4 ms·

"He ... is a proponent of government mechanics to get people to do the right thing" Sounds like the last person I want anywhere near my government. "when they

"He ... is a proponent of government mechanics to get people to do the right thing" Sounds like the last person I want anywhere near my government. "when they would ordinarily fall prey to fallacious reasoning" The first problem here is that the idea of a "fallacy" only makes sense in the context of logic, and politics often diverges from logic. Even if we could have a political system that was logically consistent, there would need to be some set of axioms on which that system is based, and the approach of "protecting" people from fallacious reasoning would only serve to prevent those axioms from being changed. Put in less polite terms, he is proposing that the government protect itself from political dissent. I believe there is a name for such a system...

rayiner 13y ago
First, your point doesn't make sense. Why would protecting people from fallacious reasoning prevent the axioms of the system from being changed? Fallacious reasoning is not reasoning that is incorrect under one set of axioms that may be correct under a different set of axioms. It's reasoning that draws illogical inferences from available evidence. An argument that is fallacious under one set of axioms will still be fallacious under a different set. Second, you're taking his argument wildly out of context. There is a well-established literature on the fact that human behavior often deviates from the rational actor model, as a result of cognitive bias and fallacious reasoning, and that results in economic inefficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics. He's not talking about political dissent. He's talking about things like people not saving enough because of hyperbolic discounting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting. So we pass laws that force people to save (e.g. Australia's superannuation). That sort of thing. I don't think his solutions are practical. I'm just pointing out that they're not sinister.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Fallacious reasoning is not reasoning that is incorrect under one set of axioms that may be correct under a different set of axioms" In fact it is reasoning that might be correct under a different sent of axioms. The very basic fallacy involving division by zero to show that 1=2 is illustrative: you can certainly set up a system of axioms where 1=2 is not a false statement (it may be a boring system, but it does exist). "He's not talking about political dissent" Unless you are arguing against economically rational laws and policies, which quite a lot of political groups and dissenters do.

rayiner 13y ago

First, your point doesn't make sense. Why would protecting people from fallacious reasoning prevent the axioms of the system from being changed? Fallacious reasoning is not reasoning that is incorrect under one set of axioms that may be correct under a different set of axioms. It's reasoning that draws illogical inferences from available evidence. An argument that is fallacious under one set of axioms will still be fallacious under a different set. Second, you're taking his argument wildly out of context. There is a well-established literature on the fact that human behavior often deviates from the rational actor model, as a result of cognitive bias and fallacious reasoning, and that results in economic inefficiency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics. He's not talking about political dissent. He's talking about things like people not saving enough because of hyperbolic discounting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting. So we pass laws that force people to save (e.g. Australia's superannuation). That sort of thing. I don't think his solutions are practical. I'm just pointing out that they're not sinister.

betterunix 13y ago
"Fallacious reasoning is not reasoning that is incorrect under one set of axioms that may be correct under a different set of axioms" In fact it is reasoning that might be correct under a different sent of axioms. The very basic fallacy involving division by zero to show that 1=2 is illustrative: you can certainly set up a system of axioms where 1=2 is not a false statement (it may be a boring system, but it does exist). "He's not talking about political dissent" Unless you are arguing against economically rational laws and policies, which quite a lot of political groups and dissenters do.