Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Belief is Quantifiable, But Justification Isn’t

    IS BELIEF QUANTIFIABLE? YES BUT JUSTIFICATION ISN”T. Belief is already quantifiable by the degree of risk you are willing to take to demonstrate it. It’s not justifiable, but it’s measurable. In most cases, belief is indistinguishable from self-signaling, and other-signalling, and signal vs risk explains the difference between reported belief, and demonstrated belief. In other words, any use of the word ‘belief’ epistemically is either suspect or outright false, unless (like many conveniences) it’s short for “as far as I know”, and not “I am justified in my claim”. THE GRAMMAR OF HEDGING (DETACHMENT)
    • I think I understand / I believe I understand / but it’s nt something I’d risk with my current understanding.
    • I can understand it but I don’t know if it’s possible. / I believe I understand but don’t know if it’s possible / and we shouldn’t do it if it’s costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s possible. / I believe its possible / hard to know if it’s possible/ we can try it if it’s not costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s likely or probable / I believe it’s likely / we might be able to do it / we can try to do it if it’s not too costly.
    • As far as I know, it’s pretty common. / I believe it’s pretty common / we probably can do this / we probably should do this.
    • As far as I know it’s hard to imagine otherwise. / I believe it’s pretty certain./ We should do this / we must do this.
    There is no possible justification for belief. There is possible justification for moral action according to norms. There is possible justification for legal action according to laws. But to conflate justification(knowable norms, laws, and axioms), with Truth (unknowns constantly open to revision) is to conflate excuse making, with warranty, the same way we conflate probability and guessing in the ludic fallacy. Our language arose from local, in-group use. In-group members use moral language, and we use legal language as if it’s moral language. But we live now in a SCALE of human organization far beyond the local, and we have not quite adapted our language, concepts, and institutions to correspond to the SCALE of human organization we live in. Very little of what we discuss is between people with common interests, kinship, knowledge, understanding, experience that was not artificially constructed through media propaganda. (ASIDE: Just as an illustration, when you’re talking to people and they hesitate or stutter, or rephrase, listen for how often they’re trying to take a declarative martial language (Germanic) and rephrase it probabilistically with hedges, the same way we took and hedged martial language with deferential language as economic equality spread through society and hierarchy disappeared. It will shock you to see that not only does pronunciation migrate but so concepts as they work through our language.) So to speak truthfully requires we no longer use the CONSTRUCTIVIST DECEIT: that we speak morally (with ingroup preference) and instead speak either in terms of justificationary axioms, morals, and laws, or we speak in critical (theoretical) epistemology of truths, and we leave behind the philosophical tradition of deception that circumvents costs when we discuss ingroup norms and policy, and include costs when we discuss external/outgroup policy, because we are now all members of outgroups thanks to the scale of our polities – especially in empire America. If it sounds like I just cast most of philosophical discourse into a category along with theological discourse as a great deception….. I did. Hence why I struggle daily to unite philosophy, science, and law into a single discipline with a single language, without room to engage in fraud. 😉 Cheers. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Informational Content in Operationalism vs Empiricism

    Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

  • Informational Content in Operationalism vs Empiricism

    Aug 25, 2016 8:02am There is as great a difference in informational content and therefore truth (decidability), between Operationalism and Empiricism, as there was between empiricism and reason, and between reason, and storytelling. This is why, in the future, people will rely on Propertarianism and Testimonialism over ‘mere’ empiricism, the same way we empiricists rely on empiricism over rationalism. And this in turn, is why Propertarianism and Testimonialism and Operationalism will produce as great a leap forward in the ‘average’ human mind, as scientific thinking using general rules has produced an advance over rational thinking using particularist recipes.

  • Another Damning Criticism of Philosophy

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology. Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened. So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete. Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is: 1 – categorically consistent (identity) 2 – internally consistent (logically consistent) 3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent) 4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated) A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining: 5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony) And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining: 6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality) So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights. However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language. Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration. So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit. And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.  

    (comments)The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.

    if you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.We attempt to advoicate and inform, and prohibibit and prosecute.As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.

    Davin Eastley: You’re turning into Nietzsche 2.0, Curt – the anti-philosophy philosopher!Curt Doolittle:  I’m just trying to eliminate room from lying from philosophy. And when I do that it turns into science.

