Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Honestly. I get accused of word salad, but then some idiot or other will argue h

    Honestly. I get accused of word salad, but then some idiot or other will argue hoppe makes sense. Well, you know, that’s just because he says what you want to hear, and what you want to hear makes sense to your intuitions, and what makes sense to your intuitions is that which corresponds to your moral instincts. In other words, you are victim of suggestion using fictionalism, just as I have argued for years now. The conditions you make moral judgements by are not the conditions that exist. They are merely your cognitive biases, and your cognitive biases are merely reflections of your reproductive(survival, competitive) strategy. Meaning? Abrahamism in the ancient and the modern worlds finds useful idiots all too easily.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:52:00 UTC

  • INSIGHT INTO HOPPE’S FALLACY (updated for accessibility) —“All truth-claims –

    INSIGHT INTO HOPPE’S FALLACY

    (updated for accessibility)

    —“All truth-claims – all claims that a given proposition is true, false, indeterminate or un-decidable or that an argument is valid and complete or not – are raised, justified and decided upon in the course of an argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe

    This is a variation on Marx’s Dialectical Materialism (social competition).

    – It presumes that the choices in all discourse are cooperation vs non, where they are violence/predation, cooperation, or non-cooperation.

    – It presumes the existence of a contract for cooperation when none exists.

    – It presumes that the parties seek agreement to cooperate on truth rather than deception.

    – It assumes parties in dispute seek agreement rather than truth or falsehood and blame.

    – It presumes parties debate in a court that does not operate by the same terms as the parties who are debating each other.

    Courts do not seek consensus. They do not seek truth. They seek cases of falsehood, cases of deception, and cases of malincentives, and total internal and external changes in capital (property in toto). Your excuses don’t mean anything.

    CONVERSELY

    Notice that what Hoppe’s quote is NOT a statement of:

    – Personal responsibility for the truth content of one’s words.

    – Due Diligence of Testimony under law.

    – Due Diligence in Science.

    OR

    – Due Diligence in argument

    – Due Diligence in the Pursuit of Truth.

    OR

    – Modeling what people *demonstrate by their actions*.

    What is the difference? In western ethics, the consequences of deceit might mean your death. In other words: warranty of your words, because one of the outcomes may be violence.

    In other words *western ethics*.

    Whereas, Hoppe is following jewish ethics, and jewish pilpul and following the marxists, and the postmodernists into social construction by stating that we haggle our way to agreement. We do not defend our way out of violence, parasitism, and deceit.

    —-“The truth of this proposition cannot be disputed without falling into contradiction, as any attempt to do so would itself have to come in the form of an argument. Hence, the“Apriori” of argumentation.”— Hans Hermann Hoppe

    Well as far as I know I just defeated it, because the premises are false.

    TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE

    Why am I arguing against hoppe other than to prevent harm to my people who out of their high trust nature are suggestible by overloading with his nonsense prose? I am dependent upon my fellows for competitive advantage. so damage to the informational commons is an aggression against the high investment i and mine have made in the normative, informational, and institutional commons. and why do the courts not allow me and mine to seek restitution for those aggressions? They should. Because no marxist or postmodernist propaganda would survive.

    CLOSING

    In other words, Hoppe is another user of conflation, non-operationalism (which exposes these errors), and non-western european ethics.

    This is why deflationary truth, including operationalism, are so important: because there is a very big difference between the {verbal and ideal} and the {operational and real}.

    MAKE MODELS NOT ARGUMENTS.

    That’s the difference between Real (model), Ideal (argument), Supernatural (excuse). Operationalism = Real, possible, and fully accounted.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-11 09:31:00 UTC

  • So I’ll continue to stand by the argument – because I can’t refute it

    So I’ll continue to stand by the argument – because I can’t refute it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 22:24:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895772832118054914

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895325450938892289

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    @curtdoolittle Nonsense of course.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/895325450938892289

  • MOST IMPORTANT POST I HAVE WRITTEN IN ON FACEBOOK TO DATE by Andy Curzon (with a

    MOST IMPORTANT POST I HAVE WRITTEN IN ON FACEBOOK TO DATE

    by Andy Curzon (with afterward by Curt Doolittle)

    Let me make it simple for people not understanding Peterson or Doolittle.

