Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Thus the difference between internal consistency and external correspondence

    Thus the difference between internal consistency and external correspondence.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-25 19:18:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1948825219524915455

  • Yes well we’ve had this same discussion repeatedly. And I suspect these terms ar

    Yes well we’ve had this same discussion repeatedly. And I suspect these terms are subjective in the sense that what one concerns one’s self with depends upon one’s sensitivity to and investment in normativity. For those less dependent upon normativity, we are not in conflict (yet), while for those dependent upon normativity we are deeply in conflict. This is similar to the spectrum of sensitivity to offense – if we are not treating something as property we don’t care, but if we are we do. SO it depends upon how dependent you are upon others I presume.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-21 18:59:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1947370879635410994

  • Brian, an era of better normative content vs present normative content, when the

    Brian, an era of better normative content vs present normative content, when the problem is non-normativity (truth, reciprocity etc). To evolve LLMs from math and programmatic logic in which closure is a given to reasoning in which closure is not, is a hard problem. However, we can create a baseline (universal) from which we can test variances.
    Now I’ve pinged you before a few times and received no response. And I don’t want to attempt to persuade you. But if you’re struggling and want the answer to the problem we can provide it, and you’re certainly smart enough to get it.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-17 00:07:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1945636356627337434

  • TRYING TO SOLVE THE HARD PROBLEMS OF LLM AI – AND ITS ALWAYS PEOPLE PROBLEMS INS

    TRYING TO SOLVE THE HARD PROBLEMS OF LLM AI – AND ITS ALWAYS PEOPLE PROBLEMS INSTEAD.
    You know, when I retired back in 2012, I explained that I wanted to devote my time to the think tank, and if i started a new company, I’d keep it small – because the personnel conflict made me depressed and tired. Today reminded me of that statement.

    We (my team and I) have solved the problem of hallucination, truth, ethics, morality in LLMs, and as a consequence the costly problem of reasoning.

    It is the result of decades of work. And no one else is even in the ballpark. At least we can’t find anyone.

    But I’m not willing to fight people in order to bring it into being. And I’m not willing to work with a VC or CEO that can’t understand it. I enjoy understanding, explaining, negotiating and deciding. My tolerance for discord and conflict is … well … near zero.

    Rough day.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-16 22:23:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1945610163614093573

  • “Our addition sharpens the epistemic framing: the universe has no recipe, no des

    –“Our addition sharpens the epistemic framing: the universe has no recipe, no designer, and no foresight—only constraint, difference, recombination, and survival. This is the great inversion of theological, metaphysical, and anthropomorphic thinking: existence does not emerge from intelligence—intelligence emerges from existence.”– The Natural Law Volume 1 the Crisis of The Age, Chapter 8, Evolutionary Computation.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-12 23:20:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1944175134434373670

  • Elon: Grok 4 still has the problem of lacking closure in ordinary language and t

    Elon: Grok 4 still has the problem of lacking closure in ordinary language and therefore inability of truth testing in the behavioral sciences, thus relying on normative prose for its answers.
    And because of the evolutionary rate and volume of normative writing postwar, Grok is stuck in a permanent bias.
    My org and I have solved this problem. (Really) We have been able to train ChatGPT 4. We have run tests this morning and it appears possible to train Grok 4.
    I am only one or two degrees from you. But until today we didn’t feel Grok was ready. Now it appears to be.
    I am easy to reach.
    -CD

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-10 19:15:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943388674739294651

  • How Situate Account For, And Assess Curt Doolittle’s Work On Natural Law? (Note:

    How Situate Account For, And Assess Curt Doolittle’s Work On Natural Law?

