Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Smart. Non-deterministic universe places no constraint on defining morality, onl

    Smart. Non-deterministic universe places no constraint on defining morality, only on physical theory.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 16:43:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616648352827113472

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616573551953465344

    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/616573551953465344

  • people merely need ‘laundered’ concepts to work with. We can’t expect everyone t

    people merely need ‘laundered’ concepts to work with. We can’t expect everyone to be a scientist, but they can use the results

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 14:32:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616615496117583872

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616554708212281344

    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/616554708212281344

  • it can be internalized, and it can be externalized the same way we externalized

    it can be internalized, and it can be externalized the same way we externalized scientific language over religous.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 14:31:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616615289732624384

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616554708212281344

    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/616554708212281344

  • Well, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wil

    Well, I in retrospect I understand why no one else solved the problem of the Wilsonian synthesis: the merger of science and philosophy. Why no one else came up with testimonialism, propertarianism, and operational criticism.

    Also in retrospect, I am fairly certain that had Babbage’s machine been built and worked, that the synthesis would have happened in Hayek’s generation, instead of mine.

    But I am still suspicious that anything could have stopped the travesty of marxism, socialism, postmodernism, and feminism, as a war against truth. Women did an amazing amount of damage with their enfranchisement.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 11:16:00 UTC

  • “UNIVERSITIES ARE REPOSITORIES FOR DISCARDED THEORIES.” Priceless —“Universiti

    “UNIVERSITIES ARE REPOSITORIES FOR DISCARDED THEORIES.”

    Priceless

    —“Universities may see themselves as bastions of knowledge and intellectualism, but they have long since forfeited this role. Instead, they have become repositories for theories long since discarded in the region and which bear little resemblance to reality today. The more professors prioritise theory over fact, the more they will condemn themselves to irrelevance. Unfortunately, when policymakers embrace blindly their untested conventional wisdom, the consequences can be far worse.”—–

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-02 11:10:00 UTC

  • Tautology. Determinism is a necessary metaphysical assumption

    Tautology. Determinism is a necessary metaphysical assumption.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-01 13:40:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/616239854863650816

    Reply addressees: @a_man_in_black @narmno @the_new_heresy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615916788828672001

    IN REPLY TO:

    @a_man_in_black

    @narmno @the_new_heresy @curtdoolittle However, science does not identify truth; only our best understanding of consistent processes.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615916788828672001

  • Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

     [A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

    –“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

     

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

     

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Operationalism is a Means of Falsification

     [A] criticism from Bruce, on my failure to make clear that Operationalism is a means of conducting a test of falsification.

    –“This monotheistic passion for reduction to operations seems to lead to cul-de-sacs.”— Bruce Caithness

    Bruce,

    1) Operationalism is an attempt at falsification. Just as in math, if we can construct a statement through operations then it is existentially possible. Just as in economics, if we can reduce an economic statement to a sequence of rationally executable decisions. Just as in science, if we can reduce a test to a repeatable sequence of operations, and if we can reduce our measures to those that are possible then the test is existentially possible, assuming determinism in the universe and therefore the constancy of that which we measure (without which no science ,and no theory, can be possible).

    If I conduct tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, repeatability, full accounting, parsimony (limits), existential possibility, objective morality (voluntary transfer), then I have laundered imaginary content from my statements. This is what science consists in: identifying existential information and eliminating imaginary information.

    If I have performed the due diligence to launder by speech of imaginary information, then I speak as truthfully as is possible. I may indeed speak the most parsimonious testimony possible (the truth) or I may not – a matter of error at one end of the possibilities, or of imprecision at the other end.

    I can warranty that I have performed that due diligence by stating that I speak truthfully: I give testimony in public, as to the truthfulness of my speech.

     

    2) One can speak truthfully, and warranty that one speaks truthfully. If one speaks in e-prime (specifying means of existence), and in operational definitions (rather than experiences), it is extremely difficult to articulate an idea that still contains imaginary content.

     

    3) Rather than “leading to cul-de-sac’s” I suspect that this is the completion (or repair) of the critical rationalist research program and the most important invention in philosophy since the failure of that program.

    Just is what it is. I just did a good yeoman’s labor. But between explanatory power, and parsimony it’s a pretty powerful theoretical structure, and it’s pretty hard to defeat it.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Will We See A Post-Religious Future?

    [G]iven that we see a decline in religiosity. 1) ON ARATIONAL VS RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL ETHICS – Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases – Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases. – Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases. – There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really) – All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions. – All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors. – So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications. – And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification. – Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

    2) ON 20th CENTURY PSEUDOSCIENCE Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense. Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power. Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power. So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories). I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth. Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity. I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the Hellenic enlightenment). And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Will We See A Post-Religious Future?

    [G]iven that we see a decline in religiosity. 1) ON ARATIONAL VS RATIONAL VS EMPIRICAL ETHICS – Rationalism (rational ethics) increases as IQ increases – Religiosity (arational ethics) increases as IQ decreases. – Impulsivity and crime increase as IQ decreases. – There is a positive correlation between non-criminality and religion as IQ decreases. (The whole “love” thing works really) – All that differs in people’s behavior is the justification for their actions. – All people justify their intuitions, they do not rationally choose moral behaviors. – So whether we are indoctrinated into an arational, or a rational ethic is one of whether we are able to practice arational or rational justifications. – And conversely, we require both arational and rational ethics to provide for people capable of arational and rational justification. – Just as we require virtue (imitative), rational (rule based), and empirical (outcome based) ethics for children, adults, and elders.

    2) ON 20th CENTURY PSEUDOSCIENCE Marxism, Freudianism, Socialism, Postmodernism, Feminism, Keyensian economics, Cantorian sets, Misesian economics, libertine libertarianism, neo-conservatism, are all pseudoscientific nonsense. Much of religion is mythical and arational in content, but produces highly desirable results. The purpose of monotheism was the conduct of warfare by pre-state peoples. From iran/india (the same peoples at the time) forward that is the purpose of religion: power. Just as the purpose of the 19th and 20th century philosophies was to produce ideologies that assisted in the seizure of political power. So while I am happy we had a reformation. And I am happy that we had Darwin, I am unhappy that the intuitionistic and operationalist revolutions failed – and allowed pseudoscience (lies) to replace myths (allegories). I wouldn’t be too impressed with myself by thinking the era of religion had passed. Democratic secular socialist humanism is just as nonsensical (as stated) as is any of the main religions of the earth. Dressing the emperor in new clothes does nothing to change his identity. I have a vision. That vision is to create the truthful society just as we created the scientific society(the anglo enlightenment), and before it the rational society (the Hellenic enlightenment). And if we did that we would look at the pseudoscience, outright lies, and propaganda of the 20th century just as we look at the medieval period: an age of mysticism. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.