    The lack of understanding (and resulting frustration and unwitting arrogance) arises from two very different causes:

    either (a) not listening to him enough or (b) not having the humility or capacity to realise what can be learnt from his methods – and that can not be gleaned from t’other approach.

    Peterson uses (a) data from experimental sciences, and honesty (with oneself and others – so that the feedback is more and more accurate over time…a parallel of sorts to the scientific method) and (b) communication of thoughts whilst mulling patterns over in terms of words and incredibly complicated scientific, literary and life associations to posit hypotheses and test them again and again from as many angles and between as many people (for increased perspectives) as possible. These grow and die and interlink…this is a method (and to explain it properly would take a lot more words than I am offering here). It is a method of testing all the opportunities to apply the idea to see how it corresponds with science, literature, and life.

    But I am explaining this only to hyper-verbals.

    The same could be said for expounders of Curt’s method (again something that would take many words). Curt produces ‘proofs’ (tests of strictly constructed arguments), and asks people to tear those arguments apart. And he repeats this process over and over again, as theories shrink and fail, and grow and survive.

    But his would only make sense to an aspie (or such).

    Studying both of them has all taught me it is a rare person who can think in both Curt’s manner (aspies) and in Peterson’s manner (hyper-verbal). People who can not think in both will not understand both. They will do their best to tear down the other method NOT TO LEARN but to bolster their own view. They have no other tools. It is not their fault.

    I am not suggesting Curt cannot be wrong and some errors can not be identified by people who think hyper-verbally, or Peterson is not wrong in ways that can be identified by aspies….but NOT IN THEIR METHOD AND USES BUT THEIR RESULTS (and again, I am am not suggesting either methos flawless or uses correctly and fully identified).

    Aspies will not understand Peterson’s methods and uses (as proved by many posts I have read over the past few days) and hyper-verbals will not understand Curt’s science and logic (they sit on the theory and history as he correctly points out).

    Hyper-verbals (i.e. Tolstoy; Nietzsche) will write about the limits and perils of the intellect and aspies will talk of the limits and perils of learning without being unscientific but only people with both sets of tools/capacities (i.e. Da Vinci; Goethe) will entertain both BECAUSE THEY SEE THE UTILITY IN BOTH. Clearly one method excels at ‘how one should live’ (h.-v.) and t’other to ‘how things are’ (asp.) but they do overlap.

    So is it only >165/170s IQ who have the capacity to understand both? It seems self-evident. But can this itself only be seen by those people? And is this frustrating for them? Yes.

    I am confident that hyper-verbals (lacking aspie capabilities) and aspies (lacking verbal) will not understand each other HOWEVER MANY TIMES AND IN WHATEVER NUMBER OF WAYS I DESCRIBE IT TO THEM.

    It just FEELS wrong to them and they use their method of perception to justify their feelings.

    What is the next step? I am at a loss…on the one hand you’re trying to teach a monkey Spanish, and on t’other trying to train a hungry wolf the active value of being friends with a rabbit.

    Mission impossible.

    But Finally admitting that not all people can understand all things (and getting rid of my inverse Dunning-Kruger) was the only way to arrive at this.

    And this was a bigger struggle than I can explain…very humbling.

    At least for now.

    — CURT RESPONDS —

    Hence for the necessity of markets in everything – all aspects of life.

    Because the competition between via positiva opportunities (verbalists, literature), and via negativa limitations (aspies, law) means that we cannot *function* or even claim to *know* anything at all that is both good (opportunity), and true (limits).

    It is only through productive, truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange in markets that we ‘calculate’ the difference between positive opportunity(verbal via positiva literature) and negative limits (calculated via negativa, law) – and discover that which is *BOTH GOOD AND TRUE*.

    Having stated that method of calculation by exchange, I will admit the obvious, that the priest and merchant are more welcome than the sheriff and judge – and always will be.

    Except that is, when you are in a matter of conflict.

    While the verbalists emphasize opportunity, the autists (calculators), emphasize duty. And as long as enough of us do our duty in limiting everyone else’s opportunity, it is both a necessary and moral and profitable industry. Some of us must be warriors, sheriffs, and judges – otherwise the opportunity for most will be lost.

    So while via-positiva education in opportunity is more desirable, it is via-negativa limits by non-discretinoary, calculative law that is far more necessary. If only because western civilization ,reason, and science and all the prosperity that the west has so rapidly produced and distributed, originated in the ordinary, tediously scientific, practice of the ancient discipline of germanic, common, law of property that we call torts, using competition between parties before a jury of their peers, and refereed by a judge.