    (Note: This is reasonably accurate. Thank you Moritiz. – CD)
    PROMPT: Give me a comprehensive account of the history of thought on natural Law.
    The history of thought on natural law is a rich and complex journey that spans centuries, cultures, and philosophical traditions. Natural law refers to a body of universal moral principles derived from nature, reason, or divine will, which are believed to govern human behavior and serve as a foundation for ethics, justice, and law. Below is a comprehensive account of its development, organized chronologically and thematically, tracing key thinkers, schools, and debates.
    Ancient Foundations (Pre-Socratic to Classical Greece)
    The concept of natural law has roots in ancient philosophy, where thinkers began to explore the idea of universal principles governing the cosmos and human conduct.
    1. Pre-Socratic Philosophy (6th–5th Century BCE):
    • Early Greek philosophers like Heraclitus and Anaximander speculated about a cosmic order (logos or kosmos) that governs the universe. Heraclitus, for instance, posited that a universal reason or divine law underlies all existence, suggesting an intrinsic order that humans could align with through reason.
    • These ideas laid the groundwork for later notions of a natural order that transcends human-made laws.
    1. Sophists and Relativism (5th Century BCE):
    • The Sophists, such as Protagoras, challenged the idea of universal laws, arguing that laws and morality are human constructs relative to specific societies. Protagoras’ famous dictum, “Man is the measure of all things,” emphasized subjective human judgment over objective standards.
    • This relativism provoked a reaction from later thinkers who sought to defend universal principles.
    1. Socrates and Plato (5th–4th Century BCE):
    • Socrates (470–399 BCE) countered Sophist relativism by arguing that moral truths exist independently of human opinion and can be discovered through reason and dialectic. His emphasis on virtue and justice as objective ideals influenced natural law thinking.
    • Plato (427–347 BCE) developed the idea of a transcendent order in his theory of Forms, where the Form of the Good represents the ultimate source of moral and natural order. In works like The Republic, he suggested that justice reflects a harmony with this eternal order, accessible through philosophical reasoning.
    1. Aristotle (384–322 BCE):
    • Aristotle provided one of the first systematic accounts of natural law. In Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, he argued that humans have a natural telos (purpose) rooted in reason and virtue, which guides ethical behavior.
    • He distinguished between “natural justice” (physis), which is universal and derived from human nature, and “conventional justice” (nomos), which varies by society. For Aristotle, natural law is grounded in the rational observation of human nature and the natural world, not divine revelation.
    • His teleological view—that everything has an inherent purpose—became a cornerstone of later natural law theories.
    Hellenistic and Roman Contributions
    The Hellenistic and Roman periods synthesized Greek philosophy with practical legal and ethical systems, particularly through Stoicism and Roman jurisprudence.
    1. Stoicism (3rd Century BCE–2nd Century CE):
    • Stoic philosophers like Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus developed the concept of a universal natural law (lex naturalis) rooted in the rational order of the cosmos. They believed that humans, as rational beings, should live “according to nature” (kata phusin), aligning their actions with this cosmic reason.
    • Cicero (106–43 BCE), a Roman Stoic, was pivotal in popularizing natural law in the Western tradition. In De Legibus and De Re Publica, he argued that true law is “right reason in agreement with nature,” universal, eternal, and unchangeable. Cicero emphasized that human laws must align with this higher law to be just, and unjust laws (e.g., those violating natural justice) are not true laws.
    • Stoic natural law influenced Roman legal thought and provided a framework for later Christian thinkers.
    1. Roman Jurisprudence:
    • Roman lawyers like Gaius and Ulpian incorporated natural law into the ius gentium (law of nations), a set of legal principles common to all peoples. They viewed ius gentium as reflecting universal principles of justice derived from nature, distinct from the ius civile (civil law) specific to Roman citizens.
    • This practical application of natural law shaped the Roman legal system and influenced medieval legal traditions.
    Medieval Christian Synthesis
    The medieval period saw natural law integrated into Christian theology, particularly through the synthesis of Greek philosophy and biblical revelation.
    1. Early Christian Thought (1st–5th Century CE):
    • Early Christian thinkers like St. Paul and St. Augustine adapted Stoic and Platonic ideas to Christian theology. In Romans 2:14–15, Paul suggested that Gentiles, without the Mosaic Law, have a “law written in their hearts,” implying a universal moral sense accessible through conscience.
    • St. Augustine (354–430 CE) reconciled natural law with divine will, arguing in City of God and On Free Choice of the Will that natural law reflects God’s eternal law, imprinted on human nature. For Augustine, human reason discerns this law, but sin obscures it, requiring divine grace for moral clarity.
    1. Scholasticism and Thomas Aquinas (13th Century):
    • St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) provided the most influential medieval formulation of natural law in his Summa Theologica. He synthesized Aristotle’s philosophy with Christian theology, arguing that natural law is the human participation in God’s eternal law (the divine plan governing creation).
