12 ms·
Politician's Syllogism
- nerdponx 6y agoThere is another related syllogism that I don't have a name for: 1. We tried X as a solution for Y. 2. X didn't work, because we didn't implement it properly or we didn't understand how to implement it properly or some unrelated situation caused it to not work properly. 3. Therefore X and anything that even kind of resembles X is no longer an acceptable solution for Y.
- hackeraccount 6y agoThat's pretty much empiricism.
- nerdponx 6y agoWhat do you mean by that?
- giantg2 6y agoHypothesis failed; choose new hypotheses and try them. Edit: Since I'm getting down voted I wanted to specify that empirical evidence is gained through experience. The scientific method of trying hypotheses is a way of gaining empirical evidence.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAs explained, it’s not empiricism because it misstates/ignores empirical data which would call into question the conclusion.
- giantg2 6y agoWhat empirical data would that be? If the only way to gain empirical evidence is through experience, and the previous hypothesis failed, then you would need a new hypothesis based on that failure. The way you state it, you are implying that there exists other evidence/data which is being ignored, but the scenario doesn't actually say that such evidence exists nor that it is being misstated.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoAdding emphasis to step 2 in the comment you responded to: > X didn't work, because we didn't implement it properly or we didn't understand how to implement it properly or some unrelated situation caused it to not work properly. Empiricism would seek to learn about these failures before step 1 as mitigation and before step 3 to determine if there’s new/more understandable data to prepare more effective mitigation for a repeat experiment.
- giantg2 6y ago"Empiricism would seek to learn about these failures before step 1 ..." In the context of the discussion (politics), this occurs in debates of legislation. Whether or not it's a meritorious debate depends on the subject and partisan makeup. "... and before step 3 to determine if there’s new/more understandable data to prepare more effective mitigation for a repeat experiment." In politics, this starts over as a new bill for debate. It could also mean allocating money to investigate the issue at hand too.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoMaybe I need to emphasize the original comment’s #3? > Therefore X and anything that even kind of resembles X is no longer an acceptable solution for Y.
- giantg2 6y agoIf you have evidence to support that, it's a valid conclusion. Basically, you seem to be arguing that that conclusion is always wrong. I'm saying it could be right depending on the evidence supporting or opposing it. (ie there's no evidence that number 3 means what you say it means)
- eyelidlessness 6y agoI’m not saying the conclusion is definitely wrong, I’m saying it’s unreasonable to assume it’s correct. What I’m saying is that the premise in the syllogism you replied to is that, in the case it applies to, the conclusion is suspect due to the errors that led to it. Empiricism doesn’t stop at falsification, it also involves reconsidering assumptions and trying to identify and eliminate complicating factors.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nyokodo 6y agoYet another related syllogism: 1. We tried X as a solution for Y. 2. X didn’t work, because the basis is fundamentally flawed. 3. We endlessly superficially tweak X to try to get it to work and it fails every time but we claim X is still good because it’s “never really been tried.”
- nerdponx 6y agoI feel like both of our syllogisms tend to be invoked by the same people in the same political debates!
- jessaustin 6y agoAh yes, any day now we'll happen upon that True Scottish capitalism that miraculously doesn't immediately devolve into crony capitalism.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> that True Scottish capitalism that miraculously doesn't immediately devolve into crony capitalism. Prevent the regulatory agencies from being captured by those corporations they were ostensibly intended to regulate.
- jessaustin 6y agoCapitalism doesn't require regulators or regulation. It doesn't even require the rule of law. It only requires that workers and consumers be prevented from free negotiation of the terms of production and commerce. Laws and regulations are often used this way, but capricious despotism does the job nearly as well.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI'm not sure I follow, it would seem that the opposite of this is true: > Capitalism [...] only requires that workers and consumers be prevented from free negotiation of the terms of production and commerce. Isn't capitalism what arises when workers and consumers are permitted to freely negotiate terms?
