Politics is not Science

[iNow]

I'm still unclear about what you mean by "bullying behavior," and where or when this has happened.

[Pangloss]

Please refer to posts 23 and 24, bearing in mind swansont's comment in post #18:

 

I think we'd all appreciate it if we could speak in generalities and hypothetical exchanges, to reduce the danger of this flaring up.

[iNow]

You're right. I was hoping for quotes and specific examples. Sorry about that. We can keep this abstract and academic if you'd prefer, but please don't be upset with me when I fail the quiz as a result of not understanding your lesson.

[StringJunky]

" Disagreement is to be protected and preserved, and that's a two-way street." - Pangloss

 

This can be read as:

 

" I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"- Voltaire

 

These are both statements relating (in my mind) to the definition of a democracy....disagreement is a healthy component of it. Intolerance is a component of an autocracy.

 

Should we not cherish disagreement.....is it not the primary fuel that drives this forum and makes it interesting?

 

It saddens me to see threads closed because I often see the most interesting reading when opposing sides each have their backs against the wall and each with their wits at maximum.

 

If a person in a thread becomes intransigent or stubborn to a reasonable argument, without a plausible rebuff, they should be asked to take 'time out' from that thread and come back in, if and when they have a more plausible response, rather than penalising EVERYBODY and shutting down the thread.

 

I think it would be a better idea to remove the offending person(s) not the argument...Another poster may come in, at a later time, with a thoughful counter-argument (even contrary to the standard view) that is worth reading about.

 

I also think sarcasm has no place in a forum of this nature and the 'roll eyes' (sarcastic) emoticon should be removed from the list to discourage it's use. A definition:

 

sar·casm (särkzm)

n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

It is the lowest form of humour.

 

 

"I'm still unclear about what you mean by "bullying behavior," and where or when this has happened."- iNOW

 

1.Forcefully imposing ones intellectual might in the face of another's innocent ignorance, such that they are lost, and cannot respond in like language...deliberately not speaking in the 'language' or understanding of the listener in such a way as to belittle them.

.

2.Expressing ridicule.

 

3.Sarcasm

 

These are all forms of bullying.

 

In private, between individuals, cutting or negative comments, towards another, is not necessarily bullying but in the public arena of a forum... it is. A definition:

 

"The act of intimidating a weaker person to make them do or think something." (emphasis is mine)

[iNow]

These are both statements relating (in my mind) to the definition of a democracy....disagreement is a healthy component of it. Intolerance is a component of an autocracy.

I appreciate your thoughtful post, StringJunky, and no offense is intended, but this is just an empty platitude, and is hardly some absolute truth. Also, as you mentioned, intolerance may be a component of an autocracy, but your statement implies that only autocracies allow intolerance.

 

There are all manner of things about which we are intolerant, and some things ABSOLUTELY should not be tolerated.

 

For example, we do not tolerate old med having sex with 8 year old girls. We do not tolerate the murder of others. We do not tolerate stealing, or rape, and thankfully in today's society we also do not tolerate racism and discrimination. Further, in a scientific community such as this, we don't tolerate blatant falsehoods, claims in the absence of evidence or support, and logical fallacies.

 

 

However, with that said, I may be just pedantic here, as your comment would most certainly apply with just a few words added for precision.

 

 

FYI - Those words are not Voltaire's. It's a mistaken attribution, as the quote "defend to the death your right to say it" was first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. So, while they represent Voltaires views overall, the quote was not his. Cheers.

 

 

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

Ch. 7 - The Friends of Voltaire : Helvetius : The Contradiction, p. 199; because of quote marks around the original publication of these words, they are often attributed to Voltaire, though Hall was not actually quoting him but summarizing his attitude with the expression. The statement was widely popularized when misattributed to Voltaire as a "Quotable Quote" in

Reader's Digest

(June 1934), but in response to the misattribution, Hall had been quoted in

Saturday Review

(11 May 1935), p. 13, as stating:

I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works. They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the

Essay on Tolerance

— "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.

"

 

The paragraph in which the statement first appears reads:

 

"On the Mind" [De l'Esprit by Helvétius] became not the success of the season, but one of the most famous books of the century. The men who had hated it and had not particularly loved Helvétius, flocked round him now. Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. 'What a fuss about an omelette!' he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning. How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now.

 

 

It has been suggested by others that the ultimate origin may lie in a letter to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770), which is said to include a statement translatable as: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

[abskebabs]

Not to get into the details, since this isn't the place, but I would say that these are not opinions. They seem to be conclusions drawn from economic models of some sort. I would expect you to be able to support each statement, and I would also want to feel free to question the reasonableness/pertinence of them, depending on the context of the discussion (e.g. the first statement; if nobody is suggesting such an increase, then it may be a red herring to discuss it).

 

The statements which I made were not from complicated models, but simple economic propositions. They are like logical statements(hence they are more accurately described as praxeological), whose verification does not rest empirically, as they are built up as a description of mental concepts that are applied in trade and catallactic action.

 

As far as they refer to reality they are not perfectly certain, one has to rely on one's understanding concerning the future and the conditions usually described under the statement "all other things being equal", to predict the consequences concerning how they relate to reality. As I've said in another thread, the character of this form of prediction is necessarily different to that found in the natural sciences.

 

I'd say the first statement is not a complete red herring given the raising of the minimium wage in the time of an economic crisis when prices and wages should have been allowed to deflate in order to allow labour capital to be reallocated more productively. This would have allowed for a real recovery, like the one the US experienced in 1921, instead of the current attempts to reinflate the bubble that will produce another great depression...

 

As an aside: I think once the Chinese start selling treasuries, that will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's neck.

[StringJunky]

I appreciate your thoughtful post, StringJunky, and no offense is intended, but this is just an empty platitude, and is hardly some absolute truth. Also, as you mentioned, intolerance may be a component of an autocracy, but your statement implies that only autocracies allow intolerance.

 

There are all manner of things about which we are intolerant, and some things ABSOLUTELY should not be tolerated.

 

For example, we do not tolerate old med having sex with 8 year old girls. We do not tolerate the murder of others. We do not tolerate stealing, or rape, and thankfully in today's society we also do not tolerate racism and discrimination. Further, in a scientific community such as this, we don't tolerate blatant falsehoods, claims in the absence of evidence or support, and logical fallacies.

 

 

However, with that said, I may be just pedantic here, as your comment would most certainly apply with just a few words added for precision.

 

 

FYI - Those words are not Voltaire's. It's a mistaken attribution, as the quote "defend to the death your right to say it" was first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. So, while they represent Voltaires views overall, the quote was not his. Cheers.

 

 

 

My comments were intended to be interpreted with respect to forum etiquette, but I note and accept your appraisal. I am relatively new to forums and it is a challenge to cover all my bases, hence my lack of precision!

 

I stand corrected on my mistaken attribution to Voltaire...it would have been better to have said: inspired by Voltaire.

[bascule]

I respect Moo's opinion on this, but I have to disagree to some extent. As I see it, political statements have a large basis in fact and/or logic, rather than being solely opinion. Discussions here rarely stop with a simple subjective statement; often there is an attempt to justify that position.

 

I agree with this. Certainly opinion factors a great deal into politics, but if you can get someone to agree with your opinions, there are conclusions you can draw logically. You can also show that the conclusions of others are wrong, at least if they are drawn logically from a shared set of premises. Of course, if you can't agree on your premises, logic isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

Logic applies to all domains of human knowledge, not just science.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think my post (#20) got lost on the previous page. What did people think of my suggestion that if an opinion is challenged by facts (just not by other opinions) then it needs supporting evidence for it? Eg, about how it is possible to disagree with someone about what flavor they like better given personal knowledge or brain scans of them.

[mooeypoo]

Interesting, I think I can sympathise with some of the motives behind your creation of this thread. I think a lot of threads on this forum have been little more than attack threads, e.g. against those who oppose socialised healthcare.

