Theme: Truth

  • So I agree definitions matter, but I agree that words that are not false or dece

    So I agree definitions matter, but I agree that words that are not false or deceptive matter than those that are.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 19:13:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738810813927063552

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738712785102721024


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    @curtdoolittle You are mistaken, Science is a method. Words and definitions matter or there is no point in talking.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738712785102721024

  • (Its unlikely that I’m mistaken.) Science is a method for what? Speaking truthfu

    (Its unlikely that I’m mistaken.) Science is a method for what? Speaking truthfully:reducing error, bias, wishfulness, deceit.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 19:11:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738810406718803968

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738712785102721024


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    @curtdoolittle You are mistaken, Science is a method. Words and definitions matter or there is no point in talking.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738712785102721024

  • If science is the discipline by which we seek to speak truthfully, then history

    If science is the discipline by which we seek to speak truthfully, then history is a science. Propaganda, Myth, not.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 12:40:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738712060339625984

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738709783268724740


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    @curtdoolittle No, history is not a science.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738709783268724740

  • Technical question: is it in fact history then, or propaganda, or myth? Doesn’t

    Technical question: is it in fact history then, or propaganda, or myth? Doesn’t ‘history’ equal ‘science’ and myth not? 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 12:16:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738705831630376960

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738692312440705025


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    @curtdoolittle Oh, they teach history, just one-sided history.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738692312440705025

  • Please don’t be stupid. What is correspondence other than pairing? What is mathe

    Please don’t be stupid.

    What is correspondence other than pairing?

    What is mathematics other than pairing?

    Mathematics consists largely of removing properties from (deterministic)reality and constructing deductions with decreasing degrees of information.

    Logic consists of removing properties of from reality and constructing deductions with decreasing degrees of information.

    What is communication other than pairing?

    We use different terms but we pair (compare) and differentiate (remainder)

    We can use the oppposite process as well: we can restore correspondnce with reality in order to test whether our hypotheses can supply the information missing.

    This is how we come to understand BOTH critical rationalism and its complietion with operationalism and morality.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • Historically, groups that lose correspondence with reality are conquered by thos

    Historically, groups that lose correspondence with reality are conquered by those that do not. Simulation = Opium.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-02 06:15:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738252706243063808

    Reply addressees: @ezraklein @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/738249718208335872


    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/738249718208335872

  • (to a friend who makes the common german mistake of conflating sentimental agree

    (to a friend who makes the common german mistake of conflating sentimental agreement with rational and empirical necessity, with the cost and ability to change the behavior of polities.)

    Friend,

    I think you are falling into the trap common of people with germanic backgrounds, and that is to attribute truth to that which just merely sounds right to you. Germans are germans because of the heavy social indoctrination of the culture, and genetics, and not because of the many hundred of ‘excuses’ philosophers make to justify german behavior as a good and to isolate german behavior from competition by foreign behaviors, models, and ideas.

    These german authors are poets, romanticists, secular priests (opinion reinforcers), but they are not scientists (change agents).

    German aristocratic ideas don’t spread if you haven’t noticed. Aristocratic ideas are never spread. THEY ARE IMPOSED

    I know it will not help you to hear this. And it’s not that I don’t agree with your sentiments.

    It’s that as intellectual work, excuse-making (the german rationalist model) and social engineering (the anglo legal model) are for different purposes: reinforcing the existing behaviors (germans) as a means of territorial defense, and colonizing new people (anglos) as a means of expanding commercial empires. Anglos and Romans dominated the world with Law and accounting, insured by arms. Germany never got to her empire phase because the Anglos and Russians (foolishly) stopped her. But if it had happened, then germans would have had to make the same transition from a philosophy of justification (how we should be) to a philosophy of law (we can be anything but what we must not be).

    Once you understand this difference between justificationary reinforcement of existing ideas and operational transformation to new ideas, you’ll understand the difference between german domestic philosophy and anglo roman imperial philosophy and why germans use new-Christianity rationalism and anglos use rule of law.

    So, in summary, you can only justify what exists. You cannot spread it.

    Hence, german philosophy is nice only once you agree with it. It’s no use in converting anyone.

    It’s possible to use anglo law and argument and science to convert by force of institutions, and then reinforce (make heroic) with german philosophy. But that’s all.

    German justificationism(what to do), and Anglo Criticism (what not to do).

    German culture is amazing for its oppressive inculcation of good behavior. But the philosophy just justifies the ancient germanic oath, and does not create it in the first place.

    Sure, scribblers matter. I’m a scribbler too. But law is a method of involuntary persuasion, religion a method of social persuasion, and literature a means of intellectual suggestion for the middle classes.

    Rule requires rule. And law provides the logic and method of ruling.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-02 03:36:00 UTC

  • “How does one determine truthfulness? Or truth? Would “accurate” not be a better

    —“How does one determine truthfulness? Or truth? Would “accurate” not be a better formulation? Can that be constructed?”—- Arthur K

    One cannot knowingly speak the most parsimonious truth possible.

    One can however perform such thorough due diligence that he can warranty that he speaks truthfully: meaning diligently free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

    One can perform the following tests of due diligence, any of which can falsify his ideas:

    1) categorical consistency (Identity)

    2) internal consistency (logical)

    3) external consistency (external correspondence)

    4) existential consistency (operational language)

    5) moral consistency (voluntary transfers)

    6) full accounting

    7) parsimony and limits (scope)

    8) falsifiability.

    If you pass all 8 of those hurdles then you speak as truthfully as is humanly (or even superhumanly) possible.

    But it is quite an informative exercise to look at 100 papers or books in each discipline and ask which of these tests of due diligence is provided and which is not.

    Almost everyone fails.

    Truth is hard.

    The question is why we permit verbal products in the informational commons and knowledge marketplace, but do not permit defective products or services in the physical commons and marketplace?

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 09:32:00 UTC

  • WE ARE THE #NewRight.The old right failed.The movement right failed.The neocon r

    WE ARE THE #NewRight.The old right failed.The movement right failed.The neocon right failed. But we don’t lie like they did.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 06:11:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737889254932647938

    Reply addressees: @ReactionaryIan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/737887157436723200


    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/737887157436723200

  • ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM) There is a difference between questio

    ON ASKING FOR CITATIONS (JUSTIFICATIONISM)

    There is a difference between questioning experimental data, and questioning asserted theory.

    We can ask for data for cites – that’s criticism, but we can’t ask for arguments for cites – that’s justificationism.

    Best answer is not to request cites but to offer alternative, more parsimonious hypotheses- what we call criticism, and see if the original argument survives.

    While dishonest people ask for cites in order to create a justificationary rhetorical fallacy, what most honest people mean when they ask for cites is that they want to know more, so that they can judge for themselves.

    My position on these questions is driven empirically: papers are almost always *shit* (always actually), and so the only works worth recommending are books that integrate hypotheses into contextual knowledge.

    I’d get into why that’s true but that would take me a while.

    So, ask for, and supply:

    1) cites for experimental data,

    2) counter argument for theory,

    3) books for understanding.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-06-01 03:08:00 UTC