Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • WHAT’S YOUR OPINION OF KUHNs SoSR? (from James Santagata) (copied for archival p

    WHAT’S YOUR OPINION OF KUHNs SoSR?

    (from James Santagata) (copied for archival purposes)

    GREAT QUESTION!

    I think that he tried to complete popper’s program (despite poppers usual nonsense objections).

    Popper basically showed us that science is a MORAL process, and that it was a process of removing error, bias, (and deceit) from free associations. This eliminated the problem of induction by saying that no method of discovery of a candidate association conveys truth in and of itself, only survival (darwinian knowledge) from criticism.

    That as a moral process, science is conducted SOCIALLY like other moral processes. I expanded this to say that we can create legal tests of information (due diligence) just as we have for all other criteria, that warrant information just as we do goods and services. this is in fact how science is largely conducted today – but it is not how political speech is conducted today – and it should be.

    Kuhn simply addresses the issue of scale, and he illustrated the resistance to innovation of entrenched programs because of scale – a sort of punctuated equilibrium of discovery similar to Gould’s. IN other words, scientific knowledge progresses like all other normative, traditional, and legal knowledge.

    He is a precursor to Taleb’s attempt to discover the amount of information necessary to predict outliers.

    He is a precursor to my attempt to predict the unit of intelligence necessary to determine a relation given n units of information.

    So my view is that he was making very general statements – moral statements – but he was not, like popper, able to, as did hayek, transform their observations of constant relations of the hard sciences to the inconstant relations of the social sciences: particularly philosophy, sociology, economics, politics, and law.

    That was my job it seems.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-02 19:29:00 UTC

  • YES THE LEFT SEES ALL COMPARISON, JUDGEMENT, REASON, AND SCIENCE AS FASCISM. (wh

    YES THE LEFT SEES ALL COMPARISON, JUDGEMENT, REASON, AND SCIENCE AS FASCISM.

    (what they mean is ‘eugenic’)

    Under natural law, we produce natural eugenics, natural hierarchies, natural distributions, and we adapt to the environment by expressing the genes we need in that environment. If we apply natural law to information, just as we have to actions, products and services, then that means the left can no longer lie. In other words, what the left perceives as ‘fascism’: judgement, does in fact exist for them.

    However, the left is easier to understand as a herd of cows eating grass: they just want to eat what is in front of them like everyone else in the herd, and they view reason, comparison, judgement, as an attempt to deprive them of the grass in front of them.

    Once you realize that this is just another symptom of the herd strategy of women, you realize that when we are dealing with the left we are not dealing with sentient creatures.

    The left is to treated as any other domesticated animal, and not quite human. For a human engages in comparison, reason, and judgement.

    We always herded our women. We herded and domesticated animals. We domesticated plants. We domesticated tribes, and nations. But among the people of the world – our own, and those that are not our own, we have not completed the process of domestication.

    And we let pandora out of the box with democracy and inclusion of women.

    Women are in fact the source of decivilization.

    The men who are undomesticated are merely an ongoing expression of the fact that it is harder to domesticate women, and some lines of women may not in fact be domesticatable. They remain animals. Creatures of impulse not comparison, reason, and decidability.

    I realize how heretical this is but it is what it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 13:13:00 UTC

  • THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE PEOPLE WORKING ON ENDING THE CENTURY OF ‘PSEUDOSCI

    THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION: THE PEOPLE WORKING ON ENDING THE CENTURY OF ‘PSEUDOSCIENCE’, ‘PSEUDORATIONALISM’, ‘PSEUDO-LEGISLATION’, AND ‘LYING’ :

    – ?? Gaad Saad (psychology/falsehood) ??

    – Jordan Peterson (psychology/falsehood/stoicism)(not happy to be on this list I assume)

    – Stephen Hicks (ethics) (who I doubt likes being in this list)

    – Jonathan Haidt (morality)(also doubt likes being on this list)

    – Curt Doolittle (law, testimony, and epistemology)

    – Nassim Taleb (fragility, innumeracy, pseudoscience) (first mover)

    – Kevin Macdonald (group evolutionary theory-jewish)(first mover)

    – Ricardo Duchesne (group evolutionary strategy -western)

    Now, I think i’ve painted the whole picture because I choose to work only with incentives (operations) but everyone is contributing to it in his own frame of reference. Together we are revising the world.