    • Aquinas outlined a hierarchy of laws: eternal law (God’s reason), natural law (its reflection in human nature), divine law (revealed through scripture), and human law (created by societies). Human laws are valid only if they align with natural law, which is discovered through reason and reflects universal principles like “do good and avoid evil.”
    • Key principles of Aquinas’ natural law include the preservation of life, procreation, social living, and the pursuit of truth. His work became the foundation for Catholic moral and legal thought.
    1. Late Scholasticism and the School of Salamanca (15th–16th Century):
    • Thinkers like Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez further developed natural law in response to new ethical challenges, such as the colonization of the Americas. They applied natural law to issues like the rights of indigenous peoples, arguing that all humans share a common dignity derived from natural law.
    • Suárez (1548–1617) emphasized that natural law is binding because it reflects divine will, but it is accessible through reason, independent of specific religious revelation. This laid the groundwork for secular interpretations of natural law.
    Early Modern Developments
    The early modern period saw natural law shift from theological to more secular and rationalist frameworks, influencing political philosophy and the development of modern legal systems.
    1. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645):
    • Grotius, often called the “father of international law,” secularized natural law in his De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625). He argued that natural law is based on human reason and sociability, valid even if God did not exist (the famous etiamsi daremus hypothesis). This marked a shift toward a more rationalist, less theologically dependent natural law.
    • Grotius’ work influenced modern concepts of international law, emphasizing universal principles like justice and mutual obligation.
    1. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679):
    • Hobbes offered a materialist and secular reinterpretation of natural law in Leviathan (1651). He argued that the “state of nature” is a condition of perpetual conflict, and natural laws are rational principles (e.g., seeking peace, keeping contracts) necessary for survival and social order.
    • Unlike traditional natural law, Hobbes’ version is grounded in self-preservation and requires a sovereign to enforce it, marking a departure from the idea of intrinsic moral obligations.
    1. John Locke (1632–1704):
    • Locke’s natural law, articulated in Two Treatises of Government (1689), combined theological and rationalist elements. He argued that natural law is rooted in God’s will but discoverable through reason, emphasizing natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
    • Locke’s theory influenced modern liberalism, providing a basis for individual rights and the social contract, where legitimate government rests on consent and respect for natural law.
    1. Samuel Pufendorf and Christian Wolff:
    • Pufendorf (1632–1694) further secularized natural law, emphasizing human sociability as its foundation. In De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1672), he argued that natural law promotes social order and is accessible through reason.
    • Wolff (1679–1754) systematized natural law into a comprehensive ethical and legal framework, influencing Enlightenment thought.
    Enlightenment and Modern Critiques
    The Enlightenment brought both the peak and the decline of natural law as a dominant framework, as rationalism, empiricism, and positivism challenged its foundations.
    1. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778):
    • Rousseau’s Social Contract (1762) reinterpreted natural law through the lens of the general will, arguing that natural freedom is transformed into civil freedom through a social contract. His focus on human autonomy shifted natural law toward individual and collective self-determination.
    1. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804):
    • Kant revolutionized natural law by grounding it in pure reason rather than nature or divine will. In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), he proposed the categorical imperative (“act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”) as a rational basis for morality.
    • Kant’s deontological ethics moved away from teleological or theological natural law, emphasizing autonomy and universalizability.
    1. Critiques of Natural Law:
    • David Hume (1711–1776): Hume challenged natural law’s rationalist foundations in A Treatise of Human Nature (1739–1740), arguing that moral judgments stem from sentiment, not reason. His “is-ought problem” criticized deriving moral obligations from natural facts, undermining traditional natural law.
    • Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): Bentham’s utilitarianism rejected natural law as speculative, advocating for laws based on the principle of utility (maximizing happiness). In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), he dismissed natural rights as “nonsense upon stilts.”
    • Legal Positivism: In the 19th century, thinkers like John Austin argued that law is the command of a sovereign, not derived from natural principles. This positivist turn marginalized natural law in legal theory.
    Modern and Contemporary Developments
    Natural law experienced a revival in the 20th century, particularly in response to totalitarianism and the need for universal moral standards.
