5 ms·

"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of t

"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything else). I'm trying to find a more charitable way to read this, but there really is none. Presumably, if he supported some tax policy, being shown a dozen nations that subsequently implement the policy and face unmitigated economic disaster would do nothing to shake his faith in it.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistribution, the welfare state, etc (i.e., "tax is an immoral act of theft, regardless of economic benefits", or "the welfare state is a moral imperative, regardless of economic harms").
- goodside 16y ago
  There's a difference between being able to conjure up a few examples of things you think are immoral in any situation, and the conviction that evidence cannot, in principle, have any impact on what policies one should enact.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I did not claim that evidence should never change views. I gave an example illustrating that some views should not be changed by evidence. Evidence tells you how to maximize your objective function. It does not tell you what your objective function should be.
    - goodside 16y ago
      You didn't. Shermer did. That's what I was complaining about initially. If you meant your comment as an interesting side note rather than a rebuttal, that's fine and I misread you. Maybe I should be less defensive.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        What he is discussing is just a less extreme version of what I discussed. I picked a fairly strong and apolitical example [1] because I didn't want to devolve into a more political discussion. But maybe I have no choice, so here goes. Many liberals favor increasing distributional equality. In math terms, they wish to maximize L = (min utility) / (max utility). This means they should be open to arguments which argue "policy X decreases L, and should be opposed". However, many conservatives don't care about distributional equality, only overall utility, i.e. conservatives may wish to maximize C = 0.75 x (max utility) + 1.0 x (min utility). Therefore, such people would be unconvinced by any evidence based argument that "policy X reduces L". Shermer and I were both arguing that evidence can tell you have to maximize your objective function. Only ideology/morality/values can tell you what your objective function should be. [1] There is no clear political divide on torture. To pick recent high profile politicians, both Bush and Hillary supported it while McCain and Obama opposed it.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I find that hard to believe. Surely there is some limit that would change your mind? Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per month? I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture. Not saying that torture is good, just saying that even in your example, science might change your mind.
  - msg 16y ago
    This is a bullshit argument. Torture does not save shit and it is good for nothing. What if destroying the earth would save the universe? What if Batman wanted you to torture someone? What if cutting off the eyelids of a brown person meant that unicorns would walk the earth? What if I snuck into suburban households and cut up humans for body parts so my nanobots could learn regeneration techniques? What if the nanobots could reanimate all the dead humans after I cut them up? The reason it is bullshit is because you can put anything in the place of torture and justify it by saying it "saves lives". But for some reason, the arguments that we want to justify this way always boil down to freeing ourselves from the shackles of morality. It is the will to power dressed up in the clothing of public policy. What kind of life are we saving? Is there anything we value more than life?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      That's still a fact-based argument. You're saying (and I agree) that data show that the supposition that torture is useful is nonsense. It's only useful as a deterrent tool in morally bankrupt regimes. (But again we come to the moral question of how many innocent people we're willing to harm for deterrence's sake.)
      - Tichy 16y ago
        Which data do you have? Just curious.
    - Tichy 16y ago
lftl 16y ago
What should be the goal of a tax policy or a government? Maximal total economic output? Equal opportunity for everyone? A low Gini coeffecient? I think his main point in talking about taxation and government is that there are philosophical assumptions at their roots that affect how you would interpret and use some of the data. As such whether a certain policy is a failure or not is open to debate based on our goals.
- Tichy 16y ago
  The goals should/would be separated from the tax policy. But you need the science to understand what the likely outcomes of the individual policies are.
anamax 16y ago
> Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." > If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything else). Wrong. Even if you knew exactly the result of spending $100 more on a given welfare program, that doesn't tell you whether you should spend that $100. There are two reasons (1) knowing the benefit of spending $100 there doesn't tell you whether that $100 is better spent somewhere else (2) reasonable folks can disagree on whether those benefits are worth $100. (I may be willing to spend $0.01 to make your life $1 better, but I'm not willing to spend $0.25. Your numbers are probably different and no amount of data helps us decide between them.) More data is useful, but it isn't decisive.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistribution, the welfare state, etc (i.e., "tax is an immoral act of theft, regardless of economic benefits", or "the welfare state is a moral imperative, regardless of economic harms").