    We are seeing the following changes:

    (a) the transition from theory to operationalism. (profound)

    (b) the end of the competitive luxury of universalism. (expected)

    (c) the end of the era of cosmopolitan pseudoscience.

    (d) the end of the puritan (anglo) enlightenment fallacy.

    (e) the completion of the western european program (truth).

    (f) the reconstruction of what we used to call ‘stoicism’. (surprising)

    (g) the end of the academy (surprising)

    Dr Jordan B Peterson, Professor of Psychology might not understand he is reconstructing stoicism in scientific rather than original terms. He may. He may not.

    I was not aware that I was reconstructing the stoic intuition of natural law.

    Popper was not aware that his program was incomplete – overly simplistic.

    Hayek understood he had discovered that like physics, the model for the social sciences is best explained by information (changes instate) rather than electromagnetism, physical force, or the will of the gods.

    There is a reason science was a byproduct of western LAW. The logic of the law consists of MORE DIMENSIONS than it’s predecessors EMPIRICISM, RATIONALISM, LOGIC, and MATHEMATICS.

    We all SENSE this in one way or another. And together we are approaching the completion of the western program: TRUTH, after 2500 years, and multiple failures.

    But like our ancestors we sensed something in the distance. And step by step we are about to cross the threshold of a very different future – one as different as empiricism from rationalism, rationalism from reason, and reason from mysticism, and mysticism from anthropomorphism

    And I am certain the returns on the OPERATIONAL (existential) era of truth, over the era of empirical truth, will be as great as the returns on empirical truth over mysticism and rationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 11:21:00 UTC

  • OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT. (a) Ope

    OPERATIONALISM IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND OUR CURRENT TRANSITION TO IT.

    (a) Operationalism is the next step in analytic philosophy.

    (b) Our failure to solve the question of operationalism in the early 20th is the reason that we were subject to social and economic pseudoscience during the 20th and 21st.

    (c) most questions of analytic philosophy, including the liars paradox are solved by operationalism. Most questions of philosophy evaporate as nothing more than word games. All philosophical paradoxes evaporate.

    (d) Consider this sequence: identity(category), sets(logic), constant-relations(math), existence(operations), moral(reciprocal), models/simulations(equilibria).

    (f) Consider that the objective of epistemology is not to develop theories (narratives for discovering candidates) but to catalog existentially possible operations (recipes for constructing possibilities) at all scales of existence. I believe this is the conceptual change we are currently transitioning to.

    (e) You can learn to write operationally using E-Prime. You can research E-Prime online. I’ve written extensively on this question if you search my website.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 08:08:00 UTC

  • I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and So

    I don’t care what names people call me.Darwin, Newton,Galileo, Aristotle, and Socrates had worse. But True=True.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:40:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804137958118932480

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – statu

    This is why science progresses with the death of the previous generation – status preservation of malinvestment.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:38:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804137490093326337

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rat

    It’s harder if your malinvestment is in a sentimental, or rational, ideology rather than scientific evidence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:36:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804137034260553728

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • Just because we didn’t solve the problem of pseudoscience in the last century do

    Just because we didn’t solve the problem of pseudoscience in the last century doesn’t mean we haven’t now.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 16:44:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803278440044564480

    Reply addressees: @quiltednursery1 @paulkrugman

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803272737280196609

    IN REPLY TO:

    @quiltednursery1

    @curtdoolittle @paulkrugman A matter of opinion. PAUL should have been awarded 2:)

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803272737280196609

  • Physical phenomenon don’t have purposes, but they do have functions that solve t

    Physical phenomenon don’t have purposes, but they do have functions that solve the transition between states in the process of entropy. Purpose requires Intent. Function does not require intent.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 10:22:00 UTC

  • I want to drink 30 year scotch from Paul Krugman’s Skull as we drag the Nobel Co

    I want to drink 30 year scotch from Paul Krugman’s Skull as we drag the Nobel Committee away in chains. #NewRight #endleftistpseudoscience

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 23:55:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/803024506918944772