Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • There is no more reason we should fear teaching testimonialism’s extension of th

    There is no more reason we should fear teaching testimonialism’s extension of the scientific method, than we fear teaching grammar, rhetoric, or newtonian physics. Because unlike mathematics, chemistry, and post-newtonian physics, testimony is a property of perceptions, experiences and limitations – not something that we cannot directly grasp.

    1) TESTIMONIALISM

    Experience (filling your mind)

    Creativity (free association)

    Hypothesis

    Identity (property, method, relation, and category)

    Internal Consistency (logic)

    External Correspondence (experiment)

    Existential Possibility (operationalism)

    Morality (fully informed voluntary exchange free of negative externality)

    Limits (falsification)

    Parsimony

    Evolution of Truthfulness (epistemology):

    Experience,

    Free Association,

    Hypothesis,

    Theory,

    Law,

    Truth,

    Tautology

    2) PROPERTARIANISM:

    Morality: The necessity of cooperation: natural law: necessary for the construction of the voluntary organization of demand, invention, production, distribution and trade, and the formation of prices and incentives which inform our actions in the service of one another.

    The basis of natural law of voluntary cooperation and the construction of the voluntary organization of production: The Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary exchange, of property-en-toto, free of imposition of costs by externality.

    3) PROPERTY EN TOTO (Demonstrated Property)

    I. SELF-PROPERTY

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    ….a) Physical Body

    ….b) Actions and Time

    ….c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    ….d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)

    II. PERSONAL PROPERTY

    ….a) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. KINSHIP PROPERTY

    ….a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    ….b) Children (genetics)

    ….c) Familial Relations (security)

    ….d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    ….e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    IV. COOPERATIVE PROPERTY

    ….a) Organizational ties (work)

    ….b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    V. SHAREHOLDER PROPERTY

    ….a) Shares: Partnership or shareholdership: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)

    VI. COMMON PROPERTY

    ….b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons)

    ….c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    VII. COMMON INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY:

    ….a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

    VIII. COMMON FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY

    ….a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    3.2) Categories of Property, Rights and Oblications:

    0) Non-Property (Bring under total control)

    ….CONTROL: Total Control

    ….PURPOSE: Create Property

    ….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus.

    1) Personal (Private) Property (limited control)

    ….PURPOSE: Acquisition Inventory and Consumption

    ….YES: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio,

    ….MAYBE: Abusus

    2) Shareholder (Private) Property (very limited control)

    ….CONTROL: Very Limited Control

    ….PURPOSE: Dividends from Cooperation

    ….YES: Fructus

    ….MAYBE: ?Transitus, ?Usus,?Mancipio,

    ….NO: Abusus

    3) Common (Public) Property (All Citizen Shareholders)

    ….CONTROL: No control.

    ….PURPOSE: Prohibition on Consumption.

    ….MAYBE: Transitus, Usus, Fructus,

    ….NO: Mancipio, Abusus

    4) RIGHTS

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    5) OBLIGATIONS

    1) Non-Imposition : Productive, Fully informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-en-toto, Free of External Imposition of Costs against Property-en-toto.

    6) LAW, JUDGE AND JURY

    (obvious)Law is discovered by judges as the incremental suppression of parasitism that violates property en toto. While government may produce commons and it may construct contracts, all law must be discovered.

    7) MONARCH(JUDGE), HOUSES (MARKETS), ADVOCATES (CITIZENS)

    Decidability: Equidistribution of proceeds to houses. Economic Investment as ‘voting’. Legal Dissent prevents passage. Otherwise all legal contracts are binding.

    Houses, chosen by lot, 90 days on. 90 days off:

    7.1) Judge: The Monarchy, Judiciary

    7.2) Force: Military, Sheriffs and Militia

    7.3) Production and Property: Treasury, Finance and Banking, Entrepreneurs, Professionals, Employers of non relations.

    7.4) Reproduction, Consumption, and Insurance: Race, Nation, Tribe, Clan, Family, Individual

    The House-out-of-House.

    7.5) Gossip: Academics, Intellectuals, and media.

    – may not participate.

    – must speak truthfully (warranty)

    8) WILSONIAN SYNTHESIS: LAW, MORALITY, PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE(TRUTH TELLING)

    1) Morality: preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation by a total prohibition on imposition of costs against property-en-toto.