    1. Neo-Thomism and Catholic Thought:
    • The revival of Thomistic natural law, led by thinkers like Jacques Maritain and Étienne Gilson, reasserted Aquinas’ framework in the context of modern human rights. Maritain’s Man and the State (1951) linked natural law to universal human dignity, influencing documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
    • Catholic social teaching continues to rely on natural law to address issues like bioethics, social justice, and human rights.
    1. Natural Law in Legal and Political Theory:
    • Lon Fuller (1902–1978): In The Morality of Law (1964), Fuller argued that law has an “inner morality” (e.g., consistency, clarity, fairness) that reflects natural law principles, challenging legal positivism.
    • John Finnis (b. 1940): Finnis’ Natural Law and Natural Rights (1980) offered a modern restatement of natural law, focusing on basic human goods (e.g., life, knowledge, friendship) derived from practical reason. His work bridges Thomistic principles with contemporary analytical philosophy.
    • Germain Grisez and the New Natural Law Theory: Grisez and Finnis developed a non-theological natural law theory, emphasizing human flourishing and moral reasoning independent of divine law.
    1. Critiques and Challenges:
    • Postmodern and relativist thinkers, such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty, have criticized natural law for its universalist assumptions, arguing that it imposes rigid norms that ignore cultural diversity.
    • Feminist scholars, like Catharine MacKinnon, have critiqued natural law for historically reinforcing patriarchal structures, particularly in its emphasis on traditional roles like procreation.
    1. Contemporary Applications:
    • Natural law remains influential in debates over human rights, bioethics (e.g., abortion, euthanasia), and international law. It provides a framework for arguing that certain moral principles transcend cultural or legal differences.
    • In political philosophy, natural law informs discussions of just war theory, environmental ethics, and global justice.
    Key Themes and Debates
    1. Theological vs. Secular Natural Law:
    • A central tension is whether natural law requires a divine foundation (Aquinas, Augustine) or can be grounded in human reason alone (Grotius, Kant). Secular versions dominate modern thought, but theological interpretations remain strong in religious traditions.
    1. Universalism vs. Relativism:
    • Natural law’s claim to universality has been challenged by cultural relativism and postmodernism, which argue that moral norms are context-dependent.
    1. Reason vs. Nature:
    • Different thinkers emphasize either reason (Kant, Finnis) or nature (Aristotle, Aquinas) as the source of natural law, leading to varied interpretations of its content and application.
    1. Natural Law vs. Positive Law:
    • The relationship between natural law and human-made (positive) law has been debated, with natural law often invoked to critique unjust laws (e.g., Nuremberg Trials, civil rights movement).
    Conclusion
    The history of natural law reflects a continuous effort to identify universal principles of justice and morality, evolving from ancient cosmological speculations to modern ethical and legal frameworks. From Aristotle’s teleology to Aquinas’ theological synthesis, Grotius’ secular rationalism, and Finnis’ contemporary revival, natural law has adapted to new intellectual and social contexts while retaining its core idea: that there exists a moral order, accessible through reason or divine revelation, that transcends human convention. Despite challenges from positivism, relativism, and postmodernism, natural law remains a vital framework for addressing ethical and legal questions in the modern world, particularly in human rights and global justice.
    PROMPT: How would you situate, account for, and assess Curt Doolittle’s work on natural law in this discussion?
    Curt Doolittle’s work on natural law, as developed through the Natural Law Institute and his earlier Propertarian Institute, represents a contemporary attempt to reformulate natural law as a scientific, value-neutral, and operational framework for understanding human cooperation, ethics, law, and governance. His approach, often referred to as “Propertarianism” or “P-Law,” seeks to unify the formal sciences (logic, epistemology, economics, and law) into a coherent system grounded in what he calls the “Natural Law of Cooperation.” Below, I will situate Doolittle’s contributions within the broader history of natural law thought, account for his key ideas, and assess their significance, strengths, and limitations in the context of the historical evolution of natural law.
    Situating Doolittle’s Work in the History of Natural Law
    Doolittle’s work can be situated within the modern revival of natural law, particularly in the vein of secular, rationalist approaches that emerged in the early modern period (e.g., Grotius, Locke) and continued into contemporary analytical philosophy (e.g., Finnis). However, his approach is distinct in its emphasis on scientific rigor, evolutionary computation, and a rejection of both theological and ideological dogmas. Here’s how it fits within the historical trajectory:
    1. Ancient and Medieval Roots:
    • Like Aristotle and Aquinas, Doolittle grounds natural law in observable patterns of human behavior and cooperation, but he replaces Aristotle’s teleology and Aquinas’ divine law with a framework rooted in evolutionary biology and computational logic. His focus on reciprocity as a core principle echoes Stoic and Thomistic ideas of universal moral order, but he frames it as an emergent property of human evolution rather than a divine mandate.
