Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Spencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, b

    Spencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold.

    Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of something new to mask the regret of the catastrophe. In other words, we replaced art, heroism, and truth, with crass consumption and, proletarianism to hold the state together, an innumerate pseudoscience to systematize it, and postmodern lies to defend it all.

    I understand that we must produce a synthesis of truth and religion. This is the hardest objective to solve. Principally because men need costly rituals in order to defend the principles that they attest to.

    I understand how the previous century failed. I understand why the great lies succeeded in the post war era, for the same reason that christianity succeeded in the post-war and post-plaque era.

    I think I understand how to create that religion, philosophy, logic, and science.

    Please god give me strength, energy, time, and resources to do it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-01 00:46:00 UTC

  • “For a successful technology…reality must take precedence over public relation

    —“For a successful technology…reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”—Feynman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-29 14:57:00 UTC

  • NEXT GREAT PLAGUE? This thing is much scarier than H1Nx. It’s like Children of M

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/zika-virus-pregnant-women-warned-to-stay-away-from-rio-2016-olympics-a6833311.htmlTHE NEXT GREAT PLAGUE?

    This thing is much scarier than H1Nx. It’s like Children of Men scenario.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 16:01:00 UTC

  • KRIPKE like all cosmopolitans (enlightenment jews) Including Wittgenstein (and w

    KRIPKE like all cosmopolitans (enlightenment jews) Including Wittgenstein (and we see that eventually Russel figures it out that its a dead end), is not trying to create science (describe reality) like a Teuton/Aryan/European. THEY ARE TRYING TO CREATE A BOOK OF LAW. A verbalism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 04:24:00 UTC

  • SAUL KRIPKE MAKES THE SAME COSMOPOLITAN ERROR AS WITTGENSTEIN. (for critical rat

    SAUL KRIPKE MAKES THE SAME COSMOPOLITAN ERROR AS WITTGENSTEIN.

    (for critical rationalists, critical realists, philosophers of science, and professional or semi-professional philosophers this is important)

    I knew I would figure it out. Sounds, Meaning, Law, “Platonism”. And he is not a naturalist or materialist. (Although these terms in themselves are operationally insufficient.)

    DOOLITTLE (TESTIMONIALISM)

    A deterministic universe > changes in state > operations > experiences > descriptive names of (a)subjective experiences **or** <b>objective experiences **or** (c)operations(repeatable) > common names(justificationary/meaning) > necessary names(critical/truth).

    This follows the standard epistemological sequence: free-association > hypothesis(justificationary) > theory(critical) > Law.

    The Problem of Ideal Types rather than Supply Demand Curves is everywhere in western thought.

    And it has four origins:

    1) Natural human tendency for simplicity in comparisons. (discounting)

    2) Monotheistic universalism seeking of ideals (moral laws)

    3) Moral rationalism seeking of ideals (moral-legal laws)

    4) Mathematics (particularly geometry).

    5) Ideal Types, General Rules, Theories : without limits and full accounting.

    The universe equilibrates. There are no unlimited non tautological (non trivial) theories. (natural phenomenon are analogous to distributions with strange tails). And human behavior and cognition function by supply and demand curves – NOT distributions, and NOT ideal types.

    Weber was SO CLOSE.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 04:22:00 UTC

  • There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering Relativity taught

    There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering Relativity taught us this. The limit of religion is Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 13:32:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690527423633477632

    Reply addressees: @Heritage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Heritage

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right—a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. https://t.co/KqAXaSreDv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

  • Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED. In other words, Spencer

    Spencer DID what Mises IMAGINED, and Rothbard ADVOCATED.

    In other words, Spencer used observation, evolution and incentives to explain the world of man. He practiced ‘praxeological’ reasoning not as an excuse maker like rothbard did: to justify what should be different. But Spencer used ‘praxeological’ reasoning to explain why people do what they do.

    ***This is the best example of the difference between the jewish cosmopolitan justificationary method of trying to construct law as a set of commands in order to act in discord with nature, versus the anglo enlightenment empirical method of observing and explaining what exists in nature – and how to act in accord with nature.***

    I work this way also. I find some empirical thing. I do my research. I try to explain it as a series of operations. If I can then that’s a truth candidate. If I can’t then it isn’t.

    What I do NOT do, is engage in the 20th century fallacy of correlation, unless I can also determine causation.

    Statistics assist us in hypothesizing. Actions tell us truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 04:39:00 UTC

  • I always though r/k selection hypotheses were a crock of rubbish and basing anyt

    I always though r/k selection hypotheses were a crock of rubbish and basing anything on the false scale is bound to be flawed, yet highly appealing to liars. As the geneticist of 20 years says 20 mins in, ‘r vs k …this is pseudoscience’ (watch 1 min to 14 mins):

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 10:46:00 UTC

  • POPPER, HAYEK, AND HOPPE: INFORMATION AND CALCULATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE Popper a

    POPPER, HAYEK, AND HOPPE: INFORMATION AND CALCULATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE

    Popper and Hayek treat information (knowledge) as the model for analysis of man but fail to complete it. (Just as physicists treat the universe as information.)

    Hoppe (by way of rothbard) creates the method of categorization, measurement, and operations of information: property and voluntary cooperation.

    Popper: sources of knowledge and ignorance.(individual/critical/truth)

    Hayek: use of knowledge in economics and society (group/law/cooperation/liberty)

    Hoppe: propertarian ethics (cooperation) as entities (property) and operations (voluntary transfers).

    Doolittle: the division of perception, cognition, knowledge and labor by reproductive demand, and the use of voluntary cooperation to consolidate it into a network that acts on the behalf of the network of individuals.

    Together this creates is a system of constant calculation, whose test is volition (demonstrated use of existing knowledge)

    In my early work I referred to the problem of ‘calculation’. I knew it was the problem I had to solve. I just didn’t realize how enormous a problem it was other than it was the only way of preventing thievery in government.

    I knew my writing was difficult to understand because of the influence of writing software. It took me a very long time to understand that I was intuiting the relationship between the existential dependence of software (computability) and testimonial (existential) truth. And that the only way to write this way was to write in the same style as programming.

    Like I tell people – my autistic intuition finds patterns. I just have to work out what it’s telling me and determine if its true or not. For this reason I never think I am particularly smart – it’s more that I am gifted, and I work hard at translating my gift into language.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 06:24:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHO INFLUENCED YOU? Who influenced you? Um. Have you seen my reading list?

    Q&A: WHO INFLUENCED YOU?

    Who influenced you? Um. Have you seen my reading list? Science influenced me. If I have to name a few philosophers it would be Hayek and Popper because they are the thinkers who attempted to restate social science as the study of information – and only partly succeeded.

    Otherwise I am influenced intellectually by science and scientists. Sentimentally by ‘hard’ Science Fiction, which I consider the reformation of mythology for use in modernity. Educationally by my study of fine art probably frames my reference more than any other. Recreationally by my study of history. Environmentally by germanic intellectual and cultural influences dominant in the early twentieth century. Genetically as an anglo conservative son of puritans, and catholic mother’s conservative idealism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-19 04:35:00 UTC