Right, my point was less about specific examples and more about attitude.

For that matter, I completely agree with swansont's point that there *ARE* objective facts in politics, they should not be ignored, and those who make false fact (or a claim that should be evidenced and isn't) should be called out for it.

 

My point was about the attitude of doing that.

 

Calling someone out for making a claim without evidence (when evidence is due) is good. Calling someone an idiot because he believes something without evidence is bad.

 

Even more so when it's subversive or indirect.

 

Howver do you consider these statements "merely opinions"?

 

1. Increasing the minimium wage to $40 an hour will create unemployment, all other things being equal.

2. Inflating the money supply in circulation will produce price inflation or a lesser amount of price delflation further down the road, all other things being equal.

3. Increasing public debt to finance the welfare-warfare state will consume/destroy otherwise available financial capital(and possible future "real capital") that could have been allocated productively on the market.

I must say, I don't know enough in economics to make a judgment call here. Most of the above are claims that REQUIRE evidence but might in reality result in conflicting conclusions.

Whichever it is, evidence SHOULD be supplied. The quesiton is not so much about whether or not it's an opinion, but more as to the attitude of the debate; political issues usually involve emotions and personal experience and when we debate these issues we should remember that.

 

Let's say we put up evidence we both agree on but I use them to say #1 is therefore false, you can argue that, in fact, looking at other countries, #1 is right. I can then state that it's a social matter and therefore other countries are less relevant, in which case the debate goes on. BTW, I have no idea about those subjects, so the paragraph is completely out of my rear orifice; don't take it as a literal attempt to argue here.. I'm just using this as an example.

 

My point is that if we conduct the argument civilly, we *BOTH* might actually learn something here. I might learn about the "other side's" motives, what drives you to your conclusion. I might chance my mind, I might not, but at least I know MORE about the subject I'm arguing for or against. If I go into the debate with this attitude, the debate will remain civil and will be constructive.

 

Troubles arise when people get emotional and personal and attack one another. It's the attitude I'm contesting against, not the argument of using facts.

[Sisyphus]

The statements which I made were not from complicated models, but simple economic propositions. They are like logical statements(hence they are more accurately described as praxeological), whose verification does not rest empirically, as they are built up as a description of mental concepts that are applied in trade and catallactic action.

 

As far as they refer to reality they are not perfectly certain, one has to rely on one's understanding concerning the future and the conditions usually described under the statement "all other things being equal", to predict the consequences concerning how they relate to reality. As I've said in another thread, the character of this form of prediction is necessarily different to that found in the natural sciences.

 

What you're saying is that they logically follow from certain premises. However, both the premises and the logic are disputed, and more importantly, they are not empirically supported. Those statements are not fact. They are predictions of fact, which might or might not occur. However, should they be tested, the reasons they would or would not would still be opinion, not even approaching scientific theory (different from fact - what has happened vs. predictive explanation for why it happened) unless they were supported by more diverse data sets.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Sisyphus

[swansont]

I think my post (#20) got lost on the previous page. What did people think of my suggestion that if an opinion is challenged by facts (just not by other opinions) then it needs supporting evidence for it? Eg, about how it is possible to disagree with someone about what flavor they like better given personal knowledge or brain scans of them.

 

I think that points out that what is often discussed here are not opinions, but facts being masqueraded as opinions. "What is your flavor preference" as a topic for discussion is pretty straightforward — nobody other than the individual knows what their preference is. But in a politics discussion, there is added context; there's some government decision/policy involved somehow. "Vanilla is better than chocolate" stops becoming opinion, and starts being a justification for something. That's when it becomes an assertion masquerading as opinion.

 

So I wouldn't phrase it (as you had in the prior post) as saying people aren't entitled to their opinions. It's that once you try to affect someone else with it, you are asserting the truth of the statement, and it's no longer opinion.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Troubles arise when people get emotional and personal and attack one another. It's the attitude I'm contesting against, not the argument of using facts.