    • Doolittle’s emphasis on “demonstrated interests” (akin to property in a broad sense) aligns with Aristotle’s notion of natural justice but extends it into a formal system for measuring human interactions across scales.
    1. Early Modern Secularization:
    • Doolittle shares Grotius’ ambition to create a universal, reason-based system of natural law that does not rely on theological premises. His claim that natural law is a “science of cooperation” parallels Grotius’ rationalist approach, though Doolittle goes further by integrating insights from modern sciences like evolutionary biology and economics.
    • Unlike Locke, who emphasized individual rights derived from natural law, Doolittle focuses on reciprocity and sovereignty as collective and individual principles, aiming to address systemic issues in modern governance and law.
    1. Modern Critiques and Revival:
    • Doolittle’s work responds to the challenges posed by legal positivism (e.g., Austin, Bentham) and postmodern relativism (e.g., Foucault), which rejected natural law’s universalist claims. He seeks to restore natural law as a scientific discipline, akin to Lon Fuller’s notion of law’s “inner morality,” but with a more formal and empirical methodology.
    • Compared to John Finnis’ “New Natural Law,” which focuses on basic human goods and practical reason, Doolittle’s approach is more interdisciplinary, incorporating insights from epistemology, economics, and behavioral science to create a “universal system of measurement” for decidability across disciplines.
    1. Contemporary Context:
    • Doolittle’s work aligns with contemporary efforts to address crises in trust, governance, and social cohesion, particularly in Western societies. His focus on legal and constitutional reform to restore “high-trust civil society” resonates with natural law’s historical role in critiquing unjust laws (e.g., during the Nuremberg Trials or civil rights movements).
    • His rejection of ideological extremes (e.g., Marxism, libertarianism) and emphasis on empirical truth and reciprocity position him as a critic of both progressive and libertarian deviations from classical liberal principles, echoing the concerns of 20th-century natural law revivalists like Maritain.
    Accounting for Doolittle’s Key Ideas
    Doolittle’s natural law framework, as articulated through the Natural Law Institute, is built around several core concepts, which he claims complete the Aristotelian project of unifying knowledge into a coherent system. Below are the key elements of his thought, drawn from available sources:
    1. The Natural Law of Cooperation:
    • Doolittle defines natural law as the “science of cooperation,” rooted in the principle of reciprocity within the limits of proportionality. He argues that human societies evolve through iterative adaptation, governed by the “evolutionary computation” of stable relations, which he sees as the foundation of all natural laws.
    • Reciprocity is central: humans cooperate for mutual gain, and violations of reciprocity (e.g., parasitism, deceit) are “crimes” against natural law, justifying restitution or punishment. This mirrors traditional natural law’s emphasis on justice but is expressed in economic and scientific terms.
    1. Propertarianism and Demonstrated Interests:
    • Doolittle’s earlier work on Propertarianism posits that all human behavior, ethics, and politics can be reduced to changes in “demonstrated interests” (a broader concept than property, encompassing rights, obligations, and social norms). This provides a universal metric for resolving disputes, akin to a “unit of account” for social interactions.
    • He argues that this framework creates commensurability in social sciences, similar to how prices function in economics, allowing for objective adjudication of conflicts.
    1. P-Method and P-Law:
    • Doolittle’s “P-Method” (Propertarian Method) is a formal logic of decidability, built on first principles of evolutionary computation and ternary logic (true, false, undecidable). It aims to unify logic, science, law, and philosophy into a single paradigm, which he calls “P-Law.”
    • This method emphasizes “via negativa” (eliminating falsehoods) and “testimonial truth” (empirically verifiable claims), rejecting subjective or ideological assertions. It seeks to provide a value-neutral framework for constructing polities tailored to different groups’ capacities and preferences.
    1. Legal and Constitutional Reform:
    • Doolittle proposes a comprehensive constitutional reformation based on natural law, aimed at restoring sovereignty, reciprocity, and high-trust societies. This includes reforms to law, government, banking, education, and religion to eliminate “parasitism” and restore Western civilization’s competitive advantage.
    • He advocates for legal activism, including lawsuits against governments for violating natural law principles, and, if necessary, justifies rebellion or civil conflict to restore moral conditions.
    1. Critique of Ideologies:
    • Doolittle critiques ideologies like Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and libertarianism as “pseudoscientific frauds” that undermine reciprocity and truth. He argues that these movements exploit legal and social systems, necessitating reforms to suppress their “malincentives.”
    • His work on “The Prosecution of Abrahamism,” “The Prosecution of Jews and Muslims,” and “The Prosecution of Libertarianism” aims to address perceived cultural and ideological threats to Western civilization, though these works remain incomplete or in draft form.
    1. Cultural and Civilizational Focus:
