Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Improving Parsimony of The Claim that All Theories Are Eventually Falsified

    Feb 11, 2020, 12:19 PM Better way of saying it. There is one most parsimonious paradigm (We call it science. Now I call it ‘P’ or ‘testimony’).

    —“All paradigms are eventually false. :)”—

    That’s demonstrably false. Instead, we increasingly identify limits that cause us to increase the parsimony of our theories. All scientific paradigms appear increase in parsimony. Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein all evolve to greater precision. Take Humors (disease) and Phlogiston theory (chemistry), Einstein’s static universe(cosmology), or the expanding earth (plate tectonics). They were false but they were progress in the right direction. Conversely there are three categories that always fail to increase in parsimony: 1) Magic -> Pseudoscience (action-physical) 2) Idealism -> Philosophy (verbal-rational) 3) Occult -> Theology (emotional-intuitionistic) So we have deflationary grammars of 1) Science, 2) Logic, and 3) Mathematics that all increase in parsimony. And we have inflationary grammars of 1) magic(physical), 2) idealism(verbal), and 3) the occult(emotional) that fail all tests of parsimony. Of course we also have the outright deceits too.

  • Truth in Ethnocentrism

    Feb 24, 2020, 10:43 AM

    —“Baiting people into the same Ethno-supremacist bullshit that is the main characteristic of modern day Israel? … Pilpul.. … Still some sharpening to do here.”—Noel Fritsch

    Are you saying that small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation don’t demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution? Are you saying ethnocentrism isn’t the optimum group strategy? Are you saying that ethno-supremacism isn’t a necessary property of ethnocentrism? Are you saying that europeans are not demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds? Are you the one engaging in deceit? I don’t use pilpul – it requires internal inconsistency and P-logic prevents internal inconsistency.

  • Truth in Ethnocentrism

    Feb 24, 2020, 10:43 AM

    —“Baiting people into the same Ethno-supremacist bullshit that is the main characteristic of modern day Israel? … Pilpul.. … Still some sharpening to do here.”—Noel Fritsch

    Are you saying that small, homogenous, low power distance, polities under rule of law, and their naturally limited capacity for fiat currency inflation don’t demonstrate the optimum mixed economies for both trade and redistribution? Are you saying ethnocentrism isn’t the optimum group strategy? Are you saying that ethno-supremacism isn’t a necessary property of ethnocentrism? Are you saying that europeans are not demonstrably superior genetically, culturally, scientifically, medically, technologically, institutionally, civilizationally to all other civilizations in the ancient and modern worlds? Are you the one engaging in deceit? I don’t use pilpul – it requires internal inconsistency and P-logic prevents internal inconsistency.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • Why It Is so Difficult to Be Wrong when Making a P-Argument.

    Feb 24, 2020, 11:47 AM Any evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification). These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.

  • re: Jackson Crawford, Tyr vs. Odin as Chief God

    Feb 24, 2020, 4:29 PM In order to suppress controversy you’re overstating your case. You’re representing sources, because under the defensive protection of the scientific method, we don’t hypothesize without evidence. Meanwhile I think Dumezil and the rest of us are interested in the evolution of european natural religion over time. To claim we can’t use etymology which is about as close to genetic evidence that we come, is rather unscientific, and to claim we can’t apply the same method of analysis to mythology is also. And to claim the popularity of the farmer’s god over the ruling class’ god in a tripartite hierarchical society given the difference in those demographics isn’t scientific either. Every mythos we know of evolved like every political and legal technology and every narrative technology by rules similar to language. Every mythic tradition is subject to the same forensics. So you’re creating conflict where there isn’t any. It is very hard to argue that Odin didn’t rise to prominence some time between the IE expansion and first testimony (roman). That would mean that european natural religion had a deus ex machina moment and Odin came out of nowhere in contrast to the entire cross civilizational IE pantheon. In the context of all those european mythologies, Odin is a pretty clear rotation into prominence. And Odin is the ‘odd man out’ in european religion. Of the european iranic and indo-iranic branches, each group evolved deities to fulfill the needs of a survival narrative given geographic and cultural competition. Europeans gods are are interesting because conquering (and replacing) early neolithic farmers was easier than the more advanced civilizations of the indus and mesopotamian regions. They were under less adaptive pressure. Yet still we have Odin. Why? That’s the interesting question. How did he rotate into prominence and why? So to say Odin is the primary germanic god – well of course he is by the thirteenth century record. That doesn’t tell us anything interesting. It doesn’t provide explanatory power. It doesn’t tell us why and where he came from. What change or pressure or advantage caused the germanic branch of the european expansion to rotate a psychopomp into the primary god (all father) to replace sky father? What drove the germanic adaptation (rotation) of a psychopomp into the god of the aristocracy?

  • Re: “I Never Err”

    Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • Re: “I Never Err”

    Feb 24, 2020, 9:14 PM I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one. The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours. It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.

  • Ivan Tries and Fails – Hot to Spot a Sophist

    Mar 27, 2020, 10:42 AM (people not grasping closure) P-law is a formal, operational, and algorithmic logic using a universally commensurable grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, logic grammar syntax), that tests (falsifies) every possible dimension of coherent (consistent, correspondent, existentially and operationally possible) thought. … Now, you might arbitrarily define ‘science’, but by any definition P-law is scientific.

    —“Let’s suppose all that is true, then how could you make a case for “P-law” in anything but P-law? The fact that you consistently engage in bog-standard rhetoric to “prove” P-law puts the lie to the whole thing.”—Ivan the Above Average @AboveIvan

    How can you make a case for logic in anything other than logic? The fact that you counter signal closure when there is none w/o the full spectrum of falsifications (in P) puts a lie to the whole thing you call ‘rationalism’. You never seek to understand. That’s why you fail. You see, I understand your theological substitution. I always have. I just haven’t taken the time to fully entrap you in demonstrating it. The only way to falsify P is to run cases: tests. All you will discover is undecidability (testimony), where you find falsehood (inference). The fact that you’re still stuck in the early 20th c because philosophy was a dead end for truth, and limited to choice (or deceit) is simply that you’ve overinvested in a malinvestment. Reformation is extremely expensive. And humans protect investments (loss aversion). Either statements are testifiable or they are not. If they are not testifiable one cannot make a truth claim. For a statement to be testifiable requires it survive the tests of all dimensions, because the only closure available is falsification of all dimensions. Sorry. Just is.