Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Is external correspondence (repeatable experiment) sufficient for a truth claim?

    Is external correspondence (repeatable experiment) sufficient for a truth claim? (no) Why not? Is non contradiction a thought exp?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:58:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809986163251494912

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985530444337152

  • Or are you confusing philosophy with rationalism, and positivism with science, a

    Or are you confusing philosophy with rationalism, and positivism with science, and honesty with testimony? 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:54:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985216618041345

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176

  • is that true? Science falsifies not justifies. don’t scientists testify when the

    is that true? Science falsifies not justifies. don’t scientists testify when they publish? And does philosophy not include science?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 04:54:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809985055523274752

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809984271180034048

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809984271180034048

  • lolz. Awesome. 🙂 But then we have the question of the demarcation between philo

    lolz. Awesome. 🙂 But then we have the question of the demarcation between philosophy, science, and testimony – or is there one?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 03:44:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809967400431009792

    Reply addressees: @Kiarip

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/809965033031602176

  • TRUTH PROPOSITION If you cannot eliminate the verb to-be from a statement or que

    TRUTH PROPOSITION

    If you cannot eliminate the verb to-be from a statement or question you are not engaging in philosophy but deception – a victorian parlor game for the educated but unintelligent.

    If you cannot make a moral argument using the costs to each party that are involved, you are not engaging in philosophy but deception – an ancient means of political fraud.

    If you cannot state the meaning you wish to attribute to a term in the context of problem solving, and instead seek to discover its normative ‘meaning’ you are simply seeking confirmation bias – self and other deception.

    If you cannot define truth as you intend it yet make a truth claim you are engaged in self and other deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-16 13:03:00 UTC

  • If I we can get 5-10 of us who can prosecute, and if we can get 100 of you to us

    If I we can get 5-10 of us who can prosecute, and if we can get 100 of you to use propertarian reasoning in arguments on the web – that’s all it will take – we will change the world. If we have 300 than know the basic principles they are enough.

    We can overturn the century of lies.

    And then we call up our soldiers….

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-16 12:47:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM IN AUSSIE VERNACULAR —-“The only POSSIBLE method for knowing t

    PROPERTARIANISM IN AUSSIE VERNACULAR

    —-“The only POSSIBLE method for knowing truth is to understand history! Why? Its not f’ing possible to know the truth about the future. It hasn’t happened yet and we don’t have a time machine, yet. heh 🙂

    Therefore. Anyone that claims to know truth and knows f all about history?… MUST start by making up or repeating lies they’ve believed.

    And that makes it very bloody hard to “discover” truth. As possible sources of truth are slowly eliminated, one by one as you come across “believers”. And this is a f’ing massive problem.

    Very few people ask why do you believe, what you believe?

    And as the questions get knocked off by answers? You get closer to truth. Notice?!? You’re asking yourself! 😉

    You’re not asking the Gossiper over the fence. You’re not asking the blokes down the pub.

    Who convinced you to believe, what you believe, and what could their motivation be for your continuing belief, or their benefit? ;-)”—-Nick Heywood

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-13 09:19:00 UTC

  • “Testimonialism as the plasma state of Truthfullness”—Bill Joslin

    —-“Testimonialism as the plasma state of Truthfullness”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 20:30:00 UTC

  • DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WITH PETERSON AND DOOLITTLE? So really, it’s one thing to argu

    DO WE HAVE ENOUGH WITH PETERSON AND DOOLITTLE?

    So really, it’s one thing to argue via positivia (myth and literature) like Peterson (who is amazing). It’s another to argue via negativa (law). As Josh has said – the law isn’t really inspiring. The power of it is. The moral license of it is. But it isn’t ‘spiritual’ in the sense that it invokes that feeling we call spirituality (the pack response) – that abandonment of reason and reliance on intuition – where we can ‘feel’ our way through with joy what we must think our way through with reason.

    But you can’t prevent existential bads with positiva, any more than you can create spiritual goods with negativa.

    If we took a sort of Janus Faced approach, (Arrows and Olive Branches) we find the ‘balance’ between positive and negative.

    I wonder if I could get this all thru to him? He has so many pieces but he is, at heart a literary rather than analytic thinker.

    ( Dr Jordan B Peterson, Professor of Psychology )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 19:35:00 UTC

  • CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?

    CONSERVATIVES, LIBERTARIANS, ANCAPS, NRX, ALT-RIGHT, … JUST ASK QUESTIONS. OK?

    I know. I know. Some of you are overconfident evangelicals for your cause. But please, save us both the tedium and ask questions if you don’t understand what I (we) talk about. Please don’t think you’re going to put together a witty argument. A cunning refutation. A creative deceit. It won’t happen. It just won’t. I’ve been working on this problem for a very long time now. And you just are wasting both our time.

    There is a reason everyone seems to progress from classical liberal or conservative, to libertarian, to ancap, to nrx, to alt-right to propertarianism.

    So on your journey, your fellow travelers ask that you impose the lowest cost upon us. Just ask questions. “We argue this, you argue that, why do you think you’re right?” is a really good way of asking questions.

    Hoppe is no dummy. Rothbard was no dummy. Mises was no dummy. Hayek and Popper were not dummies. If some of these people were fooled by some of the rhetoric, you shouldn’t feel bad for being fooled by it either.

    We didn’t have a sufficient understanding of what we call the scientific method until very recently. We didn’t have an undrestanding of computability until very recently. We didn’t have an understanding of truth until recently. So these people were prisoners of their eras. We are the beneficiaries of an additional generation or two.

    Propertarianism is a profoundly thorough system of philosophy(decidability) as far as the negative(decidability) is concerned – I rely on literature for the positive(ideation and inspiration). I don’t do all that much inspiration. I just do true and false.

    If you want liberty in fact, rather than some semblance of liberty by permission there is only one way to create it: Sovereignty+Heroism -> Natural Law -> Markets In Everything => Conditions of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom and Subsidy.

    That’s how it is. Either you can create a polity of self sustaining non-parasitic peoples in a territory that can serve as a market, and one that other peoples will tolerate, or you won’t. You can’t do it by low trust ethics. it’s not complicated.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-12 17:22:00 UTC