Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • “CURT, BUT ISN’T SCIENCE A PROCESS OF MYTH DEVELOPMENT?” —“What is the process

    “CURT, BUT ISN’T SCIENCE A PROCESS OF MYTH DEVELOPMENT?”

    —“What is the process of science if not building upon mythological language?”— Josh Jeppson

    Ah… great question.

    NARRATIVE CYCLE

    — begin —

    Free Association

    Hypothesis, Theory, Testimony

    History

    Analogy (literature)

    Idealism (rational + ideal – real)

    Mythology (supernormal/hyperbolic – temporal )

    Supernaturalism (rational + ideal + supernormal )

    Occult ( Supernatural + post-rational )

    Dreams (pure experiential)

    — return to to begin –>

    EPISTEMOLOGICAL CYCLE

    — begin –>

    Observation

    Free Association — on false, begin –>

    Hypothesis — on false, begin –>

    Theory — on false, begin –>

    Law (visible) — on false, begin –>

    Habit (becoming invisible) — on false, begin –>

    Metaphysical Assumption(invisible) — on false, begin –>

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CATEGORIES OF NARRATIVES

    Science vs literature:

    Sure, we can describe science as an effort to create narratives and plots so that we humans can use scientific narratives like historical, or fictional, or mythical, or supernatural narratives to identify opportunities to apply transformations.

    The difference is that we had to learn (very slowly it seems) that the universe’s monomyth is very different from ours (cycles of entropy). And that it was extremely difficult for us to learn do de-anthropomorphize the universe’s narrative

    So the purpose of narratives is to assist us in producing searches for opportunities. The purpose of recipes is to provide us means of transformation.

    So all sorts of narratives must contain certain useful functions (or attempts at inserting dysfunctions – as does postmodern literature).

    And while scientific narratives assist us in transforming the world, political narratives assist us in transforming the polity, interpersonal narratives assist us in transforming others, and personal narratives assist us in transforming ourselves.

    Narrative=search, Recipe=transformation(action)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-15 10:57:00 UTC

  • Honest(reporting) Truthful(survives personal criticism) Scientific Truth(survive

    Honest(reporting) Truthful(survives personal criticism) Scientific Truth(survives market for application) Analytic Truth(Ideal) Tautology.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:34:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885839900792287232

    Reply addressees: @ahaspel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ahaspel

    Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

  • Identity(category), Proof(logic), Correspondent(science), Operational(causal), R

    Identity(category), Proof(logic), Correspondent(science), Operational(causal), Reasonable(incentives), Reciprocal(moral), Complete(True).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:23:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885837120501428225

    Reply addressees: @ahaspel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @ahaspel

    Valid, complete arguments are known as proofs. The rest is philosophy.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/879409634028789760

  • I knew elephants could swim. I didn’t know they could swim in the ocean. I didn’

    I knew elephants could swim. I didn’t know they could swim in the ocean. I didn’t know they commonly swam ten miles from shore. I didn’t know that they could cover long distances in the ocean.

    (learn something new every day)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 17:08:00 UTC

  • You know, Stephen J. Gould was wrong about everything other than punctuated equi

    You know, Stephen J. Gould was wrong about everything other than punctuated equilibrium. But we are stuck with a lot of popular sentiment because of his success at ‘wrongness’.

    The one question I have yet to wrestle with, is whether intelligence is a deterministic outcome of life over long periods.

    His position was that intelligence was so costly that it’s doubtful. That intelligence is a temporary and unsustainable strategy compared to it’s opposite: bacteria.

    Mine is that it is hard to think of conditions that WOULDN”T generate it, just by watching crows, elephants, octopods and wolves.

    Or it could be for example, that man evolved most by competing with other great apes, and will end up a dead end like the bear.

    The most significant concern that I know of is not the determinism of the evolution of intelligence.

    It’s that the universe is not a gentle place to ‘bake’ a life form in relative safety in the galactic suburbs for five billion years.

