|
The Larch posted:Fallacies in general are grossly misunderstood. (Hell, arguments in general are grossly misunderstood. See the continual confusion between a slippery slope and a reductio ad absurdum.) The fallacy in a no true Scotsman is the introduction of a qualifier after the fact. If you open with "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge" then that's not a no true Scotsman. It's just dumb as hell. Similarly, if you were to somehow end up at "no true Scostman is a dog", then you wouldn't be committing a no true Scotsman because, although not explicitly stated at any prior point in the argument, "is a human being" is an implicit part of the definition of "Scotsman". Yeah, pretty much every finding in the natural sciences can be dismissed in the pure logic world by claiming "hasty generalization," because the fallacy gives no threshold of evidence before the generalization is allowable. This is because pure logic, like praxeology, is fundamentally disconnected from reality. e.g. Just because your magnet attracted this piece of iron today, doesn't mean you can generalize that trait to that magnet every day. Nor even can you generalize that another piece of iron will be attracted to it. Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Apr 7, 2016 |
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
my initial thoughts on The Batman Chronicles #11's "The Berlin Batman": "well at least matt hollingsworth did the colors on the cover so this issue isn't a total fuckin wash, that guy rules" when the colorist springs to mind quickly that is usually a Bad Sign
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS. VON MISES IS NO EXCEPTION
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO THEIR OWN THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS. VON MISES IS NO EXCEPTION
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
theshim posted:oh god other than that it doesn't ever really disappear up its own rear end until the very end, you could very easily mistake it for just another elseworlds batman story until the parts about the importance of von mises a super mediocre one but i'll blame that on it being crammed into sixteen pages instead of being a full length OGN/prestiege format comic like most elseworlds pope does a p good job drawing golden age batman though, so that was nice BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
quote:Ludwig von Mises was a man who lived according to his personal motto, Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. — Do not give into evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it. bruce wayne gives an absolute fuckton of his comic book sized fortune to charity and establishes foundations to help the people of gotham because he knows that the only way to actually stop crime is to make it unnecessary, you goddamn schween batman would loving hate you
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've been thinking for a while that "No True Scotsman" is too often misused as a fallacy. Taken as far as many people do, to the point where anyone feels nervous about claiming that anything isn't really what it claims to be, leads to never being able to define what a term means beyond whatever anyone uses it to refer to. That isn't even the point of the fallacy, though. The original example is something like claiming that Scotsmen don't put jam on toast, and when presented with an example of a Scotsman doing just that, it's waved off because he couldn't really be a Scotsman, because "no true Scotsman" would. The point here is that claims about how one eats toast aren't really plausibly within the basic definition of what it means to be Scottish. Saying "All Scotsmen are either citizens of Scotland or close descendants of Scots" is a claim much harder to find meaningful counter-examples where one couldn't appeal to some basic understanding of what national identity means. At that point the argument would have to be over what it means to have a nationality, not playing a logical fallacy like some Magic: The Gathering counterