3 ms·

It's philosophy, Michael Huemer is a philosopher, not a "political philosopher" which is oxymoronic. Nature is neither rational nor irrational, nor is it logica

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.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Stick to politics, that's the thread, engineer Lol what? You just posted a cog-sci op ed whose first third rambles on being refused publication decades prior. (The second two thirds pretends behavioural neutoanatomy, where we stimulate brain structures to see what happens, doesn’t exist.)
        mallowfram 1y ago
        You don't even grasp what that paper is. It's not an op-ed, it's a theory/review article with empirical evidence that's increased many percentages since it was refused publication, now it's a primary approach in neurobiology. Read carefully.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

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.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Stick to politics, that's the thread, engineer Lol what? You just posted a cog-sci op ed whose first third rambles on being refused publication decades prior. (The second two thirds pretends behavioural neutoanatomy, where we stimulate brain structures to see what happens, doesn’t exist.)
        mallowfram 1y ago
        You don't even grasp what that paper is. It's not an op-ed, it's a theory/review article with empirical evidence that's increased many percentages since it was refused publication, now it's a primary approach in neurobiology. Read carefully.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago