2 ms·

The stock chart example is not arguing that calamity is likely. Its a skeptical argument to illustrate the limits of the type of empiricism that observes and ex

The stock chart example is not arguing that calamity is likely. Its a skeptical argument to illustrate the limits of the type of empiricism that observes and extrapolates the path of a complex system without understanding it. You might want to claim Pinker is not making a prediction, but he uses terms like "progress" that imply future states insead of neutral past-tense language that could equally apply to a random walk. > Your counterargument simply boils down to: it's possible for things to get worse. Not really. Rieman's counter-argument is that the source of human violence is human-nature which has not changed and that looking at some metrics is the wrong way to reach a conclusion. I believe Rieman's argument is that we are seeing the emergence of the next form of facism. He is not saying calamity might happen but this it is beginning to happen. I believe he thinks that the remedy for the darkness of human-nature is culture/humanism that has regressed with the decline of organised religion and concentration on science above humanities.

csallen 9y ago
> The stock chart example is not arguing that calamity is likely. Its a skeptical argument to illustrate the limits of the type of empiricism that observes and extrapolates the path of a complex system without understanding it. You should read The Better Angels of Our Nature, or at least a summary of it. The entire book is an attempt to "understand the complex system," as you put it. It's an attempt to understand the underlying causes of violence. It does not involve merely looking at charts and extrapolating that they will go up or down based on their previous trends. Pinker himself criticizes that type of lackluster "analysis". > Rieman's counter-argument is that the source of human violence is human-nature which has not changed and that looking at some metrics is the wrong way to reach a conclusion. "Looking at some metrics" — again, this is total strawman that can only honestly come about by failing to read Pinker. His argument is not and has never been, simply, looking at metrics and extrapolating. Instead, he's analyzed the sources of human violence, and found that Rieman is quite wrong — it is not so simple as "human nature". In actuality, there exist systems and institutions that are external to human nature that drastically and predictably influence the levels of violence we feel compelled to inflict upon each other. For example, we have police for a reason. Because, by and large, they work! I don't know any well-read people who advocate returning to a pre-police society and think it will make us safer. And that's just one of many dozens of advancements in institutions that's led to a much less violent world, despite human nature remaining what it always has been. Is it possible for violence to still exist with police? Of course! But it's also a likely bet that, overall, it will be lessened. The vast majority of refutations of Pinker unfortunately fall into one of two camps: (1) Arguing against the strawman claim that Pinker bases all of his conclusions on statistical extrapolation, which is simply false. (2) Arguing against the strawman claim that Pinker thinks it is impossible for things to ever get worse in unpredictable ways, which he repeatedly denies.
- duncanawoods 9y ago
  The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. > I don't know any well-read people who advocate returning to a pre-police society Depends on the country! There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions and that Pinker's argument encourages complacency. I suspect they don't really conflict.
  - csallen 9y ago
    > The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. That's definitely what was going on. But in situations such as these, isn't looking at the data an absolute necessity? I appreciate theory just as much as anyone else, but when we're trying to reason about how the world works, I don't see a good reason to ignore troves of experimental data and rely on theory alone, unless we believe that human beings are fundamentally random creatures. > There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions… I don't think Pinker would put forth any counterargument here. His point is neither "A, B, and C specific forms of violence will never happen again," nor is it "X, Y, and Z remedies to violence are incorruptible." Rather, it's that there exist specific "changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand," and as such "have driven the multiple declines in violence" that he demonstrates with the data in his book.

csallen 9y ago

> The stock chart example is not arguing that calamity is likely. Its a skeptical argument to illustrate the limits of the type of empiricism that observes and extrapolates the path of a complex system without understanding it. You should read The Better Angels of Our Nature, or at least a summary of it. The entire book is an attempt to "understand the complex system," as you put it. It's an attempt to understand the underlying causes of violence. It does not involve merely looking at charts and extrapolating that they will go up or down based on their previous trends. Pinker himself criticizes that type of lackluster "analysis". > Rieman's counter-argument is that the source of human violence is human-nature which has not changed and that looking at some metrics is the wrong way to reach a conclusion. "Looking at some metrics" — again, this is total strawman that can only honestly come about by failing to read Pinker. His argument is not and has never been, simply, looking at metrics and extrapolating. Instead, he's analyzed the sources of human violence, and found that Rieman is quite wrong — it is not so simple as "human nature". In actuality, there exist systems and institutions that are external to human nature that drastically and predictably influence the levels of violence we feel compelled to inflict upon each other. For example, we have police for a reason. Because, by and large, they work! I don't know any well-read people who advocate returning to a pre-police society and think it will make us safer. And that's just one of many dozens of advancements in institutions that's led to a much less violent world, despite human nature remaining what it always has been. Is it possible for violence to still exist with police? Of course! But it's also a likely bet that, overall, it will be lessened. The vast majority of refutations of Pinker unfortunately fall into one of two camps: (1) Arguing against the strawman claim that Pinker bases all of his conclusions on statistical extrapolation, which is simply false. (2) Arguing against the strawman claim that Pinker thinks it is impossible for things to ever get worse in unpredictable ways, which he repeatedly denies.

duncanawoods 9y ago
The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. > I don't know any well-read people who advocate returning to a pre-police society Depends on the country! There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions and that Pinker's argument encourages complacency. I suspect they don't really conflict.
- csallen 9y ago
  > The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. That's definitely what was going on. But in situations such as these, isn't looking at the data an absolute necessity? I appreciate theory just as much as anyone else, but when we're trying to reason about how the world works, I don't see a good reason to ignore troves of experimental data and rely on theory alone, unless we believe that human beings are fundamentally random creatures. > There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions… I don't think Pinker would put forth any counterargument here. His point is neither "A, B, and C specific forms of violence will never happen again," nor is it "X, Y, and Z remedies to violence are incorruptible." Rather, it's that there exist specific "changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand," and as such "have driven the multiple declines in violence" that he demonstrates with the data in his book.