Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • “Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the cha

    —“Popper accordingly repudiates induction and rejects the view that it is the characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, substituting falsifiability in its place.”—

    PROPERTARIAN POSITION

    The operationalists have corrected this view: how you imagine your theory is irrelevant – how you propose your theory and therefore testify to its construction is not. Or better: how you bring the product of your thought to the market requires that you warrantee it is non-fraudulent, and free of harm.

    Because scientists and academics and public intellectuals and priests have brought many harmful warrantied products to market – and unless such intellectual products are operationally constructed, one cannot demonstrate that he did not create a hazard by his actions.

    Popper confuses the process of guessing: tautology, deduction, induction, abduction, guessing, and intuitive association, about existential phenomenon – with axiomatic deduction and induction as practiced in the logic of constant relations (mathematics and sets).

    There are no logical constraints on the production of theories – we can imagine theories by any means we can possibly arrive at them. The only constraint we place upon theories is in the publication of them; because in the publication of them we must know that you have warrantied your speech from harm, just as you have warrantied a law, product, or service from harming others by your due diligence.

    We can test our theories through internal consistency (logic), external correspondence (testing), hardening (falsification), and operational definitions (proof of existence, the absence of imaginary information, the absence of cognitive bias, and the absence of allegorical deception.)

    Because theories in every theoretical discipline, just like products in any industry, are capable of causing harm. In fact, harmful theories are second only the the great plague in the harm done – and even that is open to challenge. In fact, it is most likely that harmful theories have produced the greatest disasters affecting man in history.

    Free speech, dueling, Libel, Defamation and Slander co-habitated well. One could stop lying himself, or via the courts. Each individual could defend against the spreading of deceit by his own action etther by physical threat or by threat of the courts. But with the incremental loss of dueling, libel, defamation, slander, we slowly lost the means of protecting ourselves from harmful gossip. Worse the academy began to adopt gossip systematically.

    There is no need to return to dueling. However, it is quite possible to prevent politicians, the academy, the press, businesses and private individuals from the spread of harmful, dishonest and erroneous theories.

    All that is required is that we grasp that there is nothing particular to science about the scientific method. It is just the method we must use if we wish to speak truthfully? whether a statement is internally consistent (logical), externally correspondent (tested), hardened (via falsification), and existentially possible (operationally defined).

    Why should we be able to distribute harmful theories any more than we can distribute harmful products, services, and policies?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 21:47:00 UTC

  • “Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science. Science,

    —“Popper holds that there is no unique methodology specific to science. Science, like virtually every other human, and indeed organic, activity, Popper believes, consists largely of problem-solving.”—

    All human activity consists of problem solving. The method of thinking, acting and speaking developed by scientists is merely the most truthful method of thinking, acting, and speaking man has developed. Empiricism (observation), instrumentalism, Operationalism, and performative truth constitute the most truthful means of thinking, acting and speaking we have come to understand. The reason being that empiricism, instrumentalism and operationalism require us to demonstrate existence proofs rather than mere tests of meaning. The point of demarcation then, is not between science and non-science, but between truthful speech and non-truthful speech. Where the criteria for truthful speech, is the promise of that any other observer of the same actions would experience the same measurements (results).

    Furthermore

    1) science is a luxury good. 2) there are fewer incentives to lie in the physical sciences precisely because it is a luxury good, and luxury goods reward us with status signals, not material things, 3) There is a very human need to explain – a fear of vacuum – and it is this vacuum that we try to fill, with untruthful thought action and speech. 4) But until we can construct truthful speech, we cannot make a truth proposition, only imagine hypotheses (4b) and our imaginations are guided by our genes: with biases we must seek to escape lest we cause harm to others. 5) Propertarianism them, demands of us an even higher standard than falsification. Propertarianism does not limit how we inquire into science, only what we can claim to say truthfully in any walk of life – including science. Just as falsification places a higher constraint on the scope of truthful propositions in science, Propertarianism further increases the constraint upon truthful propositions in science. It is an ethical mandate that man does not harm, as an explicit constraint upon the many scientists and philosophers that have done harm by pseudoscience and pseudo-rationalism: speaking untruthfully, and causing harm. 6) Propertarianism holds scientists and philosophers accountable for their public speech – and public actions – if not private thoughts, and demands that speakers warranty that they speak truthfully: Operationally. 7) Scientists, academics, public intellectuals and philosophers, in the 19th and 20th centuries, have struggled to restore mysticism using the one success that the academy can claim: physical science, and caused millions of deaths with their words, and destroyed our civilization. 8) if you are not willing to warranty that your speech is truthful, then you may be punished by the rest of us for the harm it has caused. 9) In order to prevent harm of the 19th and 20th centuries, we must create the moral standard, and embody that moral standard in law, that intellectual products brought to the market are no longer able to cause harm because they are either defective, or that they serve as vehicles for fraud – which is endemic to the cosmopolitan and anglo programs.

    usage: war.ran.ty. war·ran·tied, war·ran·ty·ing, war·ran·ties

    Implied warranty

    A warranty arising from the existence of certain laws governing the conditions under which a certain thing may be transferred, rather than from the words of the seller.

