Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • The Search For Precision and Parsimony

    [P]opper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search for precision and parsimony, by making truthful statements along the way, rather than coopting the word ‘truth’ from his spiritual background. We are not investigating the mind of god. Nothing is obscured from us. Nature doesn’t try to lie to us, nor is nature mistaken.

    The question is not ‘is that true’ but ‘can I testify to and warranty this?”

    Linguistic blame avoidance caused a lot of ripple effects in philosophy.

    But popper’s culture was not one of truth telling (as his own rhetorical attacks on competitors evidences.) Cosmopolitans are pragmatists not truth tellers. They do not warranty their speech as do westerners.

    Meaning in cosmopolitanism is utilitarian and escapable, not truthful and warrantied.

    Popper relies upon cosmopolitan truth (the unknowable mind of god), and cosmopolitan truthfulness (non-warrantied speech).

    This is why he could advance science but that was the limit of his solution.

  • The Search For Precision and Parsimony

    [P]opper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search for precision and parsimony, by making truthful statements along the way, rather than coopting the word ‘truth’ from his spiritual background. We are not investigating the mind of god. Nothing is obscured from us. Nature doesn’t try to lie to us, nor is nature mistaken.

    The question is not ‘is that true’ but ‘can I testify to and warranty this?”

    Linguistic blame avoidance caused a lot of ripple effects in philosophy.

    But popper’s culture was not one of truth telling (as his own rhetorical attacks on competitors evidences.) Cosmopolitans are pragmatists not truth tellers. They do not warranty their speech as do westerners.

    Meaning in cosmopolitanism is utilitarian and escapable, not truthful and warrantied.

    Popper relies upon cosmopolitan truth (the unknowable mind of god), and cosmopolitan truthfulness (non-warrantied speech).

    This is why he could advance science but that was the limit of his solution.

  • ALL LIFE IS POLITICS – ONCE AGAIN Action(correspondence). Precision(Parsimony).

    ALL LIFE IS POLITICS – ONCE AGAIN

    Action(correspondence). Precision(Parsimony). Meaning(Recursion)

    How do I relate these ideas to one another? Meaning allows us to restructure – to reorganize. So meaning is just theorizing with the operations (ideas) at our disposal.

    Why are the hermeneuticists so fascinated with meaning instead of truth? oh… it’s cheap.

    Wait… so, meaning to the individual isn’t important. Meaning is a political utility.

    So why is meaning….. oh… persuasion for the purpose of cooperation (and less positive ambitions) as well.

    So is it really… yes, so Popper’s advice is directional.. on the conduct of investigation, but not on truth… yes. Ok. So I am full circle again.

    SCIENCE (AND CRITICAL RATIONALISM) ARE SUBSET OF TRUTH TELLING not a superset.

    So just as mathematicians practice platonism out of convenience, scientists practice it out of convenience, philosophers practice it out of convenience.

    But then LAW IS THE HIGHEST LOGIC and testimony the only existential truth, and all else is merely a subset of the truth telling – using analogies. Analogies that lead us to confusion.

    ALL LIFE IS POLITICS

    FUK. THATS IT.

    ( Frank Lovell , Ayelam Valentine Agaliba )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-22 00:45:00 UTC

  • Well, there are many things that we CAN say, that are not false, and provide us

    Well, there are many things that we CAN say, that are not false, and provide us meaning. While there are other things that we must say and are truthful.

    How do I do a better job of demarcating meaning and truth? Because that is what I am after.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:54:00 UTC

  • Popper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search f

    Popper would have been better off saying that he was advising us on the search for precision and parsimony, by making truthful statements along the way, rather than coopting the word ‘truth’ from his spiritual background. We are not investigating the mind of god. Nothing is obscured from us. Nature doesn’t try to lie to us, nor is nature mistaken.

    The question is not ‘is that true’ but ‘can I testify to and warranty this?”

    Linguistic blame avoidance caused a lot of ripple effects in philosophy.

    But popper’s culture was not one of truth telling (as his own rhetorical attacks on competitors evidences.) Cosmopolitans are pragmatists not truth tellers. They do not warranty their speech as do westerners.

    Meaning in cosmopolitanism is utilitarian and escapable, not truthful and warrantied.

    Popper relies upon cosmopolitan truth (the unknowable mind of god), and cosmopolitan truthfulness (non-warrantied speech).

    This is why he could advance science but that was the limit of his solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:46:00 UTC

  • Reading Skye Stewart’s entries in Critical Rationalism and thinking more about p

    Reading Skye Stewart’s entries in Critical Rationalism and thinking more about positioning popper and his philosophy in the context of truth-speaking (Given his cosmopolitanism). And I am getting closer to being able to articulate that he is telling us how we can investigate in order to overcome our biases in the process of investigation, and less how we can speak truthfully.

    The reason I want to clarify this is to find some way of articulating that what he’s NOT articulating is that we are forever increasing our precision, not that we are increasing our truth content.

    I have to work on this idea further. But I get the basic problem. It’s just ‘how do you talk about it?”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 19:17:00 UTC

  • Why Do We Justify Our Arguments?

    [W]E JUSTIFY:
    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

  • Why Do We Justify Our Arguments?

    [W]E JUSTIFY:
    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.
    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.
    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.
    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks.  But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

  • NOW I HAVE TO PIVOT AGAINST THE “LIARS AND VECTORS” AGAIN. I have to find a way

    NOW I HAVE TO PIVOT AGAINST THE “LIARS AND VECTORS” AGAIN.

    I have to find a way to categorize all the forms of ‘lies’. I know others have tried to do this differently. But I must figure this out.

    It makes others crazy when I show that well intentioned people are vectors for lies. But that’s just how it is. We can’t have a reformation that suppresses the errors of the enlightenment without developing specialized arguments against lying vectors for lying, and errors.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 07:40:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WE JUSTIFY OUR ARGUMENTS? (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by wh

    WHY DO WE JUSTIFY OUR ARGUMENTS?

    (a) To convey meaning – to provide a path by which we incrementally transfer properties by analogy to achieve conclusions.

    (b) To convey honesty – to demonstrate that we are telling the truth to the best of our understanding.

    (c) To demonstrate the we adhere to NORMS in our reasoning – that we have not violated the social contract. (This is how we get into all sorts of interesting problems. Because truth is only truth in the sense that we mean it, in the west.)

    AND CONVERSELY:

    (d) To lie – to lead others to false conclusions by design.

    (e) To vector a lie for pragmatic purposes – to lead others to conclusions we prefer using the arguments of others as a matter of practical action.

    AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FORMER WITHOUT THE LATTER?

    (f) separate the route by which we establish meaning, from the route by which we demonstrate truth. It is possible to construct a theory by any means, but it is only possible to testify to the truth of it by operational means – existentially possible means, and in matters of human action, SUBJECTIVELY TESTABLE means. (rationality of incentives).

    MATH CONFUSED US.

    In mathematics, at least, for the most part, the means of conducting operations to solve a problem is nearly identical to the means of demonstrating the construction of a solution using existentially possible operations.

    We sought to copy mathematics – starting with the Greeks. But we lacked the understanding of why math was so effective at the ascertaining truth of relations: because there is very little difference between the process of theorizing and the process of construction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-21 04:19:00 UTC