 

Perception is another area where trouble arises. Critiquing a statement, asking for more information or clarification or the source of information, pointing out flaws of logic or facts — these are not personal attacks, but are sometimes treated as if they were. People generally don't like it when they are told that they are wrong, but if you make a claim that is untrue, you are, in fact, wrong. Having someone citing a source that shows your claim to be wrong is a possibility in any argument you make. That's the price of admission you have to be willing to pay.

[abskebabs]

What you're saying is that they logically follow from certain premises. However, both the premises and the logic are disputed, and more importantly, they are not empirically supported. Those statements are not fact. They are predictions of fact, which might or might not occur. However, should they be tested, the reasons they would or would not would still be opinion, not even approaching scientific theory (different from fact - what has happened vs. predictive explanation for why it happened) unless they were supported by more diverse data sets.

 

Have you studied Human Action, or Man, Economy and State and seen for yourself and investigated the premises and logic used to derive these theorems of Economics? These are not hypothetical premises because they do not deal with concepts that are empirical in the sense of the natural sciences in the first place!

 

Whether a trade is profitable, even the concepts of profit and loss are mental praxeological categories that necessarily exist and derive from the essence of human action. The same is true of the concepts of productivity, capital and time preference that is used to explain interest.

 

Both you and mooeypoo are right in a certain sense because economic scenarios do not lend themselves to "experiments" whereby all variables can be controlled or even accounted for(a person's preferences can't be "measured", only demonstrated after the fact). The closest we've had to demonstrating the problems of Economic calculation in a socialsit commonwealth has been the comparison between East Germany and West Germany(or North Korea and South Korea), but this does not allow us to test these factors by induction as people can always pull out some excuse as a causative factor like "bad leaders."

 

A natural science of Economics is impossible. What we have that is valid is a theoretical subject that has to be applied using one's understanding to historical and present day occurences to provide insight for future action and historical explanations. Each claim I made is made et ceteris paribus(all other things being equal), because there are always external factors that can affect economic changes, like price controls preventing a shift in supply in response to increased demand.

[mooeypoo]

Perception is another area where trouble arises. Critiquing a statement, asking for more information or clarification or the source of information, pointing out flaws of logic or facts — these are not personal attacks, but are sometimes treated as if they were. People generally don't like it when they are told that they are wrong, but if you make a claim that is untrue, you are, in fact, wrong. Having someone citing a source that shows your claim to be wrong is a possibility in any argument you make. That's the price of admission you have to be willing to pay.

I totally agree with that.

 

I just believe that the tendency to read between the line or misinterpret people's requests for more information, etc, stems from the attitude. If we can try and change the way we get INTO these debates, those may be easier to avoid.

 

~moo

[Sisyphus]

Have you studied Human Action, or Man, Economy and State and seen for yourself and investigated the premises and logic used to derive these theorems of Economics? These are not hypothetical premises because they do not deal with concepts that are empirical in the sense of the natural sciences in the first place!

 

First of all, they do deal with concepts that are empirical. X will result in Y, where X and Y are actual events. And, yes, I've read a great deal of political philosophy and economics, though I've only read a little of your boy Mises. I've seen utterly contradictory premises and conclusions are stated as a priori truth by different thinkers, and matters of objective reality are "figured out" rather than empirically tested, and then treated as settled fact, as you seem to. But really it's no different than those who "logically" "proved" that the heart is the seat of consciousness, or that the universe is a rotating crystal sphere with Earth at the center. That one set of assertions is readily falsifiable and the other difficult or even impossible, does not excuse the latter from the test of falsifiability, or mean that if it can't be tested then it must be approachable a priori.

[abskebabs]

First of all, they do deal with concepts that are empirical. X will result in Y, where X and Y are actual events. And, yes, I've read a great deal of political philosophy and economics, though I've only read a little of your boy Mises. I've seen utterly contradictory premises and conclusions are stated as a priori truth by different thinkers, and matters of objective reality are "figured out" rather than empirically tested, and then treated as settled fact, as you seem to. But really it's no different than those who "logically" "proved" that the heart is the seat of consciousness, or that the universe is a rotating crystal sphere with Earth at the center. That one set of assertions is readily falsifiable and the other difficult or even impossible, does not excuse the latter from the test of falsifiability, or mean that if it can't be tested then it must be approachable a priori.

 

I think I can sympathise with where you're coming from. Philosophers have historically over-rated the power of pure deductive reasoning and elaborated on the absolute as if it was their pocket watch. This is the habit of Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, as well as the tactic commonly used by religious apologists.

 

But are you saying that there is no such thing as apriori truth? Do subjects like logic and mathematics have NOTHING to do with reality, even though we already assume them in formulating and testing hypotheses in subjects like physics? Even though the subject matter is different and does necessarily incorporate the concept of causality(among more specific provisos in accordance with its subject matter), is it impossible for you to conceive economics relating to economic history in a similiar way?

 

And despite your sarcasm, I recommend you give my "boy" Mises a good try! You already know where to look, there is a wealth of free literature available on the subject at mises.org.

Edited September 14, 2009 by abskebabs

[Sisyphus]

Yes, I would say the existence of a priori truth is indeed questionable, as is what degree something like mathematics would fall under that label. However, it's not necessary to answer those questions here, as it's clear that attempts at priori truth have failed many times over in politics and economics. This is evident both empirically, and from the simple fact that different thinkers argue contradictory "self-evident truths," making the reliability of such actually impossible.

 

However, empiricism is not as hopeless as the Austrians apparently believe. Behavioral economics is much more like an empirical science (experiments in microeconomics are no more or less difficult than experiments in psychology), and has demonstrated false many of the assumptions of classical economics, which unfoundedly but axiomatically treats humans as rational, metaphysical beings detached from their very real existence as social animals, direct products of biological evolution, made of meat and hormones. Much like with classical physics, reasoning from a basis of homo economicus will always give you an answer that is usually seductively elegant and simple, but happens to be wrong. The highest authority in any science is always empirical reality.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Sisyphus

[abskebabs]

Much like with classical physics, reasoning from a basis of homo economicus will always give you an answer that is usually seductively elegant and simple, but happens to be wrong.

 

I agree with you there, apart from your generalisation of classical economists. Many, did not use such a concept, the phrase having been coined by John Stuart Mill, another empiricist who perceived Logic and Mathematics as "inductive subjects"(so we know 2+2=4 from repeated observation...).

 

Also, the Austrians explicitly reject the use of homo-economicus, so clearly you're application of such a charge only reveals your seeming ignorance.

 

Interestingly, the neoclassical mainstream of economics do use what you have labelled the homo-economicus concept, along with many other abstract assumptions to try and model mathematically and treat Economics as a natural science. I think the experience of the current crisis shows us how well that's going for them.

[iNow]

As I see it, political statements have a large basis in fact and/or logic, rather than being solely opinion. Discussions here rarely stop with a simple subjective statement; often there is an attempt to justify that position.

What do you propose we do when a member flatly refuses to support their opinion... when they put forth an assertion, are questioned on the reasons to hold such a position, and repeatedly ignore requests for clarification... repeatedly try to spin the topic on to some red herring instead of addressing the request for support of the opinion expressed? What should we do if the member indignantly ignores requests for clarification of the logic underlying their opinion? Should they not be punished or censured in the same way that we censure crackpots and charlatans who make unsupportable claims in the science forums, or... do they deserve some sort of respect and tolerance merely because their "opinion" was expressed in a political thread? Do we abandon the standards applied in the rest of the forum merely because the topic is a political one?

[mooeypoo]

What do you propose we do when a member flatly refuses to support their opinion...

You can claim the opinion isn't based on evidence, and you can claim that this makes the opinion not necessarily rational, but that doesn't mean the person is unreasonable, or irrational, or that he/she has no right holding such opinion.

