (truth) requires consistency of categorical, logical (internal), empirical(external), operational (existential), voluntary (rational), reciprocal (moral), fully accounted within stated limits, and coherent relations (across all above dimensions).

    2 – No dimension is closed (knowledge is infinite and semantics and grammar are also.) And therefore any dimension must achieve closure by appeal to (inclusion of) subsequent dimensions. All non trivial knowledge is perishable (closed only within specified limits).

    3 – Coherence across all actionable dimensions serves as a competition between dimensions that will falsify inconstant relations within and across dimensions.

    4 – Ergo, all arguments are falsifications, and only truth candidates survive tests of all actionable dimensions. Therefore all non trivial statements that survive tests of actionable dimensions are contingent. (actionable).

    5 – Mises discovered operationalism in economics, as did bridgman in physics, brouwer in math, falsification by popper in the philosophy of science (epistemology), and Hayek in law (after exploring every field), and dozens of predecessors in accounting.

    6 – Mises failure was to rely on the metaphysics (unconscious rules) of his ‘heritage’, as we all do, and conflated law, logic (via-positiva axioms), empiricism (via-negativa theories), and to (again) limit the investments he considered to the intersubjectively verifiable, rather than those investments

    7 – The sciences consist entirely of a set of dimensional due diligences against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – and justifications ‘reasons’ (rationalizations) are irrelevant. The means by which we arrive at an hypothesis tells us nothing other than we have found an opportunity for falsification, and if survives falsification we then have a truth candidate in the market for general rules of arbitrary precision that assist us in the identification of opportunities that we may exploit.

    8 – we do not create justifications (excuses) in science (testimony), we create moral and legal excuses only in human cooperation (morality and law). We create proof of constant relations (identity). We create proofs of possibility of operational construction using constant relations. We identify constant relations in the universe through testing. We eliminate ‘imaginary content’ by the reduction of all statements to the vocabulary (semantics) and grammar (fully formed testable statements) and syntax (testable statements in series, from noun to phrase, to sentence, to paragraph to argument). We objectively test the rationality of choice in matters of conflict (which is possible because in choice we are marginally indifferent). We objectively test reciprocity through property. We test full accounting, limits and parsimony, and finally we test coherence of the constant relations across all actionable dimensions of reality.

    9 – The secret of human action is that by limiting our speech to operational language we provide subjective testability to constant relations free of deceits, fictionalisms, obsucrantisms, pretenses of knowledge, suggestion, bias, ignorance, and error. In other words, the most parsimonious testimony we can speak of is in using the constant relations of testable actions of marginal indifference. And if one cannot speak in those terms, one cannot testify to them, since one cannot claim to have performed dimensional due diligence.

    For a variety of complex reasons, I think something on the nature of the first 15 chapters of Human Action are nonsense.

    If it were not for the kantian nonsense rationalism and pseudoscience promoted by ‘libertarians’ and in particular that propaganda organization we call ‘the mises institute’, then we could rescue mises from criticism.

    But his own arrogance was his undoing. he was wrong about a lot of things. Rothbard made it worse. And hoppe made it worse.

    But if we look at it differently, that this failure to solve the scientific method in the early part of the last century led, as Hayek suggested’ to a new era of pseudoscience. And that mises popper and hayek and bridgman and brower… and to some degree Kuhn, all made some progress.

    The interesting observation is that Boole, Babbage, Godel, Turing, and finally Chomsky were on the right track. And because the philosophical discipline was off in la-la-land, trying to preserve their ‘science’, and because the disciplines did not cooperate or communicate or speak in the same terms, no one united them into a single commensurable language.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 16:47:00 UTC

  • Reminder: I’m A Scientist, Classist And Nationalist Not A Racist

    I have a huge backlog of friend requests from around the world, and it takes me about five minutes to research each person’s profile, and look them up on the internet before I accept. The reason being that we have postmodernists, christians, muslims, and jews that ‘stalk’ us in numbers and try to get us ‘banned’. So let me remind everyone: I don’t give a damn about race other than I want to see my people continue to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, poverty, disease, mysticism, and tyranny. And I love my people as all of us should love our people. And if we all took care of our own people rather than exporting costs onto other people by any form of colonization (conquest, religion, immigration), then the world would be a more decent place. I am an anti-abrahamist (jewish, christian, muslim) and an avowed eugenicist. But I am not a racist. Whatsoever. I don’t care what part of the world you are from. all I care is that our only ‘cult’ is ‘aristotle’ (truth, science). And if you will fight with me in the battle for Sovereignty for self, family, kin, and nation, against the forces of violence, deceit, and corruption, then we are brothers in my mind, forever.

  • Reminder: I’m A Scientist, Classist And Nationalist Not A Racist

    I have a huge backlog of friend requests from around the world, and it takes me about five minutes to research each person’s profile, and look them up on the internet before I accept. The reason being that we have postmodernists, christians, muslims, and jews that ‘stalk’ us in numbers and try to get us ‘banned’. So let me remind everyone: I don’t give a damn about race other than I want to see my people continue to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, poverty, disease, mysticism, and tyranny. And I love my people as all of us should love our people. And if we all took care of our own people rather than exporting costs onto other people by any form of colonization (conquest, religion, immigration), then the world would be a more decent place. I am an anti-abrahamist (jewish, christian, muslim) and an avowed eugenicist. But I am not a racist. Whatsoever. I don’t care what part of the world you are from. all I care is that our only ‘cult’ is ‘aristotle’ (truth, science). And if you will fight with me in the battle for Sovereignty for self, family, kin, and nation, against the forces of violence, deceit, and corruption, then we are brothers in my mind, forever.

  • REMINDER: I’M A SCIENTIST, CLASSIST AND NATIONALIST NOT A RACIST I have a huge b

    REMINDER: I’M A SCIENTIST, CLASSIST AND NATIONALIST NOT A RACIST

    I have a huge backlog of friend requests from around the world, and it takes me about five minutes to research each person’s profile, and look them up on the internet before I accept. The reason being that we have postmodernists, christians, muslims, and jews that ‘stalk’ us in numbers and try to get us ‘banned’.

    So let me remind everyone:

    I don’t give a damn about race other than I want to see my people continue to drag humanity kicking and screaming out of ignorance, poverty, disease, mysticism, and tyranny.

    And I love my people as all of us should love our people. And if we all took care of our own people rather than exporting costs onto other people by any form of colonization (conquest, religion, immigration), then the world would be a more decent place.

    I am an anti-abrahamist (jewish, christian, muslim) and an avowed eugenicist. But I am not a racist. Whatsoever.

    I don’t care what part of the world you are from. all I care is that our only ‘cult’ is ‘aristotle’ (truth, science).

    And if you will fight with me in the battle for Sovereignty for self, family, kin, and nation, against the forces of violence, deceit, and corruption, then we are brothers in my mind, forever.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 15:07:00 UTC

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true. Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations). So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.) People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true. Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations). So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.) People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”—

    Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true.

    Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations).

    So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.)

    People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 11:43:00 UTC