4 ms·

>What exactly do you believe that this 'evidence' proves in relation to my original statement? Nothing can be proven. This is a property of science and reality

>What exactly do you believe that this 'evidence' proves in relation to my original statement? Nothing can be proven. This is a property of science and reality. Even a scientific paper can't prove anything. What can be done is to say my hypothesis has more evidence and is more likely than your hypothesis to a significant degree. This is how science works. We can say hey look this scientific paper has more rigor and accuracy than the opinions of a religious shaman in Africa because we understand the statistical rigor and science that is used by the scientific paper to gather evidence to support a conclusion. We also understand that the shaman in africa came to a conclusion getting high off some drug in his straw hut so we know one source is better than the other. >>But it is more perfect then anything that can come out of you >How so? You're not a credible source... You're not a scientific paper, you're not a statistic. You're just a person on the internet spouting off his opinions, not too far off from an African Shaman. If I write a thesis can I cite "random person on the internet" as a source? No, I can't because you don't have the reputation or the scientific rigor to gather any evidence that's worth anything. You are not a "lens" into what's happening in China, because you yourself use other "lenses" to see what's going on. Your opinion and your information is only as good as the "lenses" you are using. Yet look at what information you provided me with. You provided me with no sources and a shitload of opinion thats it's pretty much useless. Thus in order to give more credence to your statements you have to back them up with credible sources. You tell me which lens your using, why it's accurate and how it supports your conclusion... Which you have not done. As a random person on the internet myself, my word is as useless as yours until I backed up my word with sources more credible than myself.... Which I have done. >Everyone has a bias. Everyone's view is subjective by definition. Underneath every viewpoint is the actual object being viewed. And that objective reality cannot be biased. But all observations of said object is done through a lens and that lens is biased. But.... Some views are less biased than others. For example a scientific paper that statistically measures the amount of covid cases in China is less biased than a random person on the internet stating his useless opinion without evidence backing it up. There can be cases where there are two scientific papers that come to opposite conclusions. In this case it's hard to tell which lens is more biased and which lens is more accurate. In this case no conclusion can easily be declared. >I'm not sure you've understood anything that I've written here. I understand everything you've written. You don't understand how to make a point and how to back it up and you don't understand science. You just view the world as a muddy: "everyone has a biased viewpoint" without truly understanding why and without truly understanding how to navigate such a world and make some "viewpoints" less biased than other "viewpoints." Not to mention your viewpoints and lenses that you're using have led you to come to a deeply inaccurate and incorrect view of China. You realize the nobody can actually 100% prove to the flat earthers that the world is round? What they can do is present scientific evidence that makes a flat earth very very unlikely. That's it. I can assure you, with my background and the sources I have presented to you, I can never prove my point to you, but I have certainly shown that my conclusion is quite accurate by presenting to you several angles of the same objective reality: The scientific angle, the anecdotal angle and the statistical angle. Think about it, if Fox news can produce dozens of stupid people who don't know any better, how do you know the media isn't affecting you? It is. To people in the know... you look like a flat earther. As a piece of non-formal advice: you really need to go to China to see the phenomenon that's happening there. The speed of Chinas' ascendence to power has never been seen in the history of civilization. It produces a country with a story more complex than the one sided viewpoint most HNers have. Really most of it is just pride. Nobody in the states likes to think of China as a country who will one day have a GDP that exceeds the US, so they need to make up some story to make China look worse. You can criticize your president but something that will really hit a nerve is if someone says that China is more powerful than the United States because it's really close to happening.

aww_dang 6y ago
You seem to be tilting against an imaginary opponent. Perhaps it would help if we went back and examined where this discussion started. I thought you wanted to discuss the differences between individualism and a centrally planned society. Is that true, or were you primarily interested in nationalism and identity politics? Pursuant to what I viewed as a noble discussion about these ideals, I attempted to sidestep your tribalism and focus on what I viewed as the crux of the issue. Central planning requires perfect information to live up to its stated goals. Thus in any centrally planned society we see mishaps resulting from imperfect information wielded by central planners. In contrast, decentralized systems based upon individualism and free markets are generally more resiliant to errors committed by individuals. Participants who have the _freedom_ to choose for themselves can observe errors committed by others and look for alternate solutions. Similarly, they can emulate successes they observe. At the time, I felt that a succinct reply was sufficient to express these general concepts. In response to these points you provide anecdotal evidence about your friend attending a wedding in China. While I am no mind reader, I could only assume that you were implying that the wedding was not canceled because of the superior central planning of the CCP. This is absurd on many levels. First of all as I pointed out, China is a large country. There are lockdowns elsewhere. Week to week we see new lockdowns throughout the country. Even Beijing has had entire neighborhoods on lockdown. Head central planner Xi, has fled the capital. We can also look to Sweden, where lockdowns were not mandated at all by the central authorities. Death rates there are normalizing. Finally, if central planning equated to competent governance, then why did COVID-19 originate under the reign of central planners? In your next comment you misuse the temporal sense and suggest that you have already given me three contexts. In this comment you provide a link to a COVID study and a map of COVID cases. Obviously, these data have no relation to the points expressed about technocracy or central planning. >Nothing can be proven. This is a property of science and reality The points made are philosophical. They can be challenged or even refuted logically. So far you have failed to do so. You haven't even approached the discussion. Observation can be part of this process, but strictly speaking this is not scientific. Then you go on to hyperbole and debase yourself with ridiculous insults. Much of your rambling follow up is dedicated to the same. The greater part seeks to defend China from an imagined slight. I will entertain this digression. China is not the CCP. Throughout this discussion you appear to conflate the two. This is an important distinction. You also make several inaccurate assumptions about myself, but I'll leave that to the side for now. In any strictly logical debate, the identity of the speaker should not play a role. GDP is a self-gratifying statist metric preferred by technocrats the world over. The calculation of GDP justifies further government intervention in an economy. In the case of the west, this can be in the form of credit expansion. In the case of the CCP's centrally planned economy, this is much more direct. GDP can be increased by simply paying workers to dig and fill holes. While this will increase GDP, it will not add any value to the economy. Similarly in China we see 'tofu buildings'. These kinds of projects may increase GDP, but they decrease the quality of life for market participants. Residents have been injured by these shoddy constructions. Markets are distorted and capital is misallocated, preventing entrepreneurs from contributing actual value. Removing your hands from the neck of the patient is not the same as performing the Heimlich maneuver. From this perspective it would be more fitting to applaud the increase in the standard of living of the Chinese people. The CCP is not responsible for this, they have stood in the way and continue to obstruct. Crediting the CCP for these increases is anti-Chinese. The Chinese people deserve credit for increasing their standard of living in spite of the obstructions of the CCP. Those individual entrepreneurs who have strived, survived and thrived while the party has attempted to milk them at every step deserve our applause. Yes, I encourage you to travel and see the real China, to involve yourself in an entrepreneurial pursuit anywhere in this amazing world. I think this will give you a different perspective. Thanks for the discussion.

aww_dang 6y ago

You seem to be tilting against an imaginary opponent. Perhaps it would help if we went back and examined where this discussion started. I thought you wanted to discuss the differences between individualism and a centrally planned society. Is that true, or were you primarily interested in nationalism and identity politics? Pursuant to what I viewed as a noble discussion about these ideals, I attempted to sidestep your tribalism and focus on what I viewed as the crux of the issue. Central planning requires perfect information to live up to its stated goals. Thus in any centrally planned society we see mishaps resulting from imperfect information wielded by central planners. In contrast, decentralized systems based upon individualism and free markets are generally more resiliant to errors committed by individuals. Participants who have the _freedom_ to choose for themselves can observe errors committed by others and look for alternate solutions. Similarly, they can emulate successes they observe. At the time, I felt that a succinct reply was sufficient to express these general concepts. In response to these points you provide anecdotal evidence about your friend attending a wedding in China. While I am no mind reader, I could only assume that you were implying that the wedding was not canceled because of the superior central planning of the CCP. This is absurd on many levels. First of all as I pointed out, China is a large country. There are lockdowns elsewhere. Week to week we see new lockdowns throughout the country. Even Beijing has had entire neighborhoods on lockdown. Head central planner Xi, has fled the capital. We can also look to Sweden, where lockdowns were not mandated at all by the central authorities. Death rates there are normalizing. Finally, if central planning equated to competent governance, then why did COVID-19 originate under the reign of central planners? In your next comment you misuse the temporal sense and suggest that you have already given me three contexts. In this comment you provide a link to a COVID study and a map of COVID cases. Obviously, these data have no relation to the points expressed about technocracy or central planning. >Nothing can be proven. This is a property of science and reality The points made are philosophical. They can be challenged or even refuted logically. So far you have failed to do so. You haven't even approached the discussion. Observation can be part of this process, but strictly speaking this is not scientific. Then you go on to hyperbole and debase yourself with ridiculous insults. Much of your rambling follow up is dedicated to the same. The greater part seeks to defend China from an imagined slight. I will entertain this digression. China is not the CCP. Throughout this discussion you appear to conflate the two. This is an important distinction. You also make several inaccurate assumptions about myself, but I'll leave that to the side for now. In any strictly logical debate, the identity of the speaker should not play a role. GDP is a self-gratifying statist metric preferred by technocrats the world over. The calculation of GDP justifies further government intervention in an economy. In the case of the west, this can be in the form of credit expansion. In the case of the CCP's centrally planned economy, this is much more direct. GDP can be increased by simply paying workers to dig and fill holes. While this will increase GDP, it will not add any value to the economy. Similarly in China we see 'tofu buildings'. These kinds of projects may increase GDP, but they decrease the quality of life for market participants. Residents have been injured by these shoddy constructions. Markets are distorted and capital is misallocated, preventing entrepreneurs from contributing actual value. Removing your hands from the neck of the patient is not the same as performing the Heimlich maneuver. From this perspective it would be more fitting to applaud the increase in the standard of living of the Chinese people. The CCP is not responsible for this, they have stood in the way and continue to obstruct. Crediting the CCP for these increases is anti-Chinese. The Chinese people deserve credit for increasing their standard of living in spite of the obstructions of the CCP. Those individual entrepreneurs who have strived, survived and thrived while the party has attempted to milk them at every step deserve our applause. Yes, I encourage you to travel and see the real China, to involve yourself in an entrepreneurial pursuit anywhere in this amazing world. I think this will give you a different perspective. Thanks for the discussion.