 

That's the point I was trying to make in the beginning of this thread. We, humans, are not really strictly-logical people. It takes effort to be rational and consider rational-basis for our beliefs and opinions. If a person (like me for instance) considers this an important endeavor, they might put more effort into examining their own stances on various aspects of their lives and, maybe, change their minds on issues, but that isn't something that naturally happens, and we should take it into account.

 

People have opinions and those aren't necessarily based on totally rational premises. We can point out that the reasoning isn't rational, is inconsistent or is religious (and therefore is based on non-rational reasoning, etc) or is emotional, but there's a difference between debating this point and claiming a person is irrational as a whole, or requiring the person to change their minds outright.

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

Well said!

[swansont]

What do you propose we do when a member flatly refuses to support their opinion... when they put forth an assertion, are questioned on the reasons to hold such a position, and repeatedly ignore requests for clarification... repeatedly try to spin the topic on to some red herring instead of addressing the request for support of the opinion expressed? What should we do if the member indignantly ignores requests for clarification of the logic underlying their opinion? Should they not be punished or censured in the same way that we censure crackpots and charlatans who make unsupportable claims in the science forums, or... do they deserve some sort of respect and tolerance merely because their "opinion" was expressed in a political thread? Do we abandon the standards applied in the rest of the forum merely because the topic is a political one?

 

 

I agree with what Moo said, and I'll add this:

 

I don't think you have to support your opinion. If it's truly an opinion, that is. We are all irrational, to some extent, and hold irrational beliefs. And some things are actually subjective.

 

One of my big concerns is differentiating opinion from the assertion masquerading as opinion. I think this can be a difficult thing, and posters need to get get into the habit of clarifying their statements, because this can be a source of friction and confusion, when people interpret a statement in different ways.

 

I think this is a true statement: opinions are internalized and subjective. I like vanilla. I think Carrot-top is funny. (to be clear, I don't necessarily hold these opinions — these are examples). Likes/dislikes, and funny/unfunny are subjective. Assertions are external and objective — something that can be verified or not. If the statement is objective, then you cannot hold an opinion about it — I can't think of an example where this doesn't hold, but it's early and I haven't been properly caffeinated.

[Mr Skeptic]

Lots of well saids for the above posts. I'll add my own bit.

 

The opinion that all opinions must have a rational basis, is itself an opinion that cannot be shown to have a rational basis (though it could be shown to be reasonable given the assumption of other opinions that cannot be rationally supported). One of the fundamentals of logic is premises which are accepted for no explained reason. While it most definitely is a good thing to be able to support an opinion logically, what that shows is simply that your opinions are self-consistent and that you require less premises, both of which are good things.

 

And I would disagree that internalized and subjective statements need be opinions. Though most people would not challenge someone's claim to like or dislike of a flavor, a brain scientist armed with relevant brain scans could challenge it on a factual basis, and just like any other opinion challenged by facts, would then require factual evidence if I am to believe them.

[swansont]

And I would disagree that internalized and subjective statements need be opinions. Though most people would not challenge someone's claim to like or dislike of a flavor, a brain scientist armed with relevant brain scans could challenge it on a factual basis, and just like any other opinion challenged by facts, would then require factual evidence if I am to believe them.

 

I wasn't saying that they are one and the same, just that opinions are within the set of subjective and internalized statements. And I was assuming that this is in the context of arguing in good faith, which excludes the possibility of lying. (Locally that is called trolling, and that's a no-no)

[iNow]

We can point out that the reasoning isn't rational, is inconsistent or is religious (and therefore is based on non-rational reasoning, etc) or is emotional, but there's a difference between debating this point and claiming a person is irrational as a whole, or requiring the person to change their minds outright.

The larger question I was trying to ask is if we have any recourse when a member shares an opinion, is asked a simple, "Why?" and refused to answer. They just keep repeating their opinion, and never provide a single reason why they hold it. That's not allowed in the other forums. Are we to consider the Politics board a sovereign nation where any opinion can be shared, and requests to clarify it ignored?