Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • “It would have been really cool to live 10,000 years ago. Except for the slow wi

    —“It would have been really cool to live 10,000 years ago. Except for the slow wifi.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-25 11:34:00 UTC

  • On book research- NASA. Partial book research – tesla. Off book research – paten

    On book research- NASA.

    Partial book research – tesla.

    Off book research – patents.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-24 13:08:00 UTC

  • “Where did you learn that the roots of science are in martial epistemology? Who

    —“Where did you learn that the roots of science are in martial epistemology? Who on your reading list?”—

    Well, it’s not a novel idea. I just frame it more precisely.

    I think I intuitively understood it just because of all the history I’ve read. But it was the sequence Marija Gimbutas > J. P. Mallory > Karen Armstrong that provided such consistency that I was able to make use of it.

    IMHO Karen Amstrong does the best job of the worldwide analysis of the age of transformation, and the foundations of our differences as the martial structure of that time.

    That said, Taleb also covers it in the Black Swan when he says that military people are the least ideological because they have the most skin in the game.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-20 12:39:00 UTC

  • THE CULT THAT FOLLOWS POPPER…. Are the critical rationalists still a group her

    THE CULT THAT FOLLOWS POPPER….

    Are the critical rationalists still a group here on fb?

    —“Indeed: https://www.facebook.com/groups/criticalrationalism/ “—

    Ah… I’m blocked. That’s why I can’t find it. 🙂 ….

    I completed the critical rationalist project. And I’m blocked from the group. Why is that so humorous? lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 13:36:00 UTC

  • NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE. I think we need

    NO ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYONE, NOR SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT FOR EVERYONE.

    I think we need to give up on the hope that all people can be taught to think as we call ‘scientifically’ for the simple reason that as we dip below 105, the challenge becomes insurmountable.

    If we had the IQ of every person quoted or tested I think we would tend to have a much clearer view of ‘what people think’.

    We definitely have a spectrum that starts with neuroticism, progresses through paranoia, graduates to conspiracy theory, and matures in to schizophrenia – and its not an insignificant portion of the population.

    We definitely have a spectrum that starts with sensitive, progresses through solipsism, and matures into solipsistic paranoia.

    We definitely have a spectrum from needy, to extroversion, to balance, to introversion, to disconnected/withdrawn.

    These three traits TEND to run in families and are only mediated by familial cohesion (indoctrination).

    When I see quotes like this article, what I see is the “I am average” fallacy. If we had IQ markers along with our opinions then it would be a lot harder for pseudo-academics, and pseudo-intellectuals, to use SUGGESTION to deceive us by appealing to “i am average” or ‘most people are like me’.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 12:20:00 UTC

  • PREDICTION VS EXPLANATION I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: l

    PREDICTION VS EXPLANATION

    I classify falsifiability under ‘scope consistency’: limits, parsimony, and falsifiability. Technically they are all properties of scope. But to test scope we must test all dimensions of scope.

    Also, like internal consistency, i use external correspondence rather than ‘predictability’ since ‘prediction’ generally invites the ludic fallacy (probability). We cannot predict much in the economy, because any observation and measurement we make effects it. the physical sciences progress quckly because they are the most simple, becuase they are the least variant. social sciences advance more slowly because we adapt where the physical world can’t.

    So science requires that we ‘match the data’ recorded in retrospect, not that we predict. Instead, prediction is a reductio test of simple systems. Ergo, the explanation horizon depends reflects the rate of adaptation. so we must choose more prediction in some cases (physical science) and more explanatory power in other cases (social science) simply because the horizons vary so much between reaction (the physical world) and action (the social world).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 11:24:00 UTC

  • Westerners are unique in our deconflation of subjects – separation of the scient

    Westerners are unique in our deconflation of subjects – separation of the scientific/factual, legal/testimonial, moral/philosophical, festival, literary/emotional, religious/spiritual into separate disciplines most of which possess their own disciplinary languages.

    The most likely reason for the chinese failure to advance as rapidly as the west despite their much longer history and opportunity, is (a) harmony over resolution (b) lying in every possible context to prevent disruption of harmony (c) shift from empirical to ‘moral’ (rational) government.

    I’ve worked pretty hard and I think successfully at this curious western phenomenon we call ‘truth’, and I think I’ve successfully translated all the disciplines into a single scientific language.

    But I can’t even imagine any other civilization getting close to this state. Their concepts and languages and cultures are such a significant barrier that even among europeans the anglos are the only people to preserve deconflation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 13:47:00 UTC

  • Are you sure that historical restatement in the face of new technologies (knowle

    Are you sure that historical restatement in the face of new technologies (knowledge) isn’t empirical?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:59:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809986371301605377

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

  • Is external correspondence (repeatable experiment) sufficient for a truth claim?

    Is external correspondence (repeatable experiment) sufficient for a truth claim? (no) Why not? Is non contradiction a thought exp?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:58:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809986163251494912

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

  • Or are you confusing philosophy with rationalism, and positivism with science, a

    Or are you confusing philosophy with rationalism, and positivism with science, and honesty with testimony? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:54:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985216618041345

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176