Theme: Truth

RESPONSE TO THE SCHIZOTYPAL LUNATIC FRINGE

I always respond to attacks when I find out about them. I just wish some of them were worth responding to. (the nietzcheans have provided the only meaningful criticism to date).

NOTES ON AUDIO

1) It is irrelevant how many people listen, it’s only relevant who listens. There is a large audience for astrology.
2) There is a vast difference between the set (pedagogical, useful, meaningful) on the one hand, and the set (true, necessary, decidable) on the other. The first consists of literature and informs on a strategy, the second consists of law and decides conflicts regardless of strategy.
3) Ideologies and World-views (Excuses for evolutionary strategies). We seek justification for our strategies. that is all.
4) The french revolution provides an exception not a rule: it was the most backward government in Europe. The British had revolutions frequently, because the never had as much asymmetry as the french. The Russian and British and Chinese are far better examples since they are frequent and less reductio out of extremity.
5) the american experiment comes closest to creating formal, strictly constructed law as a social science of cooperation: natural law as a peer to physical law.
6) Democracy in the ancient and in the modern world was an excuse by which to transfer power from the landed aristocracy to the commercial aristocracy using the families of the soldiery necessary to hold territory. Bribe with political power rather than enfranchisement into property rights.
7) (35:00 So far nothing jay says is causal its all justificationary – life is much more rich, more to experience, more to philosophy. this is despite the fact that he does not say why these things have any import other than taking a carnival ride is more interesting than studying the structure of the ride. I am sitting through literary excuse making, straw man arguments, and self congratulatory use of critique. It’s painful. This is an example ‘mumbo-jumbo’ if there is any. Critique is NOT science (truth). )
8) I (curt doolittle) am a social scientists who attempts to construct law. I use the language of philosophy at the indirect advice of Hoppe. if i seek to unite truth, philosophy, science, and law, then I use the ancient disciplinary tree.
9) That you don’t think I”m that good isn’t a measure of anything. That you think its bad and laughable is (humorous). OMG it’s embarrassing to listen to this name calling and marxist critique rather than refuting ideas (that you are not intellectually capable or informed sufficiently to understand)
10) Decidability is the end of the road for law. Just as it is for science. You would need to refute that statement.
11) Stephan is a public intellectual, engaged in the use of reason. whether he is a philosopher or not, is a question. He has tried and failed to produce a theory. (Just as you seem to be trying to produce some theory, although all I see is marxist critique: criticizing what you don’t agree with but providing no theory that is equally open to criticism. This is a common method of deceit. It is how marxism attack the west: through pseudo-scientific critique.
12) The rule of law is what we are investigating in libertarianism. Is law enough? can we make law into a sufficient social science so that all ethical and political statements are decidable ‘moral’ (non-parasitic).
13) Aristotle uses reason, which is different from rationalism, which is different from logic, is different from science. (OMG this podcast is embarrassing to listen to.)
14) Use the word ‘True’ without understanding what it might, can, and must mean. Critique, critique, critique, critique… all I hear. No argument yet. nothing. completely vacuous empty verbalisms.
15) Reason is the process by which we launder imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, overloading, from our free associations, where those free associations are provided by our intuition, and where that intuition is biased heavily by our genetics, gender, and experiences.
16) omg… reason, energy, senses. omfg. this is …. embarrassing. I really have to spend time on this empty verbalism? On this Marxist Critique? This guy uses a bunch of postmodern nonsense words.
17) We can say that experiential relations are a preference, not a truth. But then we have to ask where do the wights we assign to those experiential relations come from? It comes from chemical rewards provided by our evolutionary history and encoded in our genes.
18) TRUTH: if you cannot construct an operational description of your terms and fully account for the information present in your statements then you are not able to make a truth claim. This is simply true. Period.
19) The scientific method is a set of steps by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit from your utterances. Science is the method of by which we produce testimony.
20) Empiricism means that all knowledge that survives criticism by reason originates in senses. (Observation). We say that MEASUREMENT is a method of insuring that our senses contain the least error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
21) We (scientists) dont make knowledge claims (only justifications do that and they all error). We give testimony. Meaning that we testify that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our statements to the best of our ability.
22) The purpose of experientially loaded literature is to EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ASSIST IN HYPOTHESIS. The purpose of science is to remove experiential loading, framing, obscuring, imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit from those hypotheses.
23) The error is in that one or the other survives exclusively (I don’t make this error). It is that pedagogy and experience are individual matters, and decidability and truth are interpersonal matters. In other words you are welcome to your experiences as long as we are not in conflict. If we are in conflict then only truth renders conflicts decidable.
24) Why must conflict be decidable? Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding and we cannot cooperate if our contractual relations are not decidable by objective (true) means.

