Theme: Science

  • Btw: Teaching Moment

    Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.
  • Btw: Teaching Moment

    Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency: 1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle. Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false. So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown. We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics, We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals. But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals. So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.
  • BTW: TEACHING MOMENT Logic versus Science. There are three rules of the logic of

    BTW: TEACHING MOMENT

    Logic versus Science.

    There are three rules of the logic of internal consistency:

    1) Identity, 2) Non Contradiction, and 3) Excluded Middle.

    Unfortunately, these rules refer to binary truth (identity) wherein all statements are true or false. But that presumption is false. All statements are true, false, or undecidable (null, meaningless, or unknown). But since undecidable statements cannot be used as premises in syllogism or deduction, they must be *treated* as false.

    So in deductive logic we treat undecidable statements as false, even if they are merely unknown.

    We use internally consistent, deductive truth in the discipline (science) of measurement that we call mathematics,

    We use internally consistent deductive truth in the interpretation of Justificationary language: Law and Scripture (logic). We refer to collections of these proofs of internal consistency as axiomatic systems. They refer to ideals.

    But in science, all operational statements are either false, surviving(not false: theoretical), or unknown(untested, or untestable). We refer to collections of these statements as theoretic systems (models not proofs), They refer to reality, not ideals.

    So, whereas you can compose the liar’s paradox in ideal axiomatic language, you cannot do so in scientific language since a person would only compose the liar’s paradox as an accident, a trick or deception, and therefore we fault the speaker not the speech.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-08 10:55:00 UTC

  • The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukrai

    The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukraine reveal a 20 % reduction in smokers over the past 7 years. Following WHO recommendations, Ukraine has strengthened its anti-tobacco legislation resulting in this reduction in the proportion of the population smoking.
  • Untitled

    http://www.euro.who.int/en/countries/ukraine/news/news/2017/09/ukraine-20-reduction-in-smokers-since-2010/_recache


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-05 09:48:00 UTC

  • The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukrai

    The results of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) recently released in Ukraine reveal a 20 % reduction in smokers over the past 7 years. Following WHO recommendations, Ukraine has strengthened its anti-tobacco legislation resulting in this reduction in the proportion of the population smoking.
  • There are certain Genies that can’t be rebottled(magics), certain Pandoras that

    There are certain Genies that can’t be rebottled(magics), certain Pandoras that cannot be re-boxed(evils), certain events than cannot be undone(accidents), and certain technologies that cannot be unmade(inventions), and much knowledge that cannot be un-known.

    (a) patterns of sustainable specialization and trade adapt faster and faster with greater divisions of labor and knowledge, and there is no evidence that this will cease.

    (b) women are more adaptable to social circumstances. Men are specialists and less adaptable to social circumstances. There is no evidence that this will (or can) cease.

    (c) women have longer working lives in those circumstances. Men have shorter working lives in most circumstances. Men absorb and accumulate cellular damage on behalf of women and children both because of direct the effects of testosterone and the consequences of their drives *caused* by it. There is no evidence that this will or can end.

    (d) Men have invented the end of physical labor. Men will soon invent the end of warfare labor. And soon after invent the end of calculative labor.

    (e) The only labor that will remain will be service – with very low returns; organizing people – with low returns, sales – with slightly higher returns; and organization of network; and organizing networks of people to take risks – with higher returns.

    (f) women are superior in the workplace at all but the high risk innovation of higher returns.

    (g) there is little evidence that two thirds of men are necessary in the work force, or even desirable mates for women. There is evidence that women require or desire the financial support of men *if it means the cost of caring for them.*

    (h) A surplus of men always leads to civil war. A shortage of men always leads to conquest. The west is being conquered at present.

    (i) Vast numbers of men have left the workforce. With a minimum survivable wage, far more men will leave the work force. Other than men’s higher food requirements, men are far less costly to maintain than women. With men leaving the workforce more women will enter it. Albeit in work with decreasing returns.

    I can see various equilibrations playing out. But in the end, I see basically this: wome return to the clerical equivalent of doing all work in the agrarian era. A few men have access to most of the women and wealth. And the vast majority of other men laze around a lot and enjoy life, and do nothing other than prevent encroachment upon their ‘herd’ of working women.

    * the principal means of preventing revolt at present is income requirements. *


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-03 14:03:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism isn’t a panacea. It’s not an ideology. It’s not even a philosoph

    Propertarianism isn’t a panacea. It’s not an ideology. It’s not even a philosophy per se. It’s just “Here is the completed scientific method. If I apply the completed scientific method to the full scope of human knowledge, organized by combining categories of philosophy and social science into a single hierarchy, the result is *all of these ideas*.”

    Everything else I do is just (a) generating conflict so that I can (b) test it in argument, (c) identify a few smart people with long term potential, (d) generate marketing interest for the published work and courses. With the ambition of funding the institute and teaching natural law as a discipline. (and creating a revolution if possible).