    Warranty of merchantability

    An implied guarantee on the part of a merchant that the merchandise he sells is suitable for the general purpose that it is sold. For example, if the merchant sells house paint, it is implied that that paint will adhere to walls.

    Warranty of diligence (proposed)

    An implied guarantee on the part of a producer of intellectual speech, that his works are limited to the demonstrably existential, and free of imaginary and deceptive content.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 21:22:00 UTC

  • THEY WERE WRONG. WE SURVIVED THE LAST ICE AGE. BTW: If you haven’t seen this it’

    http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.htmlSO THEY WERE WRONG. WE SURVIVED THE LAST ICE AGE.

    BTW: If you haven’t seen this it’s fun:

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 09:07:00 UTC

  • THE GREATEST DEBT WE OWE SCIENCE (important piece) The discipline of science fun

    THE GREATEST DEBT WE OWE SCIENCE

    (important piece)

    The discipline of science functions well and we respect it because it is the one in which we lie the least, prefer the least, and are biased toward outcomes the least.

    But then again, the discipline of science merely forces us to tell the truth.

    And we tell the truth in science because in science only truth has value to others.

    The problem is, that in the rest of life, the value of telling the truth to others decreases rapidly.

    There is no ‘ scientific method ‘, only the method of teaching ourselves to speak the truth by speaking truthfully. So the scientific method is misnamed – it is the moral method, which science evolved for its own purposes, precisely because only in science is truth of greater value than deception.

    So it is the result of incentives that science produced the moral method that we mistakenly call the scientific method – but that method is applicable to all human thought speech and action, in all fields of human experience.

    I have been struggling with making the point that the scientific method is consistent – identical -, in all walks of life, in all disciplines, in all matters of our existence – in every discourse and debate. And that there is nothing particularly interesting about science versus technology versus business, versus law = or any other area of life. The moral method remains constant. We may value different inputs and outputs of using this method, but that method remains consistent no matter what aspect of human cooperation we apply it in.

    That is because there is no difference between moral thought speech and action in any other area of life.

    Scientists discovered how to think, speak and act morally.

    Everything else was a consequence of that discovery.

    That is the greatest debt that we owe science.

    TRUTH TELLING MATTERS – And there is but one means of speaking truthfully: operationally.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-10 03:07:00 UTC

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

    QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

    ANSWER:  

    [N]o. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

    Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

    Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

    So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

    I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

    Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

    Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

    Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

    Curt Doolittle,
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • “Oxytocin has also been implicated in the etiology of autism, with one report su

    —“Oxytocin has also been implicated in the etiology of autism, with one report suggesting autism is correlated with genomic deletion of the gene containing the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR). Studies involving Caucasian and Finnish samples and Chinese Han families provide support for the relationship of OXTR with autism.”—

    Progress. Slow but steady.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 14:09:00 UTC

  • China failed when it converted from empirical arguments to moral arguments. We d

    China failed when it converted from empirical arguments to moral arguments.

    We did too.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 03:15:00 UTC

  • THE ACADEMY’S POLLUTION TOUCHES EVERYTHING You know, I don’t know what’s quite w

    THE ACADEMY’S POLLUTION TOUCHES EVERYTHING

    You know, I don’t know what’s quite wrong with contemporary physics. I do know what’s wrong with contemporary politics, philosophy and economics (if anything).

    What bothers me is that theoretical physicists seem to be talking just like the philosophers and economists – and so if they’re making the same verbal and logical errors, it just raises my suspicion that the reason we’re having problems in physics at present is for the same reason we’re having problems in philosophy and economics.

    All that I know, is that mathematics is to science, what rationalism is to philosophy, what models are to economics: it’s not worth much really, unless you run tests. And I am fairly certain that we have a lot of people using paper, rather than a few people using expensive experiments.

    And I think by and large that is the Academy’s fault – they want cheap slave labor (grad students), and so we produce a lot of unproductive people (yes, we have too many scientists, because that’s what the data says).

    And if that money was spent on experiments (people are very expensive) rather than paper and formula pushers; it is likely that we would produce better results.

    I can’t be sure of it, but it’s hard not to come to that conclusion.

    The academy is damaging to everything everywhere.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 06:31:00 UTC

  • WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE? Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of

    WHY PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE?

    Yes, well, the way I look at it, is that the job of philosophers is to integrate the findings of science into our system of -collection of- general rules, by which we agree upon a useful, beneficial, normative perception of the world we live in, and how we should act in it.

    So, I do understand that science, not philosophy, is the source of current knowledge.

    But we must understand what to value, and devalue and consider foul, and what to encode encode in law, not encode in law. Because while we may desire our preferences, the law describes the boundary beyond which our preferences may not pass.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 06:53:00 UTC