    And worse, these periodic extinctions appear to accelerate the development of life toward greater complexity. What if we hadn’t had them? Would each era have ‘peaked’?

    So it just seems to take a very long time to cook intelligence while still not ‘freezing’ it at an equilibrium.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 16:32:00 UTC

  • “Living in harmony with nature is letting a drunk drive you home. Overthrowing n

    —“Living in harmony with nature is letting a drunk drive you home. Overthrowing nature is like grabbing the wheel from the drunk and flipping the car for the fun of it. Mastering nature is like being the designated driver and getting the drunk home first before going on a joy ride on his gas.”—Anne Tripp

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 11:17:00 UTC

  • Once you get over the need to be right, as if there is some shame attached to be

    Once you get over the need to be right, as if there is some shame attached to being wrong, then it is much easier to think scientifically and testimonially. So make arguments as best you can, and keep refining them. But abandon them as soon as you find it necessary. There is no shame in being wrong. There is only shame in adhering to the wrong in spite of the evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:56:00 UTC

  • SORRY. WE PERCEIVE REALITY AND WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AT THE SCALE OF IT. That

    SORRY. WE PERCEIVE REALITY AND WE GET BETTER AND BETTER AT THE SCALE OF IT.

    That doesn’t mean that many people are not still the victims of solipsism who cannot separate the self from either others, or reality.

    —“…nobel laureates…”—

    I wouldn’t be too impressed with nobel laureates. We have a lot of wrong nobel laureates and some what were disastrous. Statements are false or not false regardless of who makes them.

    One observation that helps us is that detailed knowledge of a particular does not translate to general understanding. This is most common in economics where just about everything is increasingly counter-intuitive at each increasing level of precision.

    So that said, (a) any cognitive scientist of any skill will will state that the internally composited experience of any number of different observers of the same phenomenon will differ, but it is the commonality of the observation, deflated of that information supplied subjectively by the process of internal construction from fragmentary stimuli that provides test of our fragmentary perceptions of reality.

    That said, the cumulative observation of reality independent of fictions that we ourselves add by process of imagination turns out to represent reality both apprehensible by our senses and apprehensible by proxy through instrumentation far more capable than our senses.

    As far as we know all that increasing cognitive and sensory power of the human mind would do is increase the scale and accuracy of the model of reality we each imagine, but wha twe consider ‘reality’ (existence : that which persists independent of our actions and experience) is extremely accurate and increases in quality as our collective knowledge increases.

    There is no magic.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 14:14:00 UTC

  • TEACHING RATIONAL VS SCIENTIFIC? Oh. It’s bad. But… It gets a *lot* worse… –

    TEACHING RATIONAL VS SCIENTIFIC?

    Oh. It’s bad. But… It gets a *lot* worse…

    —“AAAAhhhh And therein’ lay the problem. People confuse rational and scientific.”— Nick Heywood

    Yeah, they do. But lets look at the full epistemic Series:

    Series: Experienceable, Imaginable, Reasonable(Rational), Rational(Logical), Empirical(factual), Ratio-Empirical(weak-scientific), Operational(Algorithmic/Recipe), Ratio-Empirical-Operational(strong-scientific), Moral(Reciprocal), Reasonable-Ratio-Empirical-Operational-Moral, Complete(Scope), Testimonial.

    So yeah. If we taught everyone that series and what it means, then they might stop conflating terms and appealing to authority via use of terms, when they have no idea what they mean.

    We can deflate existence into testable dimensions, and by testing each learn something. But rarely can we say anything about any single dimension exportable to more dimensions without accumulating successful tests of dimensions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 07:56:00 UTC

  • I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) tak

    I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) taking responsibility for the tribe.

    Whereas much Separatist libertinism uses (c) rational thought and (d) avoids responsibility for the tribe (absence of loyalty).

    You could just say in-group males and out-group males.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 13:22:00 UTC