Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • IF VIA POSITIVA WORKED, WE WOULD HAVE WON ALREADY We teach many counter-intuitiv

    IF VIA POSITIVA WORKED, WE WOULD HAVE WON ALREADY

    We teach many counter-intuitive things precisely because the value of deflation prevents errors as much as empowers better comparisons.

    We need parables (fairy tales), novels, and histories.

    Math, reading, grammar, and now economics – every form of measurement.

    If via positiva worked, then we would have won already.

    Lies are cheaper than truths. But Fictions cheaper than descriptions. That is why they win.

    Meaning tells you nothing other than confirmation of your existing understanding. Truth is created by falsifying alternatives that compete with it.

    Everything else is just the coincidence of wants between the preacher and the choir.

    There are many churches.

    There is one science.

    And that science is possible because of one law:

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 17:50:00 UTC

  • If Via Positiva Worked, We Would Have Won Already

    We teach many counter-intuitive things precisely because the value of deflation prevents errors as much as empowers better comparisons. We need parables (fairy tales), novels, and histories. Math, reading, grammar, and now economics – every form of measurement. If via positiva worked, then we would have won already. Lies are cheaper than truths. But Fictions cheaper than descriptions. That is why they win. Meaning tells you nothing other than confirmation of your existing understanding. Truth is created by falsifying alternatives that compete with it. Everything else is just the coincidence of wants between the preacher and the choir. There are many churches. There is one science. And that science is possible because of one law:

  • If Via Positiva Worked, We Would Have Won Already

    We teach many counter-intuitive things precisely because the value of deflation prevents errors as much as empowers better comparisons. We need parables (fairy tales), novels, and histories. Math, reading, grammar, and now economics – every form of measurement. If via positiva worked, then we would have won already. Lies are cheaper than truths. But Fictions cheaper than descriptions. That is why they win. Meaning tells you nothing other than confirmation of your existing understanding. Truth is created by falsifying alternatives that compete with it. Everything else is just the coincidence of wants between the preacher and the choir. There are many churches. There is one science. And that science is possible because of one law:

  • RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD One of the great falsehoods of philosop

    RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.

    You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.

    The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.

    Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)

    Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.

    There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.

    But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.

    Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal)

    As soon as you admit the criteria of …

    – deception and fraud

    – incentive

    – cost

    – warranty

    …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:13:00 UTC

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

  • DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware o

    DEFINE “KNOW”?

    As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely.

    So we can know something.

    We can know something is false.

    We can know something is not false.

    We can know something is difficult to be other than true.

    Knowing of WHAT.

    Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 11:45:00 UTC

  • Define “Know”?

    DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely. So we can know something. We can know something is false. We can know something is not false. We can know something is difficult to be other than true. Knowing of WHAT. Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms.

  • Define “Know”?

    DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely. So we can know something. We can know something is false. We can know something is not false. We can know something is difficult to be other than true. Knowing of WHAT. Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms.

  • TEAPOTS This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and

    TEAPOTS

    This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and can be debunked pretty easily.

    a) how can you testify that a teapot orbits the sun?

    This is a very different question than Russell is asking and is the entire reason why philosophy and theology became closely related after because of augustine.

    We demand warranty of goods and services, but we have stopped demanding warranty of information (words).

    So the question is, how can one warranty his statement that a teapot orbits the sun?

    Then why does he say such a thing? In other words, just as in any other crime, what is one’s incentive?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 11:40:00 UTC