Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • “Recent genetic, isotopic and linguistic research has dramatically changed our u

    —“Recent genetic, isotopic and linguistic research has dramatically changed our understanding of how the Corded Ware Culture in Europe was formed. Here the authors explain it in terms of local adaptations and interactions between migrant Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and indigenous North European Neolithic cultures. The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adoption of new words for those crops. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture, and of a new dialect, Proto-Germanic. Despite a degree of hostility between expanding Corded Ware groups and indigenous Neolithic groups, stable isotope data suggest that exogamy provided a mechanism facilitating their integration. This article should be read in conjunction with that by Heyd (2017, in this issue).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-19 19:20:00 UTC

  • THE DOWNSIDE OF ‘MARKETS IN EVERYTHING’ The west ascended quickly in three eras

    THE DOWNSIDE OF ‘MARKETS IN EVERYTHING’

    The west ascended quickly in three eras by superiority in the combination of culture, technology, and warfare to create markets, and has been defeated in those three eras for the same reason: markets are an addition that are not limited to the consumption of accumulated genetic, normative, institutional, territorial capital.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-18 10:49:00 UTC

  • CULTURAL APPROPRIATION. Science, Medicine, Technology, Deflationary Truth, High

    CULTURAL APPROPRIATION.

    Science, Medicine, Technology, Deflationary Truth, High Trust, Property Rights, Rule of Law by the Common Natural Law of Torts, a relatively uncorrupt if unfortunately ideological Independent Judiciary, a Constitution that is more effective at preserving rights than the paper it was printed upon, and a military second to none that preserves the western aristocratic ideal.

    Yeah. And um. What did germanic protestants get from you other than a greater selection of food?

    Oh yeah. We got catholicism and consequent poverty in our cities, the myriad of dishonesties accompanying judaism, the horrors of marxism communism, and postmodernism, feminism, and islamic fundamentalism, a set of world wars against communism, a current war against islamism, a current domestic civil war over postmodernism, a total loss of our educational system to propaganda and pseudoscience, a resurgence of tuberculosis and bedbugs, slums on arabic and indian scales, and near total destruction of rule of law.

    Um. Yeah. Um. Someone appropriated something for certain.

    I’m thinking that our attempts at colonialism were simply incomplete, and would have been better for everyone if we’d completed them – and that all debts are paid.

    And maybe it’s time to retaliate.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 14:17:00 UTC

  • TRUTH AND ZERO TOLERANCE ARE THE MOST SACRED VALUES Leftism = Postmodernism = De

    TRUTH AND ZERO TOLERANCE ARE THE MOST SACRED VALUES

    Leftism = Postmodernism = Denialism = Pseudoscience

    The only reasons Conservatives don’t absolutely *OWN* the discourse is (a) tolerance for the LIES of CHRISTIANITY, and (b) failure to acknowledge that western civilization’s success was not due to kindness but through trust building by law, markets, and EUGENIC institutions.

    Take away christianity, and admit the west’s strategy, and conservatives own the discourse, because *all of leftism* depends on (a) PARASITISM, (b) DENIALISM, and (c) PSEUDO-RATIONALISM, and (c) PSEUDOSCIENCE, and (d) OUTRIGHT LYING, PROPAGANDA, RALLYING AND SHAMING.

    CHRISTIANITY IS THE WEST’S ONLY WEAKNESS.

    That is why I have worked so hard against it.

    TRUST AND ZERO TOLERANCE ARE THE MOST SACRED VALUES.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 11:12:00 UTC

  • PHILOSOPHY IS RELEGATED TO PREFERENCE? So, as I just defined science that means:

    PHILOSOPHY IS RELEGATED TO PREFERENCE?

    So, as I just defined science that means:

    Philosophy consists of developing methods of decidability in matters of preference, the good, and the true.

    I question whether at this point, it is only relegated to that of the preferential and the good, since as I have defined science, science is now the discipline of truthful speech, and philosophy merely the choice of preferences (self) or good (group).

    Ergo, in SCIENCE we use logical (subjectively testable) and instrumental (reducing the imperceptible to the subjectively testable), in order to produce decidability on the truth or falsehood of propositions independent of human scale.

    Philosophy then is limited to the selection of preferences, and as far as I can tell, that correctly categorizes philosophy as it is practiced.

    And philosophy is then a subset of science: philosophy is the science of preference and choice – otherwise it is the discipline of deception. Because All else is not real, but experiential, ideal, theological, or a conflation of two or more of the above.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 10:37:00 UTC

  • MATHEMATICS: The science of measurement using identity(referent), one-to-one cor

    MATHEMATICS:

    The science of measurement using identity(referent), one-to-one correspondence (balance), positional naming(scale), ratios(relations), in each of the existential dimensions of reality: point(identity), line(distance), area (geometry), volume(algebra), change(time), relative change (calculus), and beyond existential reality in purely logical relations(algebraic geometry).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 09:59:00 UTC

  • DEFINITION: “SCIENCE” Science: the use of logical and physical instrumentation f

    DEFINITION: “SCIENCE”

    Science: the use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit from our free associations by the systematic attempt at falsification (survival) of criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits, and coherent across those dimensions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 09:45:00 UTC

  • REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENC

    REMOVING MATHEMATICS FROM PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY AND RETURNING IT TO THE SCIENCE OF MEASUREMENT.

    In mathematics, construction must be operationally possible (computable), even if the descriptions (proofs) are only deducible.

    Others only provide an IDEAL (logical) justification of why cantor is wrong, and not a REAL (scientific and operational) explanation of why he was wrong: that the technique (like gears) demonstrated something valuable: that the rate of production of positional names produces different sized sets regardless of the point of termination (scale or limit). Cantor is one step removed from theology(ideal by design), and speaking in philosophy (ideals), instead of speaking in mathematics (measurement) and science (operations).

    The depth of this statement allows us to repair mathematics and return it to a science of measurement, rather than this nonsensical platonism used today – a remnant of the ancient greeks.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-17 08:06:00 UTC

  • Again, I am not an atheist. I just have a very scientific notion of my god. I am

    Again, I am not an atheist. I just have a very scientific notion of my god. I am not anti-jesus’ (very limited) teachings, but anti abrahamism (lying) and anti-biblical (lying); I am not anti-church but anti-lying by the church, and anti-corruption by the church. The difference between a protestant christian and I is only in the range of excuses they use to justify their mindfulness and actions. I don’t need them. But then, that may be a difference in *ability* that cannot be bridged.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-15 18:22:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW First: I think that if you can’t de

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT SCIENCE PER SE, IT IS LAW

    First: I think that if you can’t define the term ‘science’ that you can’t make claims about who understands what. And I am fairly certain that very few people can define science in scientific terms so to speak. So there is a very great difference between the definition of science that one warranties and a definition that one does not.

    Second: there is a difference between (a) science that identifies a pattern, or opportunity, and science that defines limits of the pattern or opportunity, (b) science that it is possible to draw deductions from, and science that it is not. (c) science that one warranties, and science one does not.

    Third: there is a difference between policy one warranties and policy one does not.

    The difference between science and non-science is only testable by warranty.

    How would science and policy differ if one’s speech and policy were involuntarily warrantied, just as products(property) and services(actions) are involuntarily warrantied?

    Is information(science) not a market goods? Is there some special pleading you think that science is worthy of? (no)

    The problem is not the definition of science. the problem is lack of warranty of due diligence, and lack of involuntary warranty against falsehood, immorality, and harm.

    The problem is not science – it is law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-14 09:59:00 UTC