goodside 16y ago
There's a difference between being able to conjure up a few examples of things you think are immoral in any situation, and the conviction that evidence cannot, in principle, have any impact on what policies one should enact.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I did not claim that evidence should never change views. I gave an example illustrating that some views should not be changed by evidence. Evidence tells you how to maximize your objective function. It does not tell you what your objective function should be.
  - goodside 16y ago
    You didn't. Shermer did. That's what I was complaining about initially. If you meant your comment as an interesting side note rather than a rebuttal, that's fine and I misread you. Maybe I should be less defensive.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      What he is discussing is just a less extreme version of what I discussed. I picked a fairly strong and apolitical example [1] because I didn't want to devolve into a more political discussion. But maybe I have no choice, so here goes. Many liberals favor increasing distributional equality. In math terms, they wish to maximize L = (min utility) / (max utility). This means they should be open to arguments which argue "policy X decreases L, and should be opposed". However, many conservatives don't care about distributional equality, only overall utility, i.e. conservatives may wish to maximize C = 0.75 x (max utility) + 1.0 x (min utility). Therefore, such people would be unconvinced by any evidence based argument that "policy X reduces L". Shermer and I were both arguing that evidence can tell you have to maximize your objective function. Only ideology/morality/values can tell you what your objective function should be. [1] There is no clear political divide on torture. To pick recent high profile politicians, both Bush and Hillary supported it while McCain and Obama opposed it.
Tichy 16y ago
I find that hard to believe. Surely there is some limit that would change your mind? Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per month? I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture. Not saying that torture is good, just saying that even in your example, science might change your mind.
- msg 16y ago
  This is a bullshit argument. Torture does not save shit and it is good for nothing. What if destroying the earth would save the universe? What if Batman wanted you to torture someone? What if cutting off the eyelids of a brown person meant that unicorns would walk the earth? What if I snuck into suburban households and cut up humans for body parts so my nanobots could learn regeneration techniques? What if the nanobots could reanimate all the dead humans after I cut them up? The reason it is bullshit is because you can put anything in the place of torture and justify it by saying it "saves lives". But for some reason, the arguments that we want to justify this way always boil down to freeing ourselves from the shackles of morality. It is the will to power dressed up in the clothing of public policy. What kind of life are we saving? Is there anything we value more than life?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    That's still a fact-based argument. You're saying (and I agree) that data show that the supposition that torture is useful is nonsense. It's only useful as a deterrent tool in morally bankrupt regimes. (But again we come to the moral question of how many innocent people we're willing to harm for deterrence's sake.)
    - Tichy 16y ago
      Which data do you have? Just curious.
  - Tichy 16y ago

lftl 16y ago

What should be the goal of a tax policy or a government? Maximal total economic output? Equal opportunity for everyone? A low Gini coeffecient? I think his main point in talking about taxation and government is that there are philosophical assumptions at their roots that affect how you would interpret and use some of the data. As such whether a certain policy is a failure or not is open to debate based on our goals.

Tichy 16y ago
The goals should/would be separated from the tax policy. But you need the science to understand what the likely outcomes of the individual policies are.

anamax 16y ago

> Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." > If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything else). Wrong. Even if you knew exactly the result of spending $100 more on a given welfare program, that doesn't tell you whether you should spend that $100. There are two reasons (1) knowing the benefit of spending $100 there doesn't tell you whether that $100 is better spent somewhere else (2) reasonable folks can disagree on whether those benefits are worth $100. (I may be willing to spend $0.01 to make your life $1 better, but I'm not willing to spend $0.25. Your numbers are probably different and no amount of data helps us decide between them.) More data is useful, but it isn't decisive.