CONCLUSION
This is the answer you are failing to grasp: the dual need for both individual experience VS interpersonal decidability.

CRITICISM AND REFRAMING
1) You are an excuse-maker. What I have seen in this discourse is nothing other than a) a failure to articulate a theory, b) the constant demonstration of seeking confirmation bias in analogies and c) the use of critique to criticize the opposition, and d) the use of ridicule.

You have a lot of viewers because there are a lot of idiots who need similar justification for their incomprehension. (Dunning-Kruger at Work). It is a desperate attempt to find will-to-power by finding a way to excuse one’s inability to grasp abstract relations independent of intuitionistic weightings. This ability is what separates less intelligent from more intelligent people.

2) Molyneux is a communicator. He has a lot of viewers because even if imperfect, he is an educator. He educates. And honestly he is great at it.

3) I am a scientist. I don’t care about the number of viewers, I just care about whether I advance the discipline of truth telling. So far I have made more progress than anyone other than Popper and Hume. The purpose of public discourse is to attempt to falsify my theories: to see if they survive criticism.

THE SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY
This is a waste of my time. I made it through 1:12:00 before I tired of the mental equivalent of conspiracy theory. There is a very clear relationship between mental illness (schizotypal thinking) and this desperate need to feel confidence in one’s thinking despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So Jay earns the Curt Doolittle Stamp of Schizotypal Personality by attempting to use selection bias and loose analogy absent causal relations in order to justify his in ability to alter his framing to that of the universal language of truth: science. Why? Because confronting that reality would force him to recognize his lower status and abandon the self deception of mental superiority. This is again, evidence of Schizotypal personality traits. Judgement rendered. It is how it is.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

h/t: Megan Cyloneight

FOLLOWUP DEBATE 
(I am trying to find out if he actually has any idea what he’s talking about.)

RESPONSE TO THE SCHIZOTYPAL LUNATIC FRINGE

I always respond to attacks when I find out about them. I just wish some of them were worth responding to. (the nietzcheans have provided the only meaningful criticism to date).