    Patrick Martins: That being said, who’s your favorite philosopher?Curt Doolittle: Hmm. Interesting question. I don’t have high opinions of many. I can say I have been most influenced by Hayek and popper. But I tend to read science, not philosophy.

  • Another Damning Criticism of Philosophy

    ANOTHER DAMNING CRITICISM OF PHILOSOPHY I am pretty convinced that the subjective experiential analysis and narration in philosophy is as pseudoscientific as subjective, reported, and deductive projection in psychology. Psychology reformed, by adopting operational language, (they use the term operationalism) because during the 70’s and 80’s the discipline was increasingly cast as a pseudoscience, and the threat from cognitive science, economics, pharma, and medicine threatened all the income of the entire industry from counseling, to medical, to academics, to research – just as philosophy is today threatened. So the subjective narrative of philosophy is the reason for it’s defunding, the reason for the lack of quality of papers published, and the irrelevance of philosophy in the current political debate – leaving philsophy not much more than a flexible personal religion on one hand, a set of habits to correct some subset of our cognitive biases, and the split between subjective, logical, and scientific is nearly complete. Now I can understand that if you spend enough time in the language of any pseudoscience, or any discipline(law), or any literature, or any mythology, or any religion, that you might adopt the framing of that discipline. But the cross-disciplinary frame – the universal language, the language that has the greatest truth content regardless of frame, is the one that is: 1 – categorically consistent (identity) 2 – internally consistent (logically consistent) 3 – externally consistent (empirically consistent) 4 – existentially consistent (operationally stated) A good scientist will also attempt to bound his arguments against selection bias, and overreach by defining: 5 – Limits, and Fully Accounting for activity within them. (Parsimony) And a good lawyer, financier, or social scientists will attempt to ensure his arguments against liability for harm by defining: 6 – fully informed, productive, reciprocity. (morality) So no, just as psychology could produce some insight despite the entire framework from freud onward being pseudoscience for the purpose of authoritarian demand for (false) homogeneity, casting deviation from compliance as illness. And just as Frued was writing in response to Nietzche. And just as Boazian anthropology was a pseudoscience invented purposely to combat Darwin. And just as Marx was writing his extremely complex deception to counter the classical liberal empiricism; … each of these pseudosciences could produce some insights. However, each of them caused tragic harm, each was a pseudoscience, and each was reformed by science. And even science reformed by the simple technique of adopting operational language. Conversely, the great lies, pseudosciences, pseudorationalism, political correctness, and all other major deceits of the twentieth century were carried out through subjective narration. So my view is that almost no good philosophy is written. If it is it doesn’t use introspective voice. It uses operational language, existentially consistent, and free of projection, manipulation, suggestion, overloading, framing, error, bias, and deceit. And so yes, it’s a damning criticism of the failure of 20th century philosophy. Because empirically, it’s been a disaster for humanity on the scale of the conflation of law and religion in the great deceits of scriptural monotheism.  

    (comments)The question is not whether it’s a personal philosophy (means of PREFERENTIAL or UTILITARIAN choice) but whether its a method of universal DECIDABILITY independent of preferences and utility. (truth). In other words, is it a “Law” of nature, as in a “Natural Law”. Propositions need only be reciprocally decidable . If they are decidable, then the question is why one would attempt to demonstrate that they are not?As in law, which is the origin of western philosophy, not until late conflated with religion, decidability is provided by (a) deception and (b) involuntary transfer. As far as I can tell, this is the purpose of most UNDECIDABLE philosophy, like religious law before it: fraud.Which is not what I expected when I started working on these issues.

    if you want to inspire, inform, and rally, i think that’s a domain of ‘MEANING”, whereas if I want to scrutinize your use of inspiration, information, and rallying that’s a question of ‘TRUTH’ as in DECIDABILITY (science).Since I think the jury is in, and that the past century was lost as Hayek suggested to social pseudoscience for the purpose of conducting theft on a previously unheard of scale, then we have the questions of golden (meaning) and silver (truth) rule.We attempt to advoicate and inform, and prohibibit and prosecute.As far as I know, truth requires criticism not justification. So at this point we are pretty clear that religion is positive and aspirational and justificationary for the purpose of rallying, and law is negative, prohibitive, critical for the purpose of preventing parasitism>And if we wish to unite philosophy science, morality and law, then at this point we have done so.Some of us inspire and explore and some of us prosecute and judge. And it is the competition between innovation and prosecution that we find truth and utility and morality.