    2) Law: an evolutionary list of the accumulated prohibitions on innovations in the means of immoral actions: impositions of costs on property en toto.

    3) Property Rights: The promise that third parties will warranty restitution and retaliation, and not retaliate for restitution and retaliation, for imposition of costs against property en toto in exchange for the same warranty from the defending party or parties.

    4) Science: the discipline(technology) of laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from testimony, leaving only truth candidates.

    5) Philosophy: The discipline(technology) of improving truthful testimony.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-14 06:37:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) It is evident that aristotelian science produces a dramatic inc

    (from elsewhere)

    It is evident that aristotelian science produces a dramatic increase in the abilities of a people no matter what people learn it. It is evident that Christianity is good for a people – better than the alternatives – because it asks that we eliminate hatred from the human heart, and forgive our many failings, and producing economic velocity. It is evident that rule of law is good for a people – better than the alternatives, since rule of law – traditional law – does not depend upon the wisdom of men, only the results of their prior actions: it is scientific – while legislative law is always a questionable hypothesis. It is also clear that democracy is not better for a people than a benevolent monarchy. It is clear that a bureaucracy is more expensive and more corrupt than an upper class and nobility. It is clear that that the large nation state is not better for a people than the monarchical city state with ‘quarters’ for different groups none of whom can obtain political power over the other.

    One thing I have learned in my life is that the western overemphasis of verbal transmission of abstract principles is inferior in result to ritualistic learning by doing as a member of the group. A minority of men, verbally gifted, can learn by this means. And while it is an inexpensive means of teaching, precisely because it is merely verbal, we cannot make the method of teaching the of verbally gifted a universal expectation any more than we can make the physical fitness of our best athletes a universal expectation – without failing the majority of our peoples. The west attempted to create an aristocracy of everyone and has failed and killed itself in doing so. The colonial era was a catastrophe because it broke property, territorial, hereditary, tribal and monarchical bonds, in exchange for literacy, numeracy, science, medicine and law.

    Enlightenment era western political orders have been a catastrophe. It’s democratic incompetence was a luxury made possible by the rewards of the technological advancements of the era, military power, expanding trade, and colonial conquest. It is not something to be imitated. The west was made great by small nations, with kings, who prohibited the use of government for the exercise of power, relied at the demand of the church and tradition upon the rule of traditional common law, the effect of literacy, beneficial geography, and the aggressive hanging of large numbers of criminals every year – removing them and their genes from the population.

    Africa certainly benefits from christianity, literacy, medicine, science, technology, property rights, and rule of common law. But Africans must develop a reproductive, social, pedagogical, and political order of their own. The west’s model of education, production, production of commons, and political legislation, is unique to westerners and causes damage wherever it is tried. The world, Africa included, needs to develop its own success not to imitate western failure. Universalism is a european enlightenment fantasy, and we cannot conflate the success of western technology, with the failure of western social and political orders. The west is dying from its own designs. The rest of the world should not imitate it and perish as well.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-14 04:31:00 UTC

  • *Citations do not reflect important innovations but the usefulness of a paper to

    *Citations do not reflect important innovations but the usefulness of a paper to the broader community of researchers.*

    —“Stephen Stigler, a statistician at the University of Chicago in Illinois and an expert on the history of the field, “these papers are not at all those that have been most important to us statisticians”. Rather, they are the ones that have proved to be most useful to the vastly larger population of practising scientists.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 18:09:00 UTC

  • A man, alone, on an island, engages in aesthetics, not ethics. Ethics consists i

    A man, alone, on an island, engages in aesthetics, not ethics. Ethics consists in the science of identifying laws of human cooperation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 17:47:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665224582442450944

  • Evidence is against Dawkins. But then, like most scientists, excellence in one n

    Evidence is against Dawkins. But then, like most scientists, excellence in one niche field is not applicable elsewhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 21:22:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664916248178925568

    Reply addressees: @SurvivingBabel

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664905841657671681

    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/664905841657671681

  • If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…

    [I] work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”. Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements. Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood. And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

    [pullquote]But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
    [/pullquote]

    Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent. So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm. But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well. So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me. This is the most and best moral position any man can take. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • If You Don’t Like What I Say – Think About This…

    [I] work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”. Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: a proof includes including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements. Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and almost everyone in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood. And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

    [pullquote]But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
    [/pullquote]

    Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto without consent. So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you. I cannot stop you from doing good, I can only prevent you from imposing harm. But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you. And that applies to me as well. So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind. Just as if I disagree with this you must end me. This is the most and best moral position any man can take. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The General Challenge of Improving Demonstrated Intelligence Is In Making Fewer Errors.