NOTES ON AUDIO

1) It is irrelevant how many people listen, it’s only relevant who listens. There is a large audience for astrology.
2) There is a vast difference between the set (pedagogical, useful, meaningful) on the one hand, and the set (true, necessary, decidable) on the other. The first consists of literature and informs on a strategy, the second consists of law and decides conflicts regardless of strategy.
3) Ideologies and World-views (Excuses for evolutionary strategies). We seek justification for our strategies. that is all.
4) The french revolution provides an exception not a rule: it was the most backward government in Europe. The British had revolutions frequently, because the never had as much asymmetry as the french. The Russian and British and Chinese are far better examples since they are frequent and less reductio out of extremity.
5) the american experiment comes closest to creating formal, strictly constructed law as a social science of cooperation: natural law as a peer to physical law.
6) Democracy in the ancient and in the modern world was an excuse by which to transfer power from the landed aristocracy to the commercial aristocracy using the families of the soldiery necessary to hold territory. Bribe with political power rather than enfranchisement into property rights.
7) (35:00 So far nothing jay says is causal its all justificationary – life is much more rich, more to experience, more to philosophy. this is despite the fact that he does not say why these things have any import other than taking a carnival ride is more interesting than studying the structure of the ride. I am sitting through literary excuse making, straw man arguments, and self congratulatory use of critique. It’s painful. This is an example ‘mumbo-jumbo’ if there is any. Critique is NOT science (truth). )
8) I (curt doolittle) am a social scientists who attempts to construct law. I use the language of philosophy at the indirect advice of Hoppe. if i seek to unite truth, philosophy, science, and law, then I use the ancient disciplinary tree.
9) That you don’t think I”m that good isn’t a measure of anything. That you think its bad and laughable is (humorous). OMG it’s embarrassing to listen to this name calling and marxist critique rather than refuting ideas (that you are not intellectually capable or informed sufficiently to understand)
10) Decidability is the end of the road for law. Just as it is for science. You would need to refute that statement.
11) Stephan is a public intellectual, engaged in the use of reason. whether he is a philosopher or not, is a question. He has tried and failed to produce a theory. (Just as you seem to be trying to produce some theory, although all I see is marxist critique: criticizing what you don’t agree with but providing no theory that is equally open to criticism. This is a common method of deceit. It is how marxism attack the west: through pseudo-scientific critique.
12) The rule of law is what we are investigating in libertarianism. Is law enough? can we make law into a sufficient social science so that all ethical and political statements are decidable ‘moral’ (non-parasitic).
13) Aristotle uses reason, which is different from rationalism, which is different from logic, is different from science. (OMG this podcast is embarrassing to listen to.)
14) Use the word ‘True’ without understanding what it might, can, and must mean. Critique, critique, critique, critique… all I hear. No argument yet. nothing. completely vacuous empty verbalisms.
15) Reason is the process by which we launder imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, overloading, from our free associations, where those free associations are provided by our intuition, and where that intuition is biased heavily by our genetics, gender, and experiences.
16) omg… reason, energy, senses. omfg. this is …. embarrassing. I really have to spend time on this empty verbalism? On this Marxist Critique? This guy uses a bunch of postmodern nonsense words.
17) We can say that experiential relations are a preference, not a truth. But then we have to ask where do the wights we assign to those experiential relations come from? It comes from chemical rewards provided by our evolutionary history and encoded in our genes.
18) TRUTH: if you cannot construct an operational description of your terms and fully account for the information present in your statements then you are not able to make a truth claim. This is simply true. Period.
19) The scientific method is a set of steps by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit from your utterances. Science is the method of by which we produce testimony.
20) Empiricism means that all knowledge that survives criticism by reason originates in senses. (Observation). We say that MEASUREMENT is a method of insuring that our senses contain the least error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit.
21) We (scientists) dont make knowledge claims (only justifications do that and they all error). We give testimony. Meaning that we testify that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our statements to the best of our ability.
22) The purpose of experientially loaded literature is to EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ASSIST IN HYPOTHESIS. The purpose of science is to remove experiential loading, framing, obscuring, imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit from those hypotheses.
23) The error is in that one or the other survives exclusively (I don’t make this error). It is that pedagogy and experience are individual matters, and decidability and truth are interpersonal matters. In other words you are welcome to your experiences as long as we are not in conflict. If we are in conflict then only truth renders conflicts decidable.
24) Why must conflict be decidable? Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding and we cannot cooperate if our contractual relations are not decidable by objective (true) means.

CONCLUSION
This is the answer you are failing to grasp: the dual need for both individual experience VS interpersonal decidability.

CRITICISM AND REFRAMING
1) You are an excuse-maker. What I have seen in this discourse is nothing other than a) a failure to articulate a theory, b) the constant demonstration of seeking confirmation bias in analogies and c) the use of critique to criticize the opposition, and d) the use of ridicule.

You have a lot of viewers because there are a lot of idiots who need similar justification for their incomprehension. (Dunning-Kruger at Work). It is a desperate attempt to find will-to-power by finding a way to excuse one’s inability to grasp abstract relations independent of intuitionistic weightings. This ability is what separates less intelligent from more intelligent people.

2) Molyneux is a communicator. He has a lot of viewers because even if imperfect, he is an educator. He educates. And honestly he is great at it.

3) I am a scientist. I don’t care about the number of viewers, I just care about whether I advance the discipline of truth telling. So far I have made more progress than anyone other than Popper and Hume. The purpose of public discourse is to attempt to falsify my theories: to see if they survive criticism.

THE SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY
This is a waste of my time. I made it through 1:12:00 before I tired of the mental equivalent of conspiracy theory. There is a very clear relationship between mental illness (schizotypal thinking) and this desperate need to feel confidence in one’s thinking despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

So Jay earns the Curt Doolittle Stamp of Schizotypal Personality by attempting to use selection bias and loose analogy absent causal relations in order to justify his in ability to alter his framing to that of the universal language of truth: science. Why? Because confronting that reality would force him to recognize his lower status and abandon the self deception of mental superiority. This is again, evidence of Schizotypal personality traits. Judgement rendered. It is how it is.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

h/t: Megan Cyloneight

FOLLOWUP DEBATE 
(I am trying to find out if he actually has any idea what he’s talking about.)