Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • WISDOM VS TRUTH There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom L

    WISDOM VS TRUTH

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia.

    I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule).

    It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:10:00 UTC

  • There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Beca

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia.

    I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule).

    It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-11 10:06:00 UTC

  • Wisdom vs Truth

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia. I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule). It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

  • Wisdom vs Truth

    There is a reason the operational name of mythology is “Wisdom Literature”. Because it contains wisdom that has survived market competition for centuries if no millennia. I have a rather defensive posture with regard to the term ‘truth’. So in order to defend the word ‘truth’ from abuses, the correct term is not ‘truth’ (most parsimonious description in operational terms) but ‘wisdom’ (analogy or general rule). It is the survival of this wisdom from market competition over time that provides the empirical evidence of the wisdom therein.

  • Argumentative Weaponry

    —“I know it’s public, but I thought it’d still be polite if I asked. Would it bother you if I used a specific comment you made on one of your statuses in a conversation? You make some really good points.”— A Friend  Look. Here is how this deal works. I get to use the public as a testing ground, and in exchange (a) you get to learn how to argue, and (b) you get to use my work products as you see fit. My job, our job, is to create argumentative weaponry in order to provide libertarians and aristocrats (conservatives) a post-moralizing (and therefore scientific) means of argument against the pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and outright lying of leftists. It’s a good deal for both of us. 😉

  • Argumentative Weaponry

    —“I know it’s public, but I thought it’d still be polite if I asked. Would it bother you if I used a specific comment you made on one of your statuses in a conversation? You make some really good points.”— A Friend  Look. Here is how this deal works. I get to use the public as a testing ground, and in exchange (a) you get to learn how to argue, and (b) you get to use my work products as you see fit. My job, our job, is to create argumentative weaponry in order to provide libertarians and aristocrats (conservatives) a post-moralizing (and therefore scientific) means of argument against the pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, and outright lying of leftists. It’s a good deal for both of us. 😉

  • 1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy

    1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy in specific and I fictionalism more broadly. We are both intolerant of frauds. One can only claim one speaks truthfully of the testifiable, where one can warranty one’s speech. if not one lies. Period. 2) Since you demonstrate you lie, and you do so by fictionalism, it is not an ad hominem to call you a liar and a fraud it is an inescapable logical necessity. in other words some arguments and methods of arguments are lies and frauds by mere construction prior to content. 3) i practice the natural law of reciprocity, falsificationary science, deflationary logic and constructivist mathematics, not justificationary rationalism, theology or pseudoscience. Stop wasting my time with fraud and deceit.

  • 1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy

    1) We (Taleb and I) are both specialists in debunking frauds – he by innumeracy in specific and I fictionalism more broadly. We are both intolerant of frauds. One can only claim one speaks truthfully of the testifiable, where one can warranty one’s speech. if not one lies. Period. 2) Since you demonstrate you lie, and you do so by fictionalism, it is not an ad hominem to call you a liar and a fraud it is an inescapable logical necessity. in other words some arguments and methods of arguments are lies and frauds by mere construction prior to content. 3) i practice the natural law of reciprocity, falsificationary science, deflationary logic and constructivist mathematics, not justificationary rationalism, theology or pseudoscience. Stop wasting my time with fraud and deceit.

  • 1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot

    1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).

  • 1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot

    1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).