- jessaustin 6y agoThere's another party to consider. (hint... it's in the name!) In truly fluid and uncertain situations, capital takes a beating. Humans can adapt or even move; those factories that burned down won't rebuild themselves. After the Revolutionary War, but before the USA Constitution was imposed on the populace, was such a situation. Free farmers opposed capital both violently and via monetary policy (through pro-inflation and relaxed debt-enforcement laws passed by states in the grip of actual representative government). Madison and the rest of the conspirators were far more troubled by the latter excess of freedom; they certainly didn't invite any poor tenant farmers to Philadelphia. There they succeeded in making USA safe for capital. "Federalism" was a lie from the beginning; no state is allowed to inconvenience big business. In the 1860s a rather destructive war was fought over that issue (among others). Ever since then, whenever and wherever circumstances have favored the positions of workers more than capitalists can accept, the USA Army (or sometimes the Pinkertons!) have stepped in to violently modify negotiating positions. In the post-WWII period they were unable to do that for several decades, and USA enjoyed its greatest prosperity. In the late 1960s they figured out a way to make a war hurt the population more than it hurt capital (and also they killed half a dozen of the people who were warning us about it), and USA has gone downhill ever since. Year after year, they introduce discrete "shocks" that devastate the poor and middle class, while always keeping the resources of the state ready to support the interests of capital. The "mistakes" of capitalism that we observe in every decade are in fact its most vital features. When the spoils of progress accrue to capital, they don't accrue to humans. Even if we imagine they didn't "implement it properly" last time, there's no reason to expect they'll do it "properly" next time either.
- thazework 6y agoAnd when that something doesn't work just deploy the 5 standard excuses. https://youtu.be/6Y4PEqvk0Jg https://youtu.be/6Y4PEqvk0Jg
- liquidify 6y agoSounds like something a lot of people do in normal conversation.
- yrimaxi 6y agoHow about the democracy syllogism: 1. We will pick a handful of people that you may choose from 2. You pick one of them (because there were no other choices) 3. Therefore you freely chose that person and are solely responsible for what that person does
- acheron 6y agoIf they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very-ancient-democracy-you-see-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/162557-it-comes-from-a-very...
- yrimaxi 6y agoIndeed the reverse of my point.
- giantg2 6y agoThat's sort of true. But this is only true in a democratic republic, not true direct democracy. Also, I don't believe most people are really claiming #3 - most people agree the choices suck, but don't hold individuals personally responsible.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoA republic is just any state not ruled by a monarch. And direct democracy isn’t the only way to eliminate it drastically mitigate the limited choice problem. Proportional representation with some form of ranked choice voting could drastically reduce the size and power of parties, lower the barrier to entry for more popular candidates, and promote coalition rule/compromise/political will.
- dane-pgp 6y agoCertainly a voting system that avoids spoiler candidates and "wasted"/tactical votes should lead to better parties and candidates becoming options and winning elections. The original complaint above was that some unaccountable group "will pick a handful of people that you may choose from", which shouldn't be a problem if only party primaries were run properly, but I suppose that in a two-party state there isn't much selective pressure on either party to represent even the majority of its members, let alone the majority of voters or citizens.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoThis could be called the activist’s syllogism too. I’m tired of how folks take “I don’t think X will actually help fix Y” as “I don’t think Y needs fixing.” This is a thing, so we must do it. If you disagree, you’re immoral.
- umvi 6y agoIf only it were easier to undo things if they prove ineffective. Too often laws (or repealing of laws) are one way rachets that require enormous momentum to undo. As a result we can't really try solutions to problems. We are committed to any solution we implement for decades even if it is ineffective.
- cosmiccatnap 6y agoI propose an alternative and somewhat more generally applicable depiction. 1. I have chosen my employment with the goal of only doing things which would benefit myself. 2. This does (or does not) benefit me 3. I will (or will not) do it. You could call this the Mitch Mcconnell Syllogism. See, while on the surface it might seem like idiots simply doing things at random, behind it all is a greed based motivation, which is probably related to public opinion or reelection, but in the end it's all the result of a desire to survive in their current position as a means to exploit it for further personal gain, so my proposal is a superset of the afformentioned.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoDisclaimer: my views range liberal-far left on most (but not all) issues, but I’m posting this for levity, not to malign any particular political view. I’ll include some where I’m the butt to show good faith. Liberal variant: 0. Nothing is being done. ... Original Libertarian/conservative variant: 0. Too many things have been done. ... Original Marxist variant: 1. Original. 2. Class is the only thing. 3. Class is the only thing. Anarchist (left) variant: 1. Smash the state. Social democrat in a social democracy variant: 1. Original. 2. Seizing the means of production is too extreme. 3. We must do nothing. Social democrat not in a social democracy variant: 1. Original. 2. Seizing the means of production is too extreme. ... Liberal variant
- eyelidlessness 6y agoWhoever downvoted this must feel left out?