    -Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 13:01:00 UTC

  • “Once virtue signaling ceases to pay, they give up.”— Michael Churchill Truth

    —“Once virtue signaling ceases to pay, they give up.”— Michael Churchill

    Truth ends Virtue Signaling.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 12:32:00 UTC

  • ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES DEFINITION A conspiracy theory is defined by four charact

    ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES

    DEFINITION

    A conspiracy theory is defined by four characteristics: (1) a group (2) acting in secret (3) to alter institutions, usurp power, avoid blame, obscure truth, or gain utility (4) at the expense of the common good.

    COMMON

    At least 50 percent of the population believe in at least one conspiracy theory. The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories. The more highly educated a participant, the less likely they are to believe conspiracy theories.

    Debunking conspiracy theories leads to a “backfire effect.” Efforts to debunk inaccurate political information leave people more convinced that false information is true than they would have otherwise.

    CAUSES

    They feel a lack of control over their lives. If people feel they don’t have control over a situation, they’ll try to make sense of it and find out what happened. Ostracism increases superstition and belief in conspiracies. And it’s not because the isolation is making them insane—it’s really just a search for more meaning in life. The effort of sense-making leads them to connect dots that aren’t necessarily connected in reality. Conversely, feeling a sense of control protects against believing conspiracy theories. If you give people a feeling of control, then they are less inclined to believe those conspiracy theories.

    CONFIRMATION BIAS – SEARCH FOR CONTROL

    Human beings have a very natural tendency to take in information that fits their own perspective of the world. And we tend to reject information or reject evidence that we disagree with. And we do that for a very simple reason. We don’t like it when we feel wrong. We don’t like it when people tell us we’re wrong because that damages our psychological well-being. We don’t like thinking that our view of the world, our perspective of the world is incorrect.

    So what tends to happen is that we look for information; we look for evidence that fits what we already know or what we already believe, and we try to avoid information or evidence that we either disagree with or that we know doesn’t fit with our perspective.

    TESTING FOR MENTAL ILLNESS

    As far as I know, if you use the serial-definition method rather than cold surveys, give the above definition, give examples of those that were true and false, and categorize a selection of conspiracy theories by the following list, you would find most people are less crazy than they appear.

    0) Unlikely or simply false.

    1) Misunderstanding of events to obtain ‘sensible world’

    2) Intentional misrepresentation of events for attention and ‘sensible world’.

    3) external consequences of common interest

    4) conspiracy of common interest (following natural incentives without intention of doing bad)

    5) conspiracy of common interest in self protection.

    6) conspiracy to commit harm in excuse for creating some greater good (military nonsense).

    7) conspiracy to commit harm to achieve personal or group ends.

    8) conspiracy to achieve power for a group.

    —“Incentives drive interest which creates intent. Conspiracies look at the end result and call foul play as opposed to using full accounting and stripping back the effect from the cause.”—Nick Zito

    Curt

    (compiled from various mainstream sources)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-10 10:17:00 UTC

  • My current view is that the scientific method is now complete; and that the disc

    My current view is that the scientific method is now complete; and that the discipline of truthful speech is now within the domain of science; and that philosophy has been relegated to the choice of common goods and personal preferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 18:07:00 UTC

  • (to boettke) An unwanted voice of dissention from the analytic philosophy of sci

    (to boettke)

    An unwanted voice of dissention from the analytic philosophy of science.

    Not that the philosophy of science (testimony) is other than a bit of hand waving in economics, and not that a rare few might understand this but here is the correct restatement of ‘validity and justification et al’:

    (a) Economics(cooperation in production of good services and information for markets both private and common) is no different from any other science (science meaning application of the scientific method – and yes, there exists a method though poorly understood.)

    (b) “Science” refers to the use of logical and physical instruments to eliminate the full range of falsehoods: ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, partial accounting, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit – from our free associations. In other words, science is a moral and legal discipline just as are weights and measures, in the market for goods, services, information, and theories (ideas).

    (c) The means by which we arrive at or justify a theory (premises) conveys no truth content (warranty of truthfulness) to scientific propositions (See Critical Rationalism and Critical Preference).

    (d) The only truth content (warranty of truthfulness) is provided by the incremental increases in the survival of the theory within the limits proposed by as premises (pre) and scope(post). (Extensive Falsification).

