Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements,

    Testimonialism is just very RIGOROUS. We use words to communicate measurements, not just meanings. You can say something meaningful that is not truthful, but it is very hard to say something both meaningful and truthful that consists entirely of measurements that themselves are not false.

    All language can be restated as measurement.

    This is frightening for those who wish to lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 15:11:00 UTC

  • THREE SYSTEMS 1) Axiomatic declarative statements.(mathematics)*proof* 2) Ration

    THREE SYSTEMS

    1) Axiomatic declarative statements.(mathematics)*proof*

    2) Rational justificationary statements.(common law)*justification*

    3) Theoretic descriptive statements.(science)*truth*

    Testimonialism’s six dimensions of testing constitute a complete method of falsifying (trying to disprove) theoretic statements.

    Theoretic statements are descriptive.

    Axiomatic statements test ONLY internal consistency.

    Testimonial > empirical > rational > axiomatic > identity.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-07 14:02:00 UTC

  • It All Makes Sense if You Tell the Empirical Truth About Man.

    Apr 21, 2017 7:42pm IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN. (possibly shocking) If you have negative rights (rule of law) that does not mean you have demonstrated capacity for positive rights (the right to influence others). Only that you are not a harm to others. . The payment of negative rights by doing nothing BAD buys you access to the market and juridical defense in the courts: freedom. What do you do to demonstrate ADEQUACY that you are equally capable of access to physical property and the security and preservation f the commons? (LIBERTY) What do you demonstrate that in itself demonstrates that you are capable of doing something GOOD by the non-harmful use of positive rights? (voting) (SOVEREIGNTY) Pay your way to freedom and juridical defense: non-imposition of costs. Pay your way to liberty and property ownership: service in defense, emergency, and the preservation of the peace (every man a sheriff). Pay your way to Sovereignty and the decisions about the polity: service, family, property(territory), industry (the employment of others.) Pay your way into Aristocracy: the intergenerational preservation of all of the above. child or beast(pre-human) > slave(youth) > serf(soldier) > freeman(citizen) > liberty(responsibility) > sovereignty(choice) > aristocracy(rule).

  • It All Makes Sense if You Tell the Empirical Truth About Man.

    Apr 21, 2017 7:42pm IT ALL MAKES SENSE IF YOU TELL THE EMPIRICAL TRUTH ABOUT MAN. (possibly shocking) If you have negative rights (rule of law) that does not mean you have demonstrated capacity for positive rights (the right to influence others). Only that you are not a harm to others. . The payment of negative rights by doing nothing BAD buys you access to the market and juridical defense in the courts: freedom. What do you do to demonstrate ADEQUACY that you are equally capable of access to physical property and the security and preservation f the commons? (LIBERTY) What do you demonstrate that in itself demonstrates that you are capable of doing something GOOD by the non-harmful use of positive rights? (voting) (SOVEREIGNTY) Pay your way to freedom and juridical defense: non-imposition of costs. Pay your way to liberty and property ownership: service in defense, emergency, and the preservation of the peace (every man a sheriff). Pay your way to Sovereignty and the decisions about the polity: service, family, property(territory), industry (the employment of others.) Pay your way into Aristocracy: the intergenerational preservation of all of the above. child or beast(pre-human) > slave(youth) > serf(soldier) > freeman(citizen) > liberty(responsibility) > sovereignty(choice) > aristocracy(rule).

  • Is The Utility of Truthfulness Worth The Cost?

    Apr 24, 2017 8:41am
    IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST? I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense. People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick. And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism. People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience. We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts. It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem. Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents. So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative? Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat). Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth? If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam) If it will save your civilization? if it will save mankind? I think so.

  • Is The Utility of Truthfulness Worth The Cost?

    Apr 24, 2017 8:41am
    IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST? I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense. People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick. And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism. People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience. We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts. It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem. Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents. So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative? Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat). Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth? If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam) If it will save your civilization? if it will save mankind? I think so.

  • Testimonial Grammar Defeats NPOV

    What if I started a wiki that required Testimonial (Operational) Grammar?  OMG.  NPOV would be destroyed in the social sciences.

  • Testimonial Grammar Defeats NPOV

    What if I started a wiki that required Testimonial (Operational) Grammar?  OMG.  NPOV would be destroyed in the social sciences.

  • Try Not To Be Cunning. Try Truth Instead.

    CUNNING SOLVES NOTHING IN TESTIMONY, ETHICS, MORALITY, AND POLITICS I try not to be ‘cunning’. I try to determine (a) what is true, and (b) what is the equivalent of true: objectively moral under the test of reciprocity. Every cunning can be met with an equal and opposite cunning and therefore is just an expression of taste. By contrast, true, moral, and possible can only be met by false, immoral, and impossible.

  • Try Not To Be Cunning. Try Truth Instead.

    CUNNING SOLVES NOTHING IN TESTIMONY, ETHICS, MORALITY, AND POLITICS I try not to be ‘cunning’. I try to determine (a) what is true, and (b) what is the equivalent of true: objectively moral under the test of reciprocity. Every cunning can be met with an equal and opposite cunning and therefore is just an expression of taste. By contrast, true, moral, and possible can only be met by false, immoral, and impossible.