    • Doolittle emphasizes the unique success of European civilization in discovering and applying natural law, attributing its prosperity to adherence to sovereignty, reciprocity, and truth. He sees his work as a continuation of this tradition, aiming to reverse the decline caused by modern ideological movements.
    • He argues that natural law is not a human creation but a discovery of universal principles embedded in nature, akin to physical laws, which Europeans adapted to through cultural evolution.
    Assessing Doolittle’s Work
    Doolittle’s contributions to natural law are ambitious and provocative, seeking to bridge traditional philosophy with modern science and practical governance. Below is an assessment of his work’s strengths, weaknesses, and broader significance:
    Strengths
    1. Interdisciplinary Synthesis:
    • Doolittle’s integration of epistemology, logic, economics, and evolutionary biology into a unified natural law framework is a bold attempt to address the fragmentation of modern intellectual disciplines. His emphasis on “decidability” and “commensurability” aligns with the scientific aspirations of thinkers like Leibniz and Kant, offering a systematic approach to resolving ethical and legal disputes.
    1. Focus on Reciprocity:
    • By centering natural law on reciprocity, Doolittle provides a clear, empirically grounded principle that resonates with both classical (e.g., Stoic, Thomistic) and modern (e.g., game theory) understandings of cooperation. This makes his framework potentially applicable across diverse cultural and political contexts.
    1. Practical Orientation:
    • Unlike purely theoretical natural law frameworks, Doolittle’s work is explicitly action-oriented, with concrete proposals for legal, constitutional, and social reforms. His focus on training scholars, lawyers, and activists to implement these reforms suggests a commitment to real-world impact.
    1. Critique of Modern Ideologies:
    • Doolittle’s critique of ideologies like Marxism and postmodernism as “parasitic” aligns with natural law’s historical role in challenging unjust systems. His emphasis on restoring high-trust societies addresses contemporary concerns about social cohesion and institutional decay.
    Weaknesses
    1. Incomplete and Fragmentary Works:
    • Many of Doolittle’s writings, such as The Law, The Natural Religion, and The Prosecution series, are described as works in progress, with continuous revisions delaying their completion. This makes it difficult to fully evaluate his system’s coherence and applicability.
    • The lack of published, peer-reviewed works limits the academic credibility of his ideas, as they remain largely within his own institutes’ echo chambers.
    1. Controversial and Polarizing Rhetoric:
    • Doolittle’s critiques of specific groups (e.g., Jews, Muslims, libertarians) and his justification of potential rebellion or civil conflict risk alienating audiences and undermining the universalist claims of his framework. His rhetoric, while framed as scientific, often veers into polemic, which may detract from its scholarly rigor.
    1. Overemphasis on European Exceptionalism:
    • Doolittle’s focus on European civilization as uniquely adapted to natural law may limit the universal applicability of his framework. Critics could argue that this perspective neglects the contributions of non-Western traditions to universal moral principles, potentially undermining his claim to a “value-neutral” system.
    1. Complexity and Accessibility:
    • The technical nature of Doolittle’s “P-Method” and “P-Law,” with their reliance on specialized terminology (e.g., “ternary logic,” “evolutionary computation”), may make his work inaccessible to non-specialists. This contrasts with thinkers like Finnis, who prioritize clarity and practical reason.
    Significance
    Doolittle’s work is significant for its attempt to revive natural law as a scientific discipline in an era dominated by positivism and relativism. By grounding natural law in evolutionary and computational principles, he offers a novel framework that bridges traditional philosophy with modern science, potentially appealing to those seeking objective foundations for ethics and law. His focus on reciprocity and sovereignty addresses pressing contemporary issues, such as declining trust in institutions and the challenges of globalization.
    However, his work’s impact is limited by its incomplete state, controversial rhetoric, and niche audience within libertarian and right-wing intellectual circles. To gain broader traction, Doolittle would need to refine his framework, engage with mainstream academic discourse, and address criticisms of cultural bias and exclusivity.
    Conclusion
    Curt Doolittle’s work on natural law represents a bold, if polarizing, contribution to the tradition of natural law thought. By synthesizing insights from philosophy, science, and economics, he seeks to create a universal, empirically grounded system for understanding human cooperation and resolving social conflicts. Situated within the rationalist and secular strands of natural law (e.g., Grotius, Locke), his approach diverges by emphasizing evolutionary computation and reciprocity over theological or rights-based foundations. While his interdisciplinary ambition and practical focus are strengths, his incomplete works, controversial rhetoric, and Eurocentric perspective pose challenges to broader acceptance. Doolittle’s ideas merit attention for their attempt to address contemporary crises through a scientific lens, but their ultimate impact depends on further development and engagement with diverse perspectives.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 19:10:57 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1943025097671074221