    (e) The function of whichever synonym you choose: praxeology, intuitionism, operationalism, or strict construction – which in economics is performed by the subjective testing of a sequence of rational(voluntary) and reciprocal(moral) choices – is to falsify that an economic proposition is operationally possible, voluntary, and reciprocal (ie: possible and moral).

    (f) To deny this warranty of due diligence (as does the mainstream) is to abandon rule of law in economics, and to abandon the notion of voluntary cooperation, and to abandon moral limits in economics – thereby converting economics from a moral(truthful) to an immoral(deceptive) discipline – ergo, converting from the (austrian) attempt to improve institutions by the compensation for informational asymmetry(truthfulness and trust), to the mainstream attempt to maximize the disinformation necessary to cause the overextension of both consumption and sustainable patterns of specialization and trade, such that booms and busts continue to accumulate in duration and scope.

    (f) To test the truthfulness of a proposition (provide a warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, selective accounting, suggestion and obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) whether in economics or any other discipline requires that we test each dimension of actionable reality available to man – which we reduce to the common terms of consistency, correspondence, possibility, morality, full accounting including limits, and coherence (comprehensibility of the narrative),

    (g) But which more precisely refers to tests of each dimension: 1) categorical: consistency of identity, 2) logical: internal consistency, 3) empirical: externally correspondent, 4) existentially possible: operationally stated, 5) rational consistency: voluntary, 5) moral consistency: reciprocal 6) scope consistency: fully accounted including limits , and 7) coherent: narrated in coherence with all such dimensions.

    (h) if all these steps are performed we can claim we have performed due diligence against the full range of falsehoods in the full range of actionable dimensions regardless of the subject we speak of.

    The problem is, that since economics is reducible to the measurement of cooperation, even if biased toward to the production of goods and services, it is either an extension of rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity, (which is what the Austrian school attempts to confine it to, and the chicago school extends to insurance against shocks), or it is, as is the mainstream, an exercise in deception for the purpose of burning down civilizational capital by means of monetary disinformation (deception) for the purpose of purchasing virtue signals and premiums by the political, financial, and academic classes.

    My opinion, as someone who specializes in this question, is that it is the latter, and the austrians are a lone voice of morality in the cacophony of an immoral and pseudoscientific polity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 15:38:00 UTC

  • My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I ha

    My understanding of the work is that Testimonialism is rock solid, and that I have defined the SCIENCE and LOGIC of producing fully decidable algorithmic law, and a value neutral language of ethics, politics, and law, and completed the enlightenment by solving the question of social science.

    Where I differ from other thinkers in psychology and social science is that I have the experience of working on artificial intelligence and I am more confident in the statement that all thought is justificationary, and testimony is as counter intuitive and as difficult to learn as mathematics, reading, writing, grammar, logic, and rhetoric, and engineering.

    My position on the application of this science and logic is that the method of decidability in any civilization or culture that each calls truth equally explains all civilizations and their rates of development. And furthermore, that the uniqueness of the west is reducible to martial truth (deflationary reporting) rather than storytelling ( justificationary ) and the combination of heroism, truth, sovereignty, common natural law, and markets in everything – due largely to territory and technology at in the age of transformation. And that this is the scientific means of historical analysis of different cultures and civilizations.

    The application of this reasoning produces a *theory*. It is a very, very powerful theory. I have a great deal of confidence in this theory. I believe it will be extremely difficult to defeat that theory. But until it is sufficiently criticized by others – no matter how futile I think that criticism will be – it remains a theory. Because it is a narrative.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 13:20:00 UTC

  • THE INJECTION OF GOD ‘STEALS” AUTHORITY FROM NATURE by Bill Joslin Some of Peter

    THE INJECTION OF GOD ‘STEALS” AUTHORITY FROM NATURE

    by Bill Joslin

    Some of Peterson’s commentary leaves the door open for some abuses. For instance the assertion that truth and science evolved out of and are nested in religious frames. But truth and science has blown that frame apart and the results are atrocious.

    || Science, objective truth ->nested in -> religious, intuitive truth (Christ)->Darwinian utility -> properties of nature.

    I disagree and see the religous frame obsolete and leaves us open to future failings.

    || Truth -> Darwinian utility -> Nature

    Then injection of God and religion “steals” authority from nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-08-09 09:09:00 UTC