Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?

    1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.

    3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)

      Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine

  • Why Are So Many Scientists Bashing Philosophers?

    1 – Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently “I am simple”.2 – But it is much, much, more than this. It’s that: …… While undergraduate, graduate, and PhD physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.

    3 – Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology? 3.1 – Does not incorporate costs. 3.2 – Does not preserve 3.3 – Does not incorporate actionability. 3.4 – Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error) 3.5 – The unknowable communal Pareto ‘Good’, rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum. 3.6 – False understanding of Truth as Binary, logical, platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For: … – Understanding/Meaning, (Learning) … – Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching) … – Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning ) … – Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible) … – Voluntary Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics) … – Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)

      Curt Doolittle the Propertarian Institute L’viv Ukraine

  • The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific

    —“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • The Divine, Supernatural, Moral, And Scientific

    —“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”— We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever. So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconscious honesty (pure faith). It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would. –“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”— Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act. –“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”— What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information. I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe. When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass. So (a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism. (b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us. (c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information. (d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means. (e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looking for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute

  • Why Study Philosophy? There Isn’t Much There. It’s in History, Science, Economy.

    If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating.

  • Why Study Philosophy? There Isn’t Much There. It’s in History, Science, Economy.

    If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating.

  • THE INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE OF SPECIALIZATION AND THE CURE FOR IT IN EDUCATION

    THE INTELLECTUAL CATASTROPHE OF SPECIALIZATION AND THE CURE FOR IT IN EDUCATION

    Outside of the top 5% in all disciplines:

    – Physicists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand their own subject, or because they lack the philosophical training to know the difference between general rules of the discipline (dogma) and the epistemological necessity that these general rules provide a shortcut for.

    – Economists are often ridiculous because either they don’t understand the limits of mathematics, the limits of statistics, and the limits of human cognitive bias, but most importantly, the epistemology that places that their models, methods, explanatory and predictive power that seems to evade them – and is now being supplied by experimental psychology and cognitive science.

    – Philosophers are almost universally ridiculous becasue either they ignore what we have learned about epistemology from physics, economics, and cognitive science, or they do not understand the difference between meaning(map) and existence(territory), or because they are subject of dogmas (sets, internal consistency without external correspondence), but most importantly because they do not account for costs on the one hand and rely on a false intuitionistic definition of the good on the other.

    – Mathematicians are only slightly ridiculous since their field is the easiest to test, but they seem to ignore the fact that mathematics functions by removing properties from reality, but that all mathematics in application is bound by reality that it ignores. As such we see them confuse the reductio logic of mathematics with mathematical platonism. They confuse the determinism of all axiomatic declarations with mystery rather than the limits of human comprehension that mathematics assists us in extending through symbols and constant relations. They confuse the rate at which operations will produce members of a collection in any period of time, or over so many operations, with the size of the set itself which must always be bound by some limit. They confuse the name of a positional number with the name of a function upon positional numbers that produces a ratio. They seem to have lost sight of the fact that their discipline can either be treated as a science of measurement, or a logic disconnected from reality, or ideal fantasy no different from philosophical and literary adventurism. I could go on at length here with ease.

    THERE IS ONLY ONE FIELD: TRUTH (TESTIMONY)

    What differs is the instruments we require to inspect. We have invented both methods of inspection (and they’re reductio in almost all cases), and methods of measurement, and methods of decidability.

    WE INVESTIGATE:

    1 – Reason, Logic, Mathematics, (Reason)

    2 – Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Existence)

    3 – Psychology, Sociology, Politics, History, Economy, Law (Cooperation)

    WE MEASURE

    1 – Categories, properties, and relations

    2 – Logic of comparisons and transformations

    3 – Empirical measurements of existential reality

    4 – Moral measurements of cooperation

    – WITH –

    5 – Operational language to articulate all of the above free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    – AND –

    6 – Full Accounting, Limits, and Parsimony To protect Against Our cherry picking by error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    THIS IS HOW WE MUST TEACH HUMANS IN MODERNITY

    1 – Strength, Fitness, Sport, Defense, War, Strategy

    2 – Mythology, Story, Biography, History, Essay, Diary, Criticism

    3 – Self, Friendship, Employment, Partnership, Marriage, Parenting, Managing, Commanding, Ruling

    4 – Property, Manners, Ethics, Morals, Natural Law, Evolutionary Strategies

    5 – Psychology, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Conflict(War/Crime)

    6 – Vocabulary, Grammar, Logic,Testimony(Truth), Rhetoric, Judgement

    7 – Reading, Writing, Programming, Strictly Constructed Law

    8 – Arithmetic, Accounting, Algebra, Geometry, Statistics, Calculus, (Mathematics of Mind/Cognition <–Note!)

    9 – Empiricism(observation and measurement), Physics, Chemistry, Biology, (Sentience <–Note!)

    10 – Monuments, Architecture, Arts, Decoration, Music, Plays, (the discipline of creativity: knowledge and free association.)

    This curriculum produces skills in all areas of life. If a student can make it through the first half of each, he or she will be adequately prepared for life in modernity.

    SORTITION

    Rolling three years in each class

    Boys and Girls In separate classes

    Children start by maturity level, not age, with delay preferable to early entry.

    Emphasis should be given to rate of maturity and individual needs so that boys with high testosterone and rapid maturity are given more exercise and those with less and lower more drills.

    IMHO Pass Fail, or % is all that is needed, since they will be exposed to the same information repeatedly. I don’t like ‘grades’. As far as I can tell most grades are a reflection of the relationship between the intelligence and maturity of an individual and the artificial standard of the industrial classroom.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 05:18:00 UTC

  • ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHERS MUST DO OUR JOBS: JUDGE. —“Many physicists engage in wha

    ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHERS MUST DO OUR JOBS: JUDGE.

    —“Many physicists engage in what some would call pseudoscience because they are philosophically confused and because their training is dogmatic. Analytic philosophers should be the policemen of all fields of study, but most lack the necessary interest, ability, or courage. There are people doing good and bad in all disciplines; the incentives/processes that lead to good or bad work predominating are of interest.”—Stephen Sage

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 04:01:00 UTC

  • WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T. ( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy litera

    WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T.

    ( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 02:24:00 UTC

  • Levels of Education

    CALCULATION (PREDICTION) 140 Physics and Econometrics (applied mathematics) (ORGANIZATION OF ENTROPY) BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING (ORGANIZATION OF GROWTH) 130 Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION) 120 computer science (language), electronic engineering ( fields ), mechanical engineering (power), public engineering (mass, scale and distance), structural engineering (forces of nature) COMPUTATION (MEASUREMENT) 110 Law, Finance, Accounting, ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (ORGANIZATION) 105 Business and Marketing Criminal Justice Primary Education. TRADES (best learned by doing) ORGANIZATION OF REPRODUCTION (PARENTING) (best learned by doing)