Just Do It

Post Reply New Topic

Well, one is probably closer to truth. In the case of stance #2, for example, we can definitely measure that experts are correct more often than non-experts.

And there it is, folks.

This is my brother.: No point talking if nobody is going to win the debate

AND: Your opinions are wrong for the reasons I list and your reasons for holding them are irrelevant and / or plain wrong.

AND a few more, but why belabor it?

Openmindedness is so rare in the world.

So this is how some people think about the PPR? When I have said in the past that it can be like this, it was with a sense of resignation. I do not think that this is the best method for the sharing of ideas. I would rather a search for common ground, rather than a desire to smash the other side (though I no doubt have indulged in the latter). The truth is there does not seem to be much difference between the views of Orwell and philologos, nor really between Orwell and myself. It is interesting that no common ground seems to be found.

Philologos asked a question, it was taken for an answer, I see little benefit in this.

I sometimes ignore what he writes. He usually reserves everything to a few quips, making this easier.


....... either that's really obtuse, or you are somehow confused.


What the heck are you even referring to?


..... ok? What are you trying to even get at? out of anybody here, you seem most willing to blur these lines when it is someone you disagree with given how you seem to present my opinion and Orwell's as well.

I don't see why this is a negative thing. The adversarial process can be a good thing. It is what drives everything that lives to do better. It pushes the development of science forward as rival theories compete to become the next consensus. It drives the musician to hone her craft, and the athlete to train to peak performance. It drives innovation and economic growth. It is a cornerstone of our justice system. If we are here examining ideas, then part of that process has to be exposing and discarding flawed ideas.


The goal is that eventually common ground will be found, either by one side convincing the other or some compromise position being agreed as reasonable-sounding to both sides.


Really? I am curious as to what led you to that assessment.

The adversarial process is not a cooperative process. The sharing of ideas requires cooperation not extermination of the other side. The establishment of a consensus relies more on the convincing of the bystanders than the participants; this is not necessarily my goal and it certainly is not my primary one.



Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant.



We are both Christians, students of philosophy and we probably align on most economic issues. Though not necessarily on social ones.

Quite the contrary. It takes two to tango, after all. The conceptualization of competition and cooperation being part of the same process is probably more deeply ingrained in chess players than in most other people, though.


Perhaps, but I would submit that we have very different theologies, to the point that we may not have much more in common than either of us might with members of different religions. I doubt if I would fit in at your church or you at mine. As to philosophy, I would not consider myself a student of it- I have only a casual interest in it, and again it seems likely to me that on questions of philosophy you and I probably differ significantly. On economic issues there may be more agreement, but I'm actually pretty flexible on those, and on economics I can find agreement with more or less anyone who isn't crazy. You are probably correct that we differ on most social issues.

What are you even trying to prove here? And how is it relevant to anything in this conversation? This is a perfect example of you missing the point.

I don't know what you're even trying to prove here... but you're still relying on arbitrary statements. See... "such and such is a better at this or that" is an arbitrary statement. Even if you feel justified in saying something like this, you should understand that it is arbitrary by nature.

I'm astounded at how deliberate you are at saying nothing of any consequence.

I think the word "better" has a clear meaning if we're talking about truth statements.

We're not talking about truth. We're talking about expressions or depictions of various perspectives.

Except we are talking about truth. If all of these claims have no relationship to a reality, then they are empty claims. They are not empty claims though. Tax changes either will or will not increase revenue.

Compromise is a tool for agreeing on an action that must be performed by participating individuals in a group who maintain differing opinions. It is not a tool for agreeing on principles. To compromise a principle is equal to undermining it and it is not an acceptable proposal. A principle can be rejected when it is discovered it is in error. To abandon it merely on the basis of congeniality is a major error. It indicates a lack of integrity.