    Right now I’m just in book mode. Although every day or so I come up with some little nuance that I have to peck away at. But it’s going really fast and it’s beautiful (at least, from my nerdy perspective.)

    And as michael said, the word-to-idea ratio is really low, so there is a lot of bang in every chapter so to speak.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 13:46:00 UTC

  • DON’T BE STUPID. Look. Do you understand Locke/Smith/Hume? What about Kant/Marx?

    DON’T BE STUPID.

    Look. Do you understand Locke/Smith/Hume? What about Kant/Marx? Or Darwin/Menger/Spencer/Nietzche? The history of epistemology? Or Hayek/Popper/Turing? Do you understand the foundations of mathematics, logic, economics? Do you understand the limits of logic and mathematics? What about cognitive science, and experimental psychology? What about the history and logic of the common law? Do you understand comparative institutional, economic, and demographic history? If you do, do you understand one of those series? Two of them, or all of them?

    Of course you don’t. You’re a normal person. You’re probably a smart normal person. You might even be a smart well read person. But its nearly impossible to master all of those fields sufficiently to identify how to reform them so that they operate scientifically.

    But why the hell, if you don’t understand ALL of those disciplines, do you think you’re going to understand my work in Propertarianism without some serious effort over more than a year? I mean, I cover the *entire* spectrum from metaphysics to aesthetics. Everything. ALL OF IT.

    You won’t reduce my work to a single idea that you can easily understand, because the central idea is the completion of the scientific method using testimonial truth – which itself is something you can spend a couple of years thinking about all on its own.

    Learning propertarianism is pretty similar to learning law. It requires at least the same intellectual capacity, and at least the same amount of work *UNLESS* you have already been very lucky in life or born with precisely the right combination of personality traits.

    And it turns out that some people are smart enough or lucky enough that they can both identify patterns of problems it solves, and learn it more quickly because they’ve had the experience or the raw intellectual talent. But those people are few and far between.

    So don’t be a dork. Learn what you can. Learn what you can use. If this was easy someone would have been done by now. It’s a really, really hard problem and some of the greatest minds of the last century didn’t solve it. And the problem has been around for at least 2500 years.

    Truth is enough. But understanding what that means might take a long time. Which is why its so important to institutionalize these ideas. Because it’s far better to learn them environmentally then have to learn to CORRECT the errors of thought and RELEARN what truth means – and relearn the entire spectrum of knowledge in new terms.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-01 12:15:00 UTC

  • DRAFT THE DEANS OF PHILOSOPHY ARE MERELY “SHAMANS V3.0”. AND PHILOSOPHY MAY BE C

    DRAFT

    THE DEANS OF PHILOSOPHY ARE MERELY “SHAMANS V3.0”. AND PHILOSOPHY MAY BE COMPLETE.

    Now that I’ve worked with Acquisitionism, Testimonialism, and Propertarianism so long, it’s actually embarrassing to listen to the Deans of Philosophy talk about almost anything. Some of the heretofore “great minds” sound no better than Priests and Islamists – because in fact, that is all they are: shamans version three (shamans -> priests -> philosophers).

    And it’s not because they have ill intentions, but because they were seduced by and trained by others who were also seduced and trained by that technology of deception we call Supernaturalism(shaman), ‘Abrahamism’ (priest), and Idealism(Philosopher). – and they simply know no better. Meanwhile the Jurists carry on, as they have for five thousand years, practicing the only social science that we can demonstrate is practiced ratio-empirically and scientifically: the law of torts.

    As our populations increase, and cause and effect increase in distance, and civic and economic cooperation increases in distance, we have had but little choice to resort to intuition.

    And there are only three ways to solve that problem.

    … 1) Sciences and Skills(Direct Measurement and Training),

    … 2) Institutions and Technologies (Procedural and Environmental training and habituation),

    … 3) myths and histories (literary and Intuitionistic training and habituation).

    And we can speak in the (1) REAL: scientifically, procedurally, and historically – thereby appealing to evidence, and the utility of doing so or not;

    Or we can resort to speaking in the (2) IDEAL: by example(how to act), morally(general rules of right and wrong), and Mythically(instructional parable) thereby appealing to norms, and the others who may reject us if we don’t.

    Or we can resort to speaking in the (3) SUPERNATURAL – thereby appealing to scary monsters in authority who may harm us or deprive us if we don’t.

    Each technique appeals to different incentives using different language, but which of them is ‘true’? Which is analogy? And which is but a ghost story?

    Now the problem is, that all of us exist in a matrix of distributions.

