4 ms·

It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical. So creating logic games from arbitrary metaphors (what politics is based in and esp

It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical. So creating logic games from arbitrary metaphors (what politics is based in and especially when each side is calling the other with the same arbitrary label) is like creating a card game that only let's the house win. https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/irrationality.htm https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/irrationality.htm

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical The paper you cite is entirely unempirical. It’s using the same methods you criticize in the article.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mallowdram 1y ago
  Are you kidding, it deals with phenomena and beliefs, do you understand the illusion of beliefs? What phenomena is?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > it deals with phenomena and beliefs Fair enough, in a formal manner it’s empirical. As a work, it’s political philosophy. Not science. Which makes it odd as a counterpoint to arguing the article in question is too aloof. (Also, conflating irrational and illogical is unfounded. Nature is irrational. Per Caplan, individual agents may find it advantageous to act illogically. It doesn’t follow that one can’t use logic or rational thought to characterize the system.)
    - mallowdram 1y ago
      It's philosophy, Michael Huemer is a philosopher, not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic. Nature is neither rational nor irrational, nor is it logical or illogical. By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical, which means politics has no basis in logic-derived axioms as propagated by Alexander. Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument. Your replies are extremely irrelevant.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic What would you call someone who waxes philosophy on politics? > By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical Lovely, so logic—by your construction—is useless given nature itself, lacking the ability to understand, is not rational. (You’re mixing up sub-definitions of rationality. None of this is relevant, however, to the broader topic.) > Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument Was this written by AI?
        mallowdram 1y ago
        sorry, I've tuned you out. Probably I'm not an AI considering typos and agreement errors.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > I've tuned you out Robust counterargument. To conclude the thread, yes, you obviously can reason about politics in the same way one can reason about anything else that doesn't behave rationally, like fish, through to things which can't reason at all, whether they be oceans or planets. Moreover, one can logically characterise that which behaves illogically in the same way we can mathematically characterise and constrain the behaviour of fractals and fluids and other objects which are, fundamentally, impossible to precisely describe.
        mallowfram 1y ago
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> politics is by nature illogical. It is, but only for those who know neither logic nor politics. > So creating logic games from arbitrary metaphors So don't create them. > arbitrary metaphors [are] what politics is based in and especially when each side is calling the other with the same arbitrary label. That's true for the R/D circus but it's not true for politics in general, it's not a law of nature, it's just a fact of present day politics. More importantly, framing that fact as something inevitable renders the framer incapable of recognizing its utmost importance as a piece of evidence that can help a diligent investigator uncover the political truths hidden behind it.
- mallowdram 1y ago
  Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. The framer has no valid framework. There are no such things as empirically valid statements in political science, as the field is composed of subjective narratives. There are no such things as political truths.
  - bigbadfeline 1y ago
    > Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. Oh, yes it is, there's history to learn from, just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > The framer has no valid framework. If you understood the comment you replied to, you'd realize that "the framer" there refers to you, so your statement above means "mallowdram has no valid framework". Ironically, it's true - you lack a valid framework because you lack knowledge of logic, history and politics.
    - mallowdram 1y ago
      There is no relationship between history (which is subjectively narrated), logic (which is an abstraction) and politics (what are arbitrary). If you had an understanding of what history is, you'd understand it has no scientific validity. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-things-wrong/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-thin... As there is no scientific basis for history, and there is no logic to politics (it is irrational), nothing stated by Alexander is valid.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical The paper you cite is entirely unempirical. It’s using the same methods you criticize in the article.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mallowdram 1y ago
Are you kidding, it deals with phenomena and beliefs, do you understand the illusion of beliefs? What phenomena is?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > it deals with phenomena and beliefs Fair enough, in a formal manner it’s empirical. As a work, it’s political philosophy. Not science. Which makes it odd as a counterpoint to arguing the article in question is too aloof. (Also, conflating irrational and illogical is unfounded. Nature is irrational. Per Caplan, individual agents may find it advantageous to act illogically. It doesn’t follow that one can’t use logic or rational thought to characterize the system.)
  - mallowdram 1y ago
    It's philosophy, Michael Huemer is a philosopher, not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic. Nature is neither rational nor irrational, nor is it logical or illogical. By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical, which means politics has no basis in logic-derived axioms as propagated by Alexander. Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument. Your replies are extremely irrelevant.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic What would you call someone who waxes philosophy on politics? > By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical Lovely, so logic—by your construction—is useless given nature itself, lacking the ability to understand, is not rational. (You’re mixing up sub-definitions of rationality. None of this is relevant, however, to the broader topic.) > Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument Was this written by AI?
      - mallowdram 1y ago
        sorry, I've tuned you out. Probably I'm not an AI considering typos and agreement errors.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > I've tuned you out Robust counterargument. To conclude the thread, yes, you obviously can reason about politics in the same way one can reason about anything else that doesn't behave rationally, like fish, through to things which can't reason at all, whether they be oceans or planets. Moreover, one can logically characterise that which behaves illogically in the same way we can mathematically characterise and constrain the behaviour of fractals and fluids and other objects which are, fundamentally, impossible to precisely describe.
        mallowfram 1y ago

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> politics is by nature illogical. It is, but only for those who know neither logic nor politics. > So creating logic games from arbitrary metaphors So don't create them. > arbitrary metaphors [are] what politics is based in and especially when each side is calling the other with the same arbitrary label. That's true for the R/D circus but it's not true for politics in general, it's not a law of nature, it's just a fact of present day politics. More importantly, framing that fact as something inevitable renders the framer incapable of recognizing its utmost importance as a piece of evidence that can help a diligent investigator uncover the political truths hidden behind it.

mallowdram 1y ago
Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. The framer has no valid framework. There are no such things as empirically valid statements in political science, as the field is composed of subjective narratives. There are no such things as political truths.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago
  > Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. Oh, yes it is, there's history to learn from, just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > The framer has no valid framework. If you understood the comment you replied to, you'd realize that "the framer" there refers to you, so your statement above means "mallowdram has no valid framework". Ironically, it's true - you lack a valid framework because you lack knowledge of logic, history and politics.
  - mallowdram 1y ago
    There is no relationship between history (which is subjectively narrated), logic (which is an abstraction) and politics (what are arbitrary). If you had an understanding of what history is, you'd understand it has no scientific validity. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-things-wrong/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-thin... As there is no scientific basis for history, and there is no logic to politics (it is irrational), nothing stated by Alexander is valid.