Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • Untitled

    On the Relevance of Science to Morality

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 21:56:00 UTC

  • IGNORANCE IS A NECESSARY BYPRODUCT OF POSTMODERNISM If you must believe in SOME

    IGNORANCE IS A NECESSARY BYPRODUCT OF POSTMODERNISM

    If you must believe in SOME falsehoods, that means that you do not believe in scientific TRUTHS.

    Socialism + Feminism = Postmodernism = the collapse of reason and science.

    THE HARD REALITY THAT SCIENCE IS SLOWLY DEMONSTRATING

    (And in which postmodern thought is demonstrated to be false.)

    We are vastly unequal in value to one another.

    Genders are unequal in distribution of talents.

    There are no Female Jack the Rippers and no Female Newtons.

    Feminism has increased single motherhood, and increased poverty from single parenthood.

    Family structure determines property rights and morality.

    Homogenous family structures are necessary for homogenous polities.

    Diversity is bad, everywhere, anywhere.

    Race is a deciding factor in all personal interactions.

    Political preferences are a combination of genetics and family structure.

    Redistribution is eventually, genetically, economically, and politically disastrous for a polity.

    Median IQ is the most important property of any population.

    The “smart fraction” is the most important group of people in any population.

    The Pareto principle demonstrates a *requirement* of how much property must be concentrated in the smart fraction of the population.

    The religious conservatives are using religion to oppose the state because it works as a means of opposing the state’s attack on the nuclear family and meritocracy.

    The state and it’s church (universities) are engaged in a religious Pogrom to replace christianity and aristocracy with pseudo-science and socialism.

    LIBERTARIANISM MAY ERR. BUT IT ISN”T FALSE. Or destructive. Postmodernism IS false and destructive.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:09:00 UTC

  • IF IT’S THAT INEFFECTIVE, THEN WHY DO WE BET THE ECONOMY, AND OUR CIVILIZATION O

    IF IT’S THAT INEFFECTIVE, THEN WHY DO WE BET THE ECONOMY, AND OUR CIVILIZATION ON IT?

    (I’m not anti-math. I’m anti platonism. Which includes representing what corresponds to reality by necessity with that which correlates with reality. In particular the relationship between our economic data and the monopoly of the west on technology, while discovering a new continent.)

    “Abbott explains that effective mathematics provides compact, idealized representations of the inherently noisy physical world.”

    “Analytical mathematical expressions are a way making compact descriptions of our observations,” he told Phys.org. “As humans, we search for this ‘compression’ that math gives us because we have limited brain power. Maths is effective when it delivers simple, compact expressions that we can apply with regularity to many situations. It is ineffective when it fails to deliver that elegant compactness. It is that compactness that makes it useful/practical … if we can get that compression without sacrificing too much precision.

    “I argue that there are many more cases where math is ineffective (non-compact) than when it is effective (compact). Math only has the illusion of being effective when we focus on the successful examples. But our successful examples perhaps only apply to a tiny portion of all the possible questions we could ask about the universe.”

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html#jCp

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-05 16:43:00 UTC

  • THE ECONOMIC RED QUEEN?

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393239357/ref=mw_dp_mdsc?dsc=1&qid=1377611476&sr=8-1TECHNOLOGY: THE ECONOMIC RED QUEEN?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-28 13:56:00 UTC

  • MOVEMENT IN ECONOMICS. Krugman continues his shift. An finally the mainstream be

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2013/08/the-real-trouble-with-economics-sociology.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FKupd+%28Economist%27s+View%29IMPORTANT MOVEMENT IN ECONOMICS.

    Krugman continues his shift. An finally the mainstream begins to agree with people like me. 😉

    The few. The futile.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-28 04:35:00 UTC

  • THE POWER OF PARSIMONY If you learn enough about Physics, Math, Computer Science

    THE POWER OF PARSIMONY

    If you learn enough about Physics, Math, Computer Science, Economics and Philosophy (and hopefully in that order), it becomes readily apparent that all of these disciplines create all sorts of language for very, very simple principles that are constant across all of them.

    I don’t know what we need to call that basic set of ideas. In theory that’s part of the domain philosophy, because they are all tools for helping us think cogently, and act cogently, in a given discipline.

    But I can tell you one thing: there isn’t much difference between how science is practiced, than that set of basic principles. The only exception being that science discounts subjectivity and morality, economics includes subjectivity but not morality, and philosophy includes morality, subjectivity and objectivity.

    What I like most about computer programming is that it forces us to avoid the platonism in mathematics. And as such, avoids postmodernist influences on academia and the “res publica”.