Whether or not a tax change will increase revenue is only a small consideration when a politician is deciding whether or not to adopt a particular stance. It has far more to do with the popularity of the position among a target demographic. And the public rarely seems to base their decisions on marginal effects on government revenue. They can only be expected to consistently make decisions based on their own finances.

Furthermore, pre-existing ideology is often more of a factor than the actual effects of proposed policy. Certain factions of both the public and officials will never lend their support for a tax increase, for example. While others don't care either way, but are concerned about other issues. Their implicit support for tax policy changes can be garnered in a variety of ways. Engaging in politics requires balancing such considerations, among many others.

Politics is just quite simply not the science of determining the effects of marginal tax changes on revenues. That's possibly normative economics or something. Politics is an art that involves balancing many dynamic skills and stylistic considerations. It requires the implementation of other art forms... persuasion, compromise, rhetoric, communication, and so forth.

Frankly your cherry picked example isn't compelling at all, because it's simply not relevant to the discussion. It misses the point, which isn't unexpected from you. On top of that, though, your methodology is very poor. You want to argue irrelevant points, such as whether methods for determining truth truth or falsehood may be better than other ones... And you do a very poor job of it.

I think you should stop trying to pretend to do philosophy. It's not working out for you. Your attempts to reduce philosophy to some poorly constructed formal argument are similar to your attempts at reducing politics to the assessment of marginal changes in tax policy in a vacuum. It's disgraceful.

It's not a small part of the discussion on the matter though. Republicans will say "tax cuts increase revenues", democrats will say "we need to increase taxes in order to handle deficits".

From what I understand, current research suggests people actually vote somewhat altruistically, at least in their intentions. The public also tends to be misinformed on results of political decisions though.


Given that we are talking about political discussion, y'know, the topic of PPR, I am unsure your point matters. Even the faction issues are just matters of social science and prediction. Moving past that, ideologies are often discussed on matters of empirical results, and internal coherence.


The problem being that when we're making this topic relevant to PPR, it actually IS economic theory, social theory, political science, etc.

Even further, the study of politics is a social science.

Finally, even if you're talking about doing politics, that's more of a strategic game. You might as well call corporate strategy or war to be art. Both of those are actually highly calculated affairs though without much to call traditionally aesthetic about the matter.


Except it is, because it is relevant to possible PPR debates, because it is relevant to actual political discussions and policies. The points I argue also are not irrelevant, it's simply that you want to go off on some flight of fancy, and as such, trying to stay grounded is something that you are bizarrely opposed to.(I am guessing because your pride is fed by contrarianism)


Right, because foolish statements arrogantly asserted are instead the real way to go. I apologize, but sophistry isn't a step forward for philosophy or politics, but rather it is only a large step back.

Don't project your personal limitations on PPR as a whole. We realize you personally can't engage in dynamic discussions, but there are some who can. You just insist on stripping them bare of anything that could resemble complexity, nuance, ambiguity and subtlety. I realize you must do this in order to process it on the superficial levels you are accustomed to. It's just not conducive to a meaningful exchange of ideas. It only perpetuates the sophomoric "debating" that you crave.

....... dionysian, you regularly dismiss entire groups and ideas as stupid without good reason. You make bold assertions, and whenever people start calling you out on the matter, you first try to engage them in an argument, and when they keep on pressing the matter, you start deriding them as being too focused on logic, even though you've never really explained by your controversial comments make much sense in the context in which they exist.

Really though, you aren't "deep" here, you're just arrogant and full of sh**, as loudly proclaiming positions is not complex, nuanced, ambiguous, or subtle. Nor is this NOT sophomoric, as your behavior is dismissive, but unlike your opponents, it has no real reason. You just dislike certain ideas, or you dislike certain groups of people, or you believe two things are the same, but there is no real reason to even look to about the matter. If there were, an exchange of ideas would be possible, but you don't want an "exchange of ideas", you simply want to take a contrary path, and assert your own opinions and not get called out on it, but neither of those actually supports an exchange of ideas.