    I understand the …

    … (4) Intuitionistic<->Rational Spectrum of:

    {Dream -> Imagination -> Reason-> Calculation};

    and the…

    … (5) Experiential<->Analytic Spectrum of:

    {(female)Psychotic -> solipsistic -> rational -> aspie -> autistic(male)}.

    And lastly, I am fairly sure that intelligence is separate from the prey drive, but that the spectrum of…

    … (6) Demonstrated Intelligence -> Potential Demonstrated Intelligence…

    …is limited by the …

    … (7) Experiential(female)<->Analytic(male) spectrum.

    And I understand (And this might blow your mind), that those differences are differences in the genetic dominance or weakness of different reward systems of the PREY DRIVE – because after all, all human behavior evolved from exaggerations of the prey drive. It’s all nature had to work with: Prey Drive (including sex drive).

    And among humans the selection pressure is either neotonic or its opposite. (Understanding as we must, that humans are *increasing* in aggression in some sub-races, tribes and clans, just a it has been decreasing in others.)

    And I understand that dreaming is a cheap way of searching for opportunities, and intuition is a cheap way of reasoning. And that aggression (in the feminine-Semitic) is, unlike its opposite (masculine-WestSlavic), a cheap means of competition. [1]

    So the *expensive* method of group evolutionary strategy consists of …

    … (8) {Rational, Autistic, West-Slavic and Productive with high investment parenting and low rates of reproduction and high technological achievement},…

    … and the cheap method of group evolutionary strategy consists of …

    … (9) {Intuitionistic, Experiential, Semitic with high rates of reproduction and low technological achievement}.

    And it may not be obvious that (8) and (9) correspond to specializations between the masculine:(8) and feminine:(9) genetic strategies.

    The universe is constructed of very, very, simple rules, and very, very, few of them. Evolution operates in predictable ways, by incrementally building upon what it already has to work with. It’s not complicated.

    And that leads us to a problem we must solve: just how many humans are in fact capable of reason? Or stated more precisely: of that spectrum of humans who depend upon the spectrum from Pure Intuition <-to-> Pure Reason, what percent of their number are *sufficiently* capable of reason that we can say they rely on reason for their judgements?

    The strategy that we operated during out rather rapid and exceptional development was to embrace the real. Only europeans and east asians stood with the real. The Semites, West Asians, Central Asians, Indians and Africans ‘took the mystical’ route.

    So here is the core of the problem ( UNDONE : describe how suggestion works during listening )

    The question remains whether if Abrahamism had not been in invented by the introduction of greek thought into Jewish animism, creating rabbinical judaism, spawning christianity, spawning that most disastrous of inventions: islam, whether the world would have suffered in a thousand year dark age. Likely not. We have experienced the Bronze age collapse and Dark Age, the Abrahamic Dark Age, and it appears that without some change, we will enter into the second Abrahamic Dark Age, this time not with mysticism, but with pseudoscience and outright lying: Marx, Cantor, Freud, Adorno(frankfurt), and the French School of Postmodernists, appealing once again to women (feminism), and immigrants into the empire (third worlders.).

    SOVEREIGNTY:

    “-From Reals to Feels-“:

    ————————–

    Metaphysics: Vitruvianism: Man is the measure of all things man (cog. sci.)

    Psychology: Acquisitionism: Man acquires and defends.

    Sociology: Intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

    Ethics and Morality: Propertarianism.

    Epistemology: Testimonialism.

    Law: Reciprocity: The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    Politics: Markets in Everything.

    Strategy: Transcendence (Agency, Sovereignty, Heroism)

    Spirituality: Masculine Stoicism, Feminine Epicureanism, Ritual Familialism, Feast Naturalism, Festival Nationalism.

    Aesthetics: Excellence(heroism), Beauty(Plenty), and Commons(Morality[‘good’])

    As arrogant as it sounds, I am pretty sure that the philosophical program is complete. Why? Because the limit of man’s ability is the limit of man’s ability. And further refinement would require further refinement of the biological distribution we call ‘man’. And refutation would require a choice of devolution and dysgenia.

    So I know it sounds crazy. But I am pretty sure ‘philosophy’ in the sense of the European philosophical project begun by the Europeans, articulated by the Greeks, and operationalized by the Romans (and destroyed by the Abrahamists) is now complete. And everything else is just one lie or another to advance either a dysgenic or parasitic or homicidal or genocidal alternative. And I am pretty certain I can defeat all comers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    [1] Note: The Japanese have created demonstrably the best society, thanks partially to their island. But excessive neoteny, failure to tolerate truth regardless of cost to the status quo, and their Asiatic language inhibits them – although less than the Chinese. And FWIW: The Africans have evolved for higher sociability, and greater physical hardship, and greater disease resistance, in a survivable, but extremely hostile geography. It is incorrect to assess them otherwise. Our races and subraces and tribes reflect the geographies that we evolved in. )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-31 18:24:00 UTC