Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • A priest lies to you by lying, fiction, inflation. A novelist tells you what you

    A priest lies to you by lying, fiction, inflation. A novelist tells you what you want to hear through fiction. A merchant, financier, or economist tells you what you want to hear by cherry picking a half-truth. A a scientist tells you uncomfortable truths. A judge tells you painful truths.

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic. The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise. Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking. The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be: To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity) To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena) To Explore (Hypothesize) To Inform or Explain (Exhibition) To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning) To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion) To Discover (New Justified Knowledge) To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation) To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct) To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas To Report Scientific Observations To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge) To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography) To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise) Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be: To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion) To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry) To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal) To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief) To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious) To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors) To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony) To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox

    Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality

    The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic.

    The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise.

    Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking.

    The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be:

    To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity)

    To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena)

    To Explore (Hypothesize)

    To Inform or Explain (Exhibition)

    To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning)

    To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences

    To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion)

    To Discover (New Justified Knowledge)

    To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation)

    To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct)

    To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas

    To Report Scientific Observations

    To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge)

    To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography)

    To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise)

    Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be:

    To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion)

    To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry)

    To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal)

    To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief)

    To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious)

    To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors)

    To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony)

    To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 11:25:00 UTC

  • Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method o

    Alexis O’Toole Maddox Philosophy Investigates the Nature of Reality The Method of Philosophy can be applied to Any Topic. The first thing to consider when looking at the overall purpose of a post, is whether it would serve as a good premise. Premises are philosophy prompts meant to elicit rational argumentation and induce critical thinking. The overall purpose of an investigative philosophy premise might be: To Evaluate (Logic/Objectivity) To Analyze (Describe Concept/Theory/Phenomena) To Explore (Hypothesize) To Inform or Explain (Exhibition) To Define (Stipulation/Description/Function/Essence/Meaning) To Draw Comparisons and Distinguish Differences To Criticize (Identify Faulty Logic or Imprecise Criterion) To Discover (New Justified Knowledge) To Debunk (Eliminate Disinformation) To Draw Syllogisms and Analogies (Deduct) To Highlight Relationships/Connections between ideas To Report Scientific Observations To Confirm or Dispute (Support/Challenge) To Present Evidence (Proof/Bibliography) To Argue (Validate or Invalidate the truth of a premise) Conversely, some overall purposes of non-philosophy might be: To Emote (Display or Cause Emotion) To Amuse or Entertain (Satire/Trivia/Poetry) To Persuade or Urge To Act (Religious/Politcal) To Interpret or Suggest (Opinion/Editorial/Biased Belief) To Take a Stand (Politcal/Religious) To Speculate, Predict, or Warn (Propoganda/Rumors) To Reflect (Ranting/Personal/Social testimony) To Reassure (Arbitrary Greetings and Salutations)

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given a

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY”

    I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods)

    I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth)

    I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience.

    In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume).

    So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not.

    If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge.

    Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes.

    So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not).

    Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict.

    One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose.

    So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities).

    But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law.

    So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-16 10:24:00 UTC

  • Defining “Philosophy”

    DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY” I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods) I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth) I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience. In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume). So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not. If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge. Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes. So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not). Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict. One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose. So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities). But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law. So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.

  • YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD. (I

    YOU, INFLATIONISTS AND CONFLATIONISTS, FEAR ME. I UNDERSTAND. AND YOU SHOULD.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.)

    Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements.

    We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man.

    And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity.

    In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony.

    This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language.

    The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty.

    I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status.

    And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech.

    And this is precisely what you fear.

    That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in.

    I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE.

    I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others.

    You fear your day in court.

    As well you should.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-13 22:23:00 UTC

  • You, Inflationists And Conflationists, Fear Me. I Understand. And You Should.

    (I have *no technical critics* at all. And I suspect I never will.) Every deflationary grammar we have developed, from logic(reason) to mathematics (constant relations), to formal logics (of language) to formulae, to computer languages, to legal language and scientific language, consists of LIMITING Vocabulary, Grammar and Syntax such that we require well-formed and therefore grammatically testable statements. We can limit vocabulary and grammar and syntax in ordinary language to eliminate suggestion, loading, framing, fiction, fictionalism, from our speech. And we can do so (at cost) on any and every subject available to the mind of man. And we have been doing it in western civilization for no less than 3500 years. I have simply explained the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of that speech, and I have explained why we rely on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and (a) the competition between narratives, to identify (b) possible actions(means) (c) incentives (motives), and (d) opportunity. In other words, I have united the languages of philosophy, law, and science into a single grammar of testimony. This vocabulary, grammar, and syntax of testimony, provides us with a fully commensurable grammar of decidability at the limit of human’s ability to speak in deflationary language. The checklist I have provided for the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against costs born by others by externality), and the checklist of tests of due diligence that include every possible dimension of deflationary speech (categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, complete, and parsimonious) provides sufficient coverage to render false speech (including ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit) nearly impossible. Or at least, so difficult that we can forgive those who make truth claims, and those of the jury, for their frailty. I suspect what you object to, is that this set of due diligences is either beyond your ability, beyond your willingness to pay, or would falsify your deceits, most important of which is your self status. And if I prosecuted you before a jury more aggressively than I do now, I am quite certain that they would return a verdict of either malice, fraud, ignorance, or incompetence against your line of speech. And this is precisely what you fear. That the inferior peoples need lies to comfort themselves in the face of a reality that they are insufficiently equipped by natural circumstance to compete in. I HAVE NO CRITICS OF MERIT. NONE. I have never, ever, encounter a single technical criticism of my work. And when (shortly) I publish the set of videos and then the book, I will have no technical critics. I will have only those like you: whose self image or social status, is the product of deception of both the self and of others. You fear your day in court. As well you should.