5 ms·

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
        Math has no relationship to behavior, nor do almost all terms used to describe behavior, engineers should have already grasped cog-sci is folk science. If engineers remain uneducated in this way, you'll become sycophants led as lemmings by cult figures like Alexander. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Math has no relationship to behavior, nor do almost all terms used to describe behavior The math of orbital mechanics has no relation to the behaviour of objects in orbit?
        mallowfram 1y ago
        We're talking about "you obviously can reason about politics in the same way one can reason about anything else that doesn't behave rationally, like fish" Stick to politics, that's the thread, engineer.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

> 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
        Math has no relationship to behavior, nor do almost all terms used to describe behavior, engineers should have already grasped cog-sci is folk science. If engineers remain uneducated in this way, you'll become sycophants led as lemmings by cult figures like Alexander. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Math has no relationship to behavior, nor do almost all terms used to describe behavior The math of orbital mechanics has no relation to the behaviour of objects in orbit?
        mallowfram 1y ago
        We're talking about "you obviously can reason about politics in the same way one can reason about anything else that doesn't behave rationally, like fish" Stick to politics, that's the thread, engineer.