    Davin Eastley: You’re turning into Nietzsche 2.0, Curt – the anti-philosophy philosopher!Curt Doolittle:  I’m just trying to eliminate room from lying from philosophy. And when I do that it turns into science.

    Patrick Martins: That being said, who’s your favorite philosopher?Curt Doolittle: Hmm. Interesting question. I don’t have high opinions of many. I can say I have been most influenced by Hayek and popper. But I tend to read science, not philosophy.

  • Searching Other’s Words While Listening

    Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.

  • Searching Other’s Words While Listening

    Some people ask if they approve Some people ask if it’s good. Some people ask if it’s true. Some people ask if it’s fraud. A prosecutor tests first for fraud. A scientist tests first for truth. A philosopher tests first for good. A common man tests first for his approval. Everyone tests whether he understands. First, seek to understand. Second if it’s true. Third if it’s a fraud. Fourth if it’s good Last, if you approve. No one else cares if you approve of much. You shouldn’t either.

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • Violence Is The Most Truthful Form of Argument

    VIOLENCE IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM OF ARGUMENT AND THE NECESSARY RESPONSE TO DECEIT It took a long time for the right to slowly abandon our Victorian taboos and to stoop to the vaudevillian farce and ridicule of the left. But we are better at it than they are. Just as we were better at the Victorian good manners that they rebelled against.
    If we had not abandoned our ancient ways of the duel, libel and slander we could have maintained argumentative taboos and punished the left for their avoidance if truth and use of gossip and ridicule and lies. But even so, how would we have constrained their innovation upon lying by mysticism, by the invention of pseudoscience, relativistic law, cultural criticism, false promise of Utopianism? To do that we must create a test of truth. Now that we have a test if truth we can return to the full set of prohibitions that require truthfulness – or resort to the only logical response to gossip, critique, pseudo-rationalism, relativistic legalism, pseudoscience, and deceit: Violence.
    Comments
    –“Dawid Wella : Shorter, violence is the ultimate insurance and it forces you to have skin in the game”––“Con Eli Khan: Violence ensures that imposed costs are answered with reciprocal costs.”–

  • ( edited by William L. Benge ) THE NEXT GREAT LEAP 🙂 “The next great leap in hu

    ( edited by William L. Benge )

    THE NEXT GREAT LEAP 🙂

    “The next great leap in human civilization is not technology. it’s morality and law: truth telling. It will be as great a leap as science has been.”

    THE BAD AND THE UGLY — BUT NOT THE GOOD

    “And likewise I am quite certain that just as the mystics fought reason tooth and nail, and just as the religious and theological fought empiricism tooth and nail, and just as the spiritual fought darwin tooth and nail, and those who practice theology, rationalism, and pseudoscience, and justificationary deception will fight tooth and nail.”

    WHY?

    “Because, each of these groups profits from their lies.”

    THERE’$ LITERALLY NO EXCU$E FOR ALL THE GREAT LIE$ THEY CONTINUE TELLING TO MI$LEAD AND BILK MANKIND

    “But how many fundamental truths are there? (we have estimates in the range of a few hundred to less than two thousand). Why is it that people should be lied to and not taught truth, or spoken to, but not spoken to truthfully, or speak, and not speak truthfully?

    Why do we have any more right to pollute the informational commons than we do the other commons of air, water, and land? Why can we cause informational harm out of ignorance, yet we are prohibited from economic and criminal harm out of ignorance or not?

    What was the cost of literacy? What was the cost of creating rule of law? What was the cost of western high trust?”

    TOLERANCE FOR LIES IS COMPLICITY, FRAUD

    “Tolerance is an excuse to conflate convenience (cost) with conviction, in exhcange for false status signals, fraudueltly obtained, by the pretense of charity versus the evasion of the tax necessary for the preservation of a high-trust society and its benefits.

    The tolerant so to speak are just engaged in fraud and nothing more.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-17 10:54:00 UTC