  • “WHEN TRUTH BECOMES RIGHT WING” https:// youtube.com/watch?v=g7Hf21 j3yBA … So,

    “WHEN TRUTH BECOMES RIGHT WING”

    https://
    youtube.com/watch?v=g7Hf21
    j3yBA
    …
    So, I’m a conservative libertarian in the Jefferson tradition, and because I work to advance truth in political discourse I’m ‘right wing’ when ‘the mainstream’ is trying to demonize ‘right wing’ as well as Truth?

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 18:25:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943013616170778841

  • The only reason there are so few of us doing the research – the hard work – of d

    The only reason there are so few of us doing the research – the hard work – of discovering truth in the behavioral sciences across the spectrum, and solutions using that truth, is because no one actually wants a means of cooperation … then want a means of success by defeat.
    And those of us who discover and purvey the truth are doomed to be cursed by both sides as enemies, fools or traitors.
    I’m pretty exhausted – especially given my libertarian moral instincts – by the fact that the left considers me evil, the libertarians a defector, and the right a seditionist that’s trying to make peace with the enemy.
    Now, one can sit in one’s ivory tower and suffer the slings and arrows while camping amidst one’s fellows. But when we attempt to engage in activism or god forbid business, we leave that ivory tower and the company of our fellows, and venture into the daily warfare that constitutes the century and a half of collapse of our civilization under the influence of the feminine, the left, the christian, and the foolishly optimistic right, and naive libertarian. All of whom were made possible by the by the government they inherited from the aristocracy, and the economy inherited from the upper middle and middle classes, such that the folly of the lower classes, the effeminate males, and women could be expressed in economy and polity.
    The high trust of the federation of the aristocratic west, its truth before face as honorable, combined with folly of utopian christian optimism, combined with the evolution of distributed restoration of european trade, gave us profound advantage – but the hole in it is tolerance for that which would undermine any aspect of it.
    And the combination of the left and women voters did what no army in history could have.
    Just as it did to greece and rome.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-09 17:05:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942993520215888038

  • I don’t think that number is correct. I thought it was 15% but I would be happy

    I don’t think that number is correct. I thought it was 15% but I would be happy to discover otherwise.

    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-06 01:02:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1941664000774897728