Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • THE DOOLITTLE (SCIENTIFIC) POLITICAL CHART The only meaningful notion of ‘right’

    THE DOOLITTLE (SCIENTIFIC) POLITICAL CHART

    The only meaningful notion of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that I can state existentially is k-selection (right/masculine ), vs r-selection (left/feminine-universal) since these are opposing strategies with libertarianism (voluntary cooperation) achievable as a compromise between the two strategies. (that is how I see we minority libertarians: providing a compromise between the genders through voluntary cooperation).

    As far as I know we must talk in at least three dimensions to discuss options on political orders.

    1 – Organization of production – distribution of property

    <—centralized—————-meritocratic—————–equal—>

    <—tyranny———————-liberty———————-communism->

    2 – Organization of production of the commons – the fruits of production

    <—-centralized—————meritocratic—————- equal—>

    <—-tyranny———————–liberty——————–communism->

    3 – Organization of Reproduction – National(kin) or Corporate(kin-independent)

    <—-authoritarian(personal)—–kin/nation————corporate–>

    <—-???——————————Eugenic—————Dysgenic—>

    <—K-selection…………………. merit selection…….. r-selection—>

    And to construct these organizations we require incentives:

    4 – Weapon of Influence (methods of organization)

    <—-Violence———————–Exchange————-Gossip——–>

    <—-Loss of Life/harm…..loss of consumption….loss of cooperation–>

    <—-Promise of safety….promise of consumption… promise of cooperation->

    So it is indeed impossible to construct an r-selected order non-parasitically. Because that’s precisely what it means. And it is so because we must produce incentive to engage in costly production if we are human (k-selection), even though the herd must just graze on whatever grass is available (r-selection).

    This is the Doolittle chart, not the Nolan Chart.

    This chart unifies all disciplines from biology to politics to economics.

    This chart is consistently explanatory across all political orders.

    So as far as I know any OTHER method of representing the organization of Production(consumption), commons(investment) and reproduction(perpetuation) is a distraction for the purpose of achieving an alternate end other than the true and moral.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 05:28:00 UTC

  • WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL HIERARCHY ===METAPHYSICAL=== ……..Heroism (demonstrated

    WESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL HIERARCHY

    ===METAPHYSICAL===

    ……..Heroism (demonstrated excellence)

    ……..Science (truth) ……

    ……..Naturalism (reality)

    ……. Natural Law (sovereignty)

    ===POLITICAL===

    ……..Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons

    ……..Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury

    ===MORAL====

    ……..Christianity (love/trust bias)

    ===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC===

    …….Love of nature (animism/paganism)

    ===PERSONAL===

    Buddhism………Stoicism

    Yoga……………..Sport

    Nurturing……….Craftsmanship.

    Spiritual ………..Political

    Experiential……Actionable

    Feminine …….. Masculine

    I haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 01:34:00 UTC

  • Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right. Popper was saved because libertarian

    Mises, Popper and Rothbard were half-right.

    Popper was saved because libertarians didn’t use him as a vehicle for heaping undue praise, or pseudoscientific justificationism. Rothabardians damaged Mises so much that he is almost impossible to recover except by grouping him with Poincare, Brouwer and Bridgman as the people who failed to construct existential testing: operationalism.

    Popper makes it half way to operationalism by correctly identifying scientific criticism but not operationalism (scientific operationalism). Then getting stuck in falsificationism.

    Mises tries with praxeology to construct economic operationalism. Gets stuck in praxeology trying to state that something is true or not versus whether something is false or not.

    The Legal profession struggles with strict construction and textualism (legal operationalism) – and I am not so sure why that movement failed like the other disciplines.

    No one in the social sciences or philosophy creates moral or political operationalism – possibly because it would have to come from law or economics.

    So this is the great philosophical failure of the 20th century. Why?

    Probability and Statistics, Set Theory, The Philosophy of Language.

    Attempts to abandon action. These are means of complex free association, not means of truth finding.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 10:47:00 UTC

  • CURT: WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMETHING YOU WISH TO OBSERVE? (apriorism does not convey

    CURT: WHAT DO YOU CALL SOMETHING YOU WISH TO OBSERVE?

    (apriorism does not convey truth, only a discount on testing)

    I would call it either existence or reality prior to my observation of it. and the mixture of existence or reality and my memory and imagination after I observe it. Hence the necessity to use discipline by performing due diligence that what I record or testify is a ‘fact’ (because it has survived testing) rather rather than a statement of error, bias, wishful thinking or deception.

    Now as a trite but possibly helpful example, lets take your use of ‘fact’ to assume that nature provides truth rather than you provide truth. Nature/Reality exists. It can’t promise. It can’t testify. It cannot create truth propositions. It can’t observe. Only we can. So we create facts, and we create truthfulness, within our promise and testimony that our observations are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Truth exists in the correspondence between reality and description of it. But man creates the description and when he utters it he promises it is free of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.

    So in your case you did not test that your use of the term ‘fact’ was truthful (truth by necessity) rather than merely honest (truth by analogy). You may be honest but you erred.

    Likewise you did not test that the conveying truth content sufficient for persuasion of others was warrantied to be truthful rather than merely honest, and attempted to use this honesty but falsehood to persuade me by an appeal to the truth or authority of this non-fact that you claimed to be a fact.

    Truth is constructed by man and it is always open to revision. Hence all knowledge is hypothetical and subject to future criticism, and no knowledge is ever persuasive in itself. It is only persuasive because of the accumulated test for falsehood that have eliminated error. And as such we must always test all deductions, inductions, abductions, and outright guesses that result from it.

    ergo, apriorism is a means of hypothesizing not of truthfulness.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:33:00 UTC

  • CURT, WHAT DO YOU CALL AN OBSERVATION? (frowns) “An observation” Observation–>F

    CURT, WHAT DO YOU CALL AN OBSERVATION?

    (frowns)

    “An observation”

    Observation–>Fact as Hypothesis -> Theory

    Observations that survive criticism are facts.

    Hypotheses that survive criticism are theories.

    I may observe and err. A fact survives tests that I err/bias/think-wishfully/deceive in my observations.

    In other words, truth candidacy is a product of survival.

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FACT

    1) something to observe

    2) an observer to witness it

    3) (possibly) a method of observation (“instrumentation”)

    4) a method of recording (memory or instrumentation)

    5) a method of criticizing the observation to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from the record (memory).

    If we cannot find a way to falsify the record then we may morally claim it is a truth candidate, and therefore a fact.

    Some observations are easy to test: “john wrote that post”.

    Some observations are harder to test: “that car hit the pedestrian”.

    Some observations are very hard to test: last year’s faster than light problem due to improper fitting of a connector.

    It’s not hard guys unless you confuse the application of justifiction (law) to criticism (science). Which is common.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-11 02:17:00 UTC

  • APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE. Rationalism provides

    APPARENTLY IT’S HARD TO SEPARATE RATIONALISM FROM SCIENCE.

    Rationalism provides a limited subset of tools with which we can conduct test(criticisms) and construct ideas (hypotheses) within the discipline of constructing Truthful Testimony (science).

    I understand that imagining and exploring ideas via rationalism is desirable because it requires less knowledge than full criticism sufficient for testimony.

    But rationalism (internal consistency) provides only a child( subset) of truth telling (science) not the parent(determinant) of it.

    GATHERING, STUDYING, RESEARCHING, “FILLING THE SHELVES OF THE MIND”

    Collecting general knowledge about a subject so that you have conceptual resources with which to experiment.

    OBSERVATION: Just what it says. You observe and remember (record) something with sufficient instrumentation that you can compare it to future observations.

    FACT: An observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. In other words an observation that has survived all known criticism.

    FREE ASSOCIATION: Imagining through free association by any means possible from the most rigorous use of mathematics through daydreaming, using the conceptual resources available to you to experiment with.

    HYPOTHESIS : A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. In other words: informed guesses.

    THEORY: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. In other words, an hypothesis that has survived scrutiny.

    LAW : A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. In other words a theory that has survived all known criticism.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 06:19:00 UTC

  • Professor of internal medicine at local university with enormous patient practic

    Professor of internal medicine at local university with enormous patient practice.

    Yes, agrees that care is better here, even if surgery better in the states.

    Why? Diagnostic attention.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-07 14:47:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the c

    QUESTION: How would our lives change if pseudoscience were prohibited from the commons?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-07 03:13:00 UTC

  • THE DWINDLING CONFIDENCE OF ECONOMISTS. I read pretty much everything on economi

    THE DWINDLING CONFIDENCE OF ECONOMISTS.

    I read pretty much everything on economics every day that has anything to do with political economy. Or conversely I don’t care about banking and finance.

    I wish I had the data to support the memory.

    But through about 2010 economists were full of confidence and prediction in all manner of things.

    But since then the shift has continued away from both speculation and confidence.

    Now the next boom will increase demand for their opinions. And economists will return to the monetary equivalent of fantasy football once again. And with the predictability of growth again portray confidence that exacerbates the cycle.

    I guess the bright side is that for now they do less damage.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 15:35:00 UTC

  • Argumentative Assistance for Students of Debate

    [A]RGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.” 2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.” 3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”