Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • The Liar’s Mantra

    -Guest Post By James Santagata

    “How dare you attempt to _HIDE_ your ‘Hate’ behind Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra I

    “How dare you attempt to _EXPLAIN_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra II

    “How dare you attempt to _JUSTIFY_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra III

    “How dare you attempt to _CONDONE_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra IV

    “Truth is never, ever an excuse such _FEELINGS_ or _CONCLUSIONS_ on this issue!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra V

    “This issue is just too important & critical to allow the involvement of Truth and Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra VI

    [T]he Liars will always proclaim that they love & embrace Truth & Science.

    In reality they don’t.

    Liars only love and embrace truth and science when it is convenient and seems to support or can be twisted to support their claims and religious dogma (e.g., secular humanism, tribalism or ethno-chauvinistic supremacist views, etc.).

    Outside of that narrow exception delineated above which utilizes the simple binary litmus test of: (a) Is it good for my views? and/or (b) Is it good for my people/group?, Truth and Science becomes not just bothersome but extremely dangerous due to its destructive capabilities.

    At this very moment then, Truth and Science threatens to slaughter the Liar’s own Sacred Cows, therefore, Truth and Science must and will be completely disregarded while the Truth Speaker or Scientist will be tortured and slowly murdered in front of the fellow villagers in the public square.

    Call all Liars to the carpet. Hold their faces to the fire. Don’t let go until they have been fully asphyxiated or immolated in the flame.

    And then repeat for several more minutes for safety before removing head(s) and placing on a pike(s) in the public square with an interpretative sign explaining (a) why this occurred, (b) how they caused it and (c) they deserved it.

  • The Liar’s Mantra

    -Guest Post By James Santagata

    “How dare you attempt to _HIDE_ your ‘Hate’ behind Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra I

    “How dare you attempt to _EXPLAIN_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra II

    “How dare you attempt to _JUSTIFY_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra III

    “How dare you attempt to _CONDONE_ your ‘Hate’ with Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra IV

    “Truth is never, ever an excuse such _FEELINGS_ or _CONCLUSIONS_ on this issue!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra V

    “This issue is just too important & critical to allow the involvement of Truth and Science!”
    – The Liar’s Mantra VI

    [T]he Liars will always proclaim that they love & embrace Truth & Science.

    In reality they don’t.

    Liars only love and embrace truth and science when it is convenient and seems to support or can be twisted to support their claims and religious dogma (e.g., secular humanism, tribalism or ethno-chauvinistic supremacist views, etc.).

    Outside of that narrow exception delineated above which utilizes the simple binary litmus test of: (a) Is it good for my views? and/or (b) Is it good for my people/group?, Truth and Science becomes not just bothersome but extremely dangerous due to its destructive capabilities.

    At this very moment then, Truth and Science threatens to slaughter the Liar’s own Sacred Cows, therefore, Truth and Science must and will be completely disregarded while the Truth Speaker or Scientist will be tortured and slowly murdered in front of the fellow villagers in the public square.

    Call all Liars to the carpet. Hold their faces to the fire. Don’t let go until they have been fully asphyxiated or immolated in the flame.

    And then repeat for several more minutes for safety before removing head(s) and placing on a pike(s) in the public square with an interpretative sign explaining (a) why this occurred, (b) how they caused it and (c) they deserved it.

  • Existential Numbers for Existential Creatures

    —“The primary concern of mathematics is numbers, and this means the positive integers. . . . In the words of Kronecker, the positive integers were created by God. Kronecker would have expressed it even better if he had said that the positive integers were created by God for the benefit of man (and other finite beings). Mathematics belongs to man, not to God. We are not interested in properties of the positive integers that have no descriptive meaning for finite man. When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop 1967, Chapter 1, A Constructivist Manifesto, page 2)

    —“If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself. “—

    Yes, and equally so:

    **If     god has morality of his own that he needs to be done, then let him do that himself as well.** 

    Man’s only possible morality consists in fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.


  • Existential Numbers for Existential Creatures

    —“The primary concern of mathematics is numbers, and this means the positive integers. . . . In the words of Kronecker, the positive integers were created by God. Kronecker would have expressed it even better if he had said that the positive integers were created by God for the benefit of man (and other finite beings). Mathematics belongs to man, not to God. We are not interested in properties of the positive integers that have no descriptive meaning for finite man. When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop 1967, Chapter 1, A Constructivist Manifesto, page 2)

    —“If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself. “—

    Yes, and equally so:

    **If     god has morality of his own that he needs to be done, then let him do that himself as well.** 

    Man’s only possible morality consists in fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.


  • A Different Unification: A Bold Challenge

    —“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)

    [I] can translate this into something scary:

    “Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”

    That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. 🙂

  • A Different Unification: A Bold Challenge

    —“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)

    [I] can translate this into something scary:

    “Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”

    That is precisely what I am up to – although I didn’t know it when I started. 🙂

  • THIS IS WHAT I HAVE DONE: Philosophy and science will cease to exist as independ

    THIS IS WHAT I HAVE DONE: Philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines. That is enough for a man’s lifetime. Reforming political and moral philosophy is just icing on the cake.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 05:26:00 UTC

  • A BOLD CHALLENGE —“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as

    A BOLD CHALLENGE

    —“Very possibly classical mathematics will cease to exist as an independent discipline”— (Bishop, 1970, p. 54)

    I can translate this into something scary:

    “Very possibly, classical philosophy and science will cease to exist as independent disciplines.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-20 20:12:00 UTC

  • EXISTENTIAL NUMBERS FOR EXISTENTIAL CREATURES —“The primary concern of mathema

    EXISTENTIAL NUMBERS FOR EXISTENTIAL CREATURES

    —“The primary concern of mathematics is number, and this means the positive integers. . . . In the words of Kronecker, the positive integers were created by God. Kronecker would have expressed it even better if he had said that the positive integers were created by God for the benefit of man (and other finite beings). Mathematics belongs to man, not to God. We are not interested in properties of the positive integers that have no descriptive meaning for finite man. When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop 1967, Chapter 1, A Constructivist Manifesto, page 2)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 20:16:00 UTC

  • PROFOUND: UNRIGOROUS THOUGHT IS NOT USELESS —“We are not contending that ideal

    PROFOUND: UNRIGOROUS THOUGHT IS NOT USELESS

    —“We are not contending that idealistic mathematics is worthless from the constructive point of view. This would be as silly as contending that unrigorous mathematics is worthless from the classical point of view. Every theorem proved with idealistic methods presents a challenge: to find a constructive version, and to give it a constructive proof.” — (Bishop 1967, Preface, page x)

    Now… lets translate this into the moral domain:

    —“I am not contending that any rational method is worthless for the purpose of truth-telling. That would be silly. Unrigorous thought is useful – we can arrive at theories by whatever means it is possible for us to do so. Every theory that survives by unrigorous – meaning rational – means, presents us with a challenge: to find an operational version and therefore demonstrate that it is existentially possible, open to observation, and therefore something that it is possible to testify to.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:53:00 UTC