    —“General knowledge, scientific knowledge, and testimonial truth will pretty much reduce any error you might accumulate through normal human cognitive bias. And, from what I can see, the general challenge of improving demonstrated intelligence is not getting smarter, it is making fewer errors. I know engineers who are not particularly smart, but they demonstrate the intelligence that they do have very well, because engineering-thinking is pretty scientific and practical. I see this in doctors as well as engineers. Whether they’re exceptional or not matters less. Their entire profession is built upon the scientific principle of doing no harm. So they may fewer errors. Too bad economists and politicians don’t do the same.”—

  • The General Challenge of Improving Demonstrated Intelligence Is In Making Fewer Errors.

    —“General knowledge, scientific knowledge, and testimonial truth will pretty much reduce any error you might accumulate through normal human cognitive bias. And, from what I can see, the general challenge of improving demonstrated intelligence is not getting smarter, it is making fewer errors. I know engineers who are not particularly smart, but they demonstrate the intelligence that they do have very well, because engineering-thinking is pretty scientific and practical. I see this in doctors as well as engineers. Whether they’re exceptional or not matters less. Their entire profession is built upon the scientific principle of doing no harm. So they may fewer errors. Too bad economists and politicians don’t do the same.”—

  • IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I SAY – THINK ABOUT THIS I work on the discipline (techno

    IF YOU DON’T LIKE WHAT I SAY – THINK ABOUT THIS

    I work on the discipline (technology) of speaking truthfully. Not honestly, but truthfully – as in “as scientifically as possible”.

    Now like any human being I absolutely do engage in various forms of sarcasm, humor, honorarium, and illustration. But in general, I try to write ‘proofs’: including tests of internal consistency, external correspondence, informational availability, existential possibility, limits, parsimony, and full accounting. That’s the innovation that Propertarianism and Testimonialism provide us with: an amoral (unloaded) language for the articulation and comparison of various political, ethical and moral statements.

    Now, I don’t (like everyone else in the world, and in intellectual history) want to know the truth so that I can justify the use of my particular moral bias over your particular moral bias. Instead, I want to know the truth so that you and I can conduct an exchange – a compromise – rather than a conquest. A trade rather than a monopoly act of oppression. A ‘truth’ rather than a falsehood.

    And that is how Propertarianism differs from the fallacies of authoritarian monotheism, utilitarian rationalism, and democratic majority rule: that the only ‘truth’ we can know is when your bias and my bias results in a compromise that is mutually beneficial.

    Now that does not mean that we need to agree – another fallacy of democracy – but it means we cannot materially dissent. In other words, we can trade in a compromise, or we can prevent each other from imposing costs upon one another’s property-en-toto (what you’ve acted to obtain), but we cannot by any method impose costs on one another’s property-en-toto.

    So if you don’t like something that’s true, or you want to speak an untruth, then you’re just a bad dishonest person unworthy of cooperation. If you want to preserve monopoly democracy, then you’re just a bad and dishonest thief unworthy of cooperation and worthy of punishment, ostracization and death. If you want to just get away with stealing from others without engaging in trade then you’re again, a bad, dishonest, thief worthy of punishment, ostracization and death.

    But if you want to do something that does not impose a cost upon me or mine, I will not and cannot interfere with you. And if you want to impose a cost upon me, or gain my cooperation then I will enter in an exchange with you.

    But what I will not do, and what no future generations will willingly do, is allow you to perpetuate the pseudoscience, propaganda, deception, and outright lying that has been the basis of the socialist, progressive, feminist, libertine, and neo-conservative movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.

    If that is the case then I am morally justified, ethically justified, and biologically mandated to exterminate you.

    So if you disagree with this I must end you, and all like you. Not for me, but for all of mankind.

    This is the most and best moral position any man can take.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 06:31:00 UTC