- jessaustin 6y agoMonarchists, probably.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoLet's see. 1. Someone must rule. 2. The king is someone. 3. Therefore the king must rule.
- djohnston 6y agoOne example of this is the law in the US that all buses are supposed to stop in front of tracks regardless of traffic signals. There was an accident once and now buses do this needless maneuver: https://brokensecrets.com/2011/04/08/the-incident-why-buses-open-their-door-at-railroads/ https://brokensecrets.com/2011/04/08/the-incident-why-buses-....
- jessaustin 6y agoI don't want to ride a bus, and I especially don't want my kids to ride a school bus, that doesn't stop to check for oncoming trains.
- djsumdog 6y agoOP is specifically talking about the part where the bus driver opens the door, not just the signal check. I knew bus drivers who'd open the door as they went over the tracks .. kinda defeats the purpose.
- jessaustin 6y agoIn buses licensed to serve the public, opening the door is a single button-press, accessible from the driver's normal seated position. No additional delay is created.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThere was considerably more than "one accident once".
- djohnston 6y agoFTA (i linked): "Although it was required by law for school bus drivers to stop at railway crossings in 1938, drivers were not required to open their door. On December 1st of that year a gruesome accident changed that. It was a blizzard in Salt Lake City, Utah and a school bus driver stopped his bus at a railway crossing. Because of the snow, the visibility was terrible and the driver was not able to see an approaching freight train." If there were more accidents, they weren't a catalyst for anything. It was this specific incident and politicians' syllogism that caused the silly thing to be enacted.
- aaron695 6y agoThe episode is a defund the police episode - https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t4kaz https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5t4kaz (19 min mark, for the politician's logic) I'd agree the logic would be correct at the level of government, because of umvi's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25609167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25609167 At a personal level I think it's wrong. Doing something is better than not seems where the evidence is. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/quitting-your-job-and-other-life-choices/495122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/quittin...
- djsumdog 6y agoI feel like there's direct application to the lockdowns. A lot of them are arbitrary nonsense and not based on any actual academic study at all. You can simply look at different nations and different efforts, and except for very few outliers (NZ, South Korea) they've never had a consistent effect. California had/has some of the strictest closures, while Florida has tried to avoid them entirely, and look at the result. In NYC and Michigan, many of the dead elderly came directly due to orders by the governess to house sick elderly in care homes with healthy people. This is a situation where if they had done literally nothing at all, thousands of people would still be alive.
- atoav 6y ago> A lot of them are arbitrary nonsense and not based on any actual academic study at all. Yet most of the measures are intuitively a step in the right direction when thinking about an airborne pandemic. What I think is even more unacademic, irrational and wishful thinking than the measures against the pandemic are the exceptions made in those measures. E.g. how schools are handled in most western nations ("There are no infections in schools, the scientific papers which say otherwise have to vanish in some drawer"). A lot of pandemic response is about reducing contact. What surprised me about the people in my vicinity at the start of the pandemic was how many (otherwise intelligent) people where like: "If a measure isn't 100% scientifically sound or 100% effective than it ahouldn't be rolled out". When I asked these people what they would do instead they didn't have an answer. They all didn't understand that the measures where about reducing contacts (as opposed to 100% preventing) and tried to do so while leaving some individual freedoms. That the resulting rulesets will have a ton of counterintuitive edge cases is pretty unsurprising: teatchers that are expected to work with each other in school aren't allowed to meet outside of school etc. I think rules are one thing, but the local mentality has a much stronger influence. If you e.g. observe how each of the nations in Europe is doing even when the rules are comparable, any person who knows the local mentalities isn't surprised by which nations fare well and which don't. Just like that it didn't surprise me that asian nations like Taiwan or South Korea dealt well with the virus while a Trump lead US didn't (and let's face it, even a US lead by pandemic experts wouldn't have fared well, due to local mentality). Egoistic individualism is deadly in a pandemic. Doing as if everybody exists in isolation of each other (and therefore has to deal with problems themselves) is deadly in a pandemic. Not realizing we are part of society is deadly in a pandemic.
- rimiform 6y agoThe problem with democracy is that other people get to vote, as well.