Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Moral *and* Epistemic

    Mar 20, 2020, 10:47 AM by Yiannis Kontinopoulos

    What people don’t get in Propertarianism is that the scientific method with testimonialism is not an epistemological criterion, but an ethical one: these are all the ways that you might be prone to error or attempt to lie and if you don’t adhere to these standards you will be assumed to have lied.

    Operationalism is the actual epistemological criterion: what we can know is what we can reproduce in recipes of actions and measurements.

    —“This helped me.”—Andrew M Gilmour

  • What Can the Average Person Grasp?

    What Can the Average Person Grasp? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/what-can-the-average-person-grasp/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:48:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108995724550148

  • What Can the Average Person Grasp?

    Mar 20, 2020, 1:04 PM By John Mark

    —“So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?”– CD

    What can the avg person grasp, and/or what do we need to give them a glimpse of out of necessity? Strictly Constructed Laws – even if they don’t understand the details, this can be sold as solution to activist judges and undermining of the constitution. (You did a great job explaining it on most recent P-constitition video interview.) Abrahamic Method – the term itself triggers Christians, but the basic concept of “don’t say anything that excuses a violation of reciprocity” is understandable by the avg person. Testimonial Truth – details a bit much for avg person, but concept that there’s a checklist courts use to figure out whether a public figure is lying, I think is understandable, and may be necessary to “sell” free truthful speech vs free speech. And the avg person may be able to understand certain aspects of it, such as the concept of lying by omission or lying by mixing 2 concepts/definitions together.

  • What Can the Average Person Grasp?

    Mar 20, 2020, 1:04 PM By John Mark

    —“So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?”– CD

    What can the avg person grasp, and/or what do we need to give them a glimpse of out of necessity? Strictly Constructed Laws – even if they don’t understand the details, this can be sold as solution to activist judges and undermining of the constitution. (You did a great job explaining it on most recent P-constitition video interview.) Abrahamic Method – the term itself triggers Christians, but the basic concept of “don’t say anything that excuses a violation of reciprocity” is understandable by the avg person. Testimonial Truth – details a bit much for avg person, but concept that there’s a checklist courts use to figure out whether a public figure is lying, I think is understandable, and may be necessary to “sell” free truthful speech vs free speech. And the avg person may be able to understand certain aspects of it, such as the concept of lying by omission or lying by mixing 2 concepts/definitions together.

  • Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product

    Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/creating-a-non-false-pre-packaged-product/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:47:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108877923389443

  • Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product

    Mar 20, 2020, 1:48 PM by John Mark

    Christianity (or other religion) as a “prepackaged product” that an individual can pull off the shelf & use to create meaning for their life.

    Great insight – this is so spot-on. It saves them the effort of having to find meaning for themselves. Thus when we try to get them to think, or challenge the pre-packaged product, it feels to them like “I bought this food item, now you’re saying there’s something wrong with it and I need to cultivate a garden and grow my own.” We’re asking them to do extra work that for them is an annoyance (life is hard enough, we are trying to rip away the one thing that feels good and safe to them) and they may not even be able to do it (at least not without training), whereas for people like us it’s a compulsion (we are driven to do it, we can’t help it). So – I guess that would mean that creating a non-false pre-packaged product would likely take away market share from religions that tend to bait into hazard. But asking them to think & do it on their own is too much for most of them.

  • Creating a Non-False Pre-Packaged Product

    Mar 20, 2020, 1:48 PM by John Mark

    Christianity (or other religion) as a “prepackaged product” that an individual can pull off the shelf & use to create meaning for their life.

    Great insight – this is so spot-on. It saves them the effort of having to find meaning for themselves. Thus when we try to get them to think, or challenge the pre-packaged product, it feels to them like “I bought this food item, now you’re saying there’s something wrong with it and I need to cultivate a garden and grow my own.” We’re asking them to do extra work that for them is an annoyance (life is hard enough, we are trying to rip away the one thing that feels good and safe to them) and they may not even be able to do it (at least not without training), whereas for people like us it’s a compulsion (we are driven to do it, we can’t help it). So – I guess that would mean that creating a non-false pre-packaged product would likely take away market share from religions that tend to bait into hazard. But asking them to think & do it on their own is too much for most of them.

  • So for Most People, for Most Uses, P Isn’t Hard

    So for Most People, for Most Uses, P Isn’t Hard. https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/so-for-most-people-for-most-uses-p-isnt-hard/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 20:45:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266108387705729024

  • So for Most People, for Most Uses, P Isn’t Hard.

    Mar 20, 2020, 6:14 PM

    —“Being too complex to understand is not necessarily a badge of honor.”–Mike Harvey

    Explanatory power is however a badge of honor. And complexity explains why it has taken until the 21st century to solve it. And, as Bill is trying to get across, applied P is not hard. The P Method is hard, but so is writing the law. The majority of questions are solved by the test of Reciprocity. The hard questions are solved by Testimony – which is reciprocity applied to truth claims. The rest is just understanding WHY. Programming is hard (operations). Economics is hard (equilibration). Disambiguation and serialization is hard. The via negativa is hard (falsification). Abandoning intuition in favor of systemic falsification is harder. And P uses all of that.

  • So for Most People, for Most Uses, P Isn’t Hard.

    Mar 20, 2020, 6:14 PM

    —“Being too complex to understand is not necessarily a badge of honor.”–Mike Harvey

    Explanatory power is however a badge of honor. And complexity explains why it has taken until the 21st century to solve it. And, as Bill is trying to get across, applied P is not hard. The P Method is hard, but so is writing the law. The majority of questions are solved by the test of Reciprocity. The hard questions are solved by Testimony – which is reciprocity applied to truth claims. The rest is just understanding WHY. Programming is hard (operations). Economics is hard (equilibration). Disambiguation and serialization is hard. The via negativa is hard (falsification). Abandoning intuition in favor of systemic falsification is harder. And P uses all of that.