    There are only a few dozen ideas for man to learn, but an infinite set of applications of them. Unfortunately, we ask our children, and each other, to memorize an infinite number of techniques, instead of a handful of necessary causal relations.

    This foundation, if it can be articulated as a finite set of principles with infinite application, is what we have been unable to define. That is because the political impact of those definitions would be problematic.

    If you don’t believe me. Then you might just have to take a look at the history of ideas. Because that history is little more than attempts to justify claims against the property of others in order to achieve alternate ends.

    Period.

    MANS WORLD IS QUITE SIMPLE. IT”S THE LIES THAT MAKE IT COMPLICATED.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-27 06:41:00 UTC

  • WHY NATURALISM? (GEM) The reason I advocate epistemic naturalism in all fields o

    WHY NATURALISM?

    (GEM)

    The reason I advocate epistemic naturalism in all fields over platonism in all fields, is not ideological or preferential or even metaphysical. It’s because I think that epistemic naturalism is as important as are objective truth, contract, the rule of law, the balance of powers, accounting, money and prices, for the survival and prosperity of man. Truth is truth. Expediency is expediency. Causality is different from consequence. And if people do not know that, they believe in magic.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-22 03:28:00 UTC

  • What Are The Biggest Unsolved Intellectual Problems In The World Today?

    1) If we are to supply money to the economy, how do we know how much? When are we causing more distortion than good?
    2) There is something wrong with the standard model.  What is the theory of the universe? The theory of ‘everything’?
    3) What is the human population load bearing capacity of the planet? What is the next malthusian limit?
    4) Is our progress since the industrial revolution little more than capturing hydrocarbons?  And if so, what happens when they’re gone?
    5) Our anti-bacterial technology is losing effectiveness, and we still have not found an anti-viral solution.
    6) Is Modern Monetary Theory possible, or will it produce perpetual, and destabilizing inflation?
    7) We still have not solved the mind-body problem to everyone’s satisfaction. What is the answer?
    8) What’s ‘after democracy’?  Because democracy apparently has very hard limits to where it will function, and seems to be of limited use outside of a small number of countries.
    9) Is diversity really a good?  It doesn’t look like it.  And how do we solve that?
    10) The problem of transhumanism: what does this mean for us?
    11) The problem of the technological singularity.
    12) What will happen if we have fully taken advantage of industrialization and we have half of the world’s population permanently poor and living in slums?

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-unsolved-intellectual-problems-in-the-world-today

  • What Are The Biggest Unsolved Intellectual Problems In The World Today?

    1) If we are to supply money to the economy, how do we know how much? When are we causing more distortion than good?
    2) There is something wrong with the standard model.  What is the theory of the universe? The theory of ‘everything’?
    3) What is the human population load bearing capacity of the planet? What is the next malthusian limit?
    4) Is our progress since the industrial revolution little more than capturing hydrocarbons?  And if so, what happens when they’re gone?
    5) Our anti-bacterial technology is losing effectiveness, and we still have not found an anti-viral solution.
    6) Is Modern Monetary Theory possible, or will it produce perpetual, and destabilizing inflation?
    7) We still have not solved the mind-body problem to everyone’s satisfaction. What is the answer?
    8) What’s ‘after democracy’?  Because democracy apparently has very hard limits to where it will function, and seems to be of limited use outside of a small number of countries.
    9) Is diversity really a good?  It doesn’t look like it.  And how do we solve that?
    10) The problem of transhumanism: what does this mean for us?
    11) The problem of the technological singularity.
    12) What will happen if we have fully taken advantage of industrialization and we have half of the world’s population permanently poor and living in slums?

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-biggest-unsolved-intellectual-problems-in-the-world-today

  • THREAD ON THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVOCACY I follow this blog fairly closely ex

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/06/irresponsible-advocacy-by-scientists/GREAT THREAD ON THE ETHICS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVOCACY

    I follow this blog fairly closely exactly for this reason: they cover the debate over scientific ethics fairly honestly.

    My position is pretty clear: advocacy is the responsibility of journalists. And neutral research is the responsibility of scientists.

    If you can’t trust politicians why should you trust scientists that are acting like politicians?

    This division of labor is the only way to ensure that advocacy is responsible.

    I’ve even advocated in the past, that we should hold scientists and journalists accountable for the equivalent of pollution if it turns out that they were wrong. People who are not accountable are not responsible. You are not responsible for discovering the atomic bomb. You are responsible for advocating the construction and use of it.

    (I know. Sounds nuts. But that’s what propertarian logic would suggest that we do.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-08-13 05:43:00 UTC