Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Which Philosophers Rely On Which Argumentative Method?

    How much longer will we leave ethics to philosophical pseudoscience? ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    1. Mythical (Allegorical) (Theological)
    2. Psychological (Moral) (The Anglo Scottish Enlightenment)
    3. Rational (Kantian) (Germanic Libertarians)
    4. Historical (analogical)
    5. Empirical (positivist)
    6. Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
    7. Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    See Degrees Of Political ArgumentQUESTION: Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods? (I can tell you that I rely upon ratio-empirical arguments.)

  • Which Philosophers Rely On Which Argumentative Method?

    How much longer will we leave ethics to philosophical pseudoscience? ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    1. Mythical (Allegorical) (Theological)
    2. Psychological (Moral) (The Anglo Scottish Enlightenment)
    3. Rational (Kantian) (Germanic Libertarians)
    4. Historical (analogical)
    5. Empirical (positivist)
    6. Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
    7. Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    See Degrees Of Political ArgumentQUESTION: Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods? (I can tell you that I rely upon ratio-empirical arguments.)

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Libertarians Have A Lot Going For Us

    My criticisms of Mises, Austrianism and Rothbard are fairly technical – and they are rock solid. But we have a lot going for us: The business cycle; objective morality as voluntary, productive, fully informed, exchange free of externalities; the reduction of all rights to property rights adjudicable under common law; hoppeian institutions as replacements for monopoly bureaucracy; and the possibility of a formal logic and grammar of cooperation – are all rock solid concepts. But our ‘antique’ justifications are not rock solid. Actually, they’re embarrassingly bad and we are philosophical and scientific laughing stocks because of them. And that condition prevents us from arguing in favor of our material solutions to political economy and monopoly bureaucracy. In order to defend against postmodernism, socialism, and dishonest socialism, marxism, pseudoscience, and mysticism, I must correct our reasoning as well. Most of which is childishly pseudoscientific. I can fix that. And that’s what I’m doing.

  • Libertarians Have A Lot Going For Us

    My criticisms of Mises, Austrianism and Rothbard are fairly technical – and they are rock solid. But we have a lot going for us: The business cycle; objective morality as voluntary, productive, fully informed, exchange free of externalities; the reduction of all rights to property rights adjudicable under common law; hoppeian institutions as replacements for monopoly bureaucracy; and the possibility of a formal logic and grammar of cooperation – are all rock solid concepts. But our ‘antique’ justifications are not rock solid. Actually, they’re embarrassingly bad and we are philosophical and scientific laughing stocks because of them. And that condition prevents us from arguing in favor of our material solutions to political economy and monopoly bureaucracy. In order to defend against postmodernism, socialism, and dishonest socialism, marxism, pseudoscience, and mysticism, I must correct our reasoning as well. Most of which is childishly pseudoscientific. I can fix that. And that’s what I’m doing.

  • ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FO

    ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FOR METHODOLOGICAL EXPLORATION

    (worth repeating)

    People in all fields selectively violate ethical constraints on speech when and where it is either helpful to them or irrelevant to their task: cost in philosophy, scale in math, cause in logic, utility in identity, cooperation and preference in the physical sciences. I cannot think of a value of communication outside of cooperation, so to speak to another is to engage in cooperation of some form.

    All these different disciplines DISCARD properties of ‘ethical, performative, truth” as needed for their methodological pursuit of exploration.

    As such there is only one complete set of properties to the concept: ethical, performative, truth. Everything else is a subset of that definition of truth.

    Preference, Utility, Cooperation, Cause, Cost, Scale, Relation, Identity

    Something of that structure.

    (This will take me five years to get right.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 10:13:00 UTC

  • THAT SOMETHING IS USEFUL DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE Familiar and useful concepts.

    THAT SOMETHING IS USEFUL DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE

    Familiar and useful concepts.

    It wasnt long ago that intellectuals could not imagine a universe without god.

    It wasnt that long ago that intellectuals could not imagine evolution: a world without intention.

    At present, intellectuals cannot imagine a world without the pretense of imaginary objects.

    Just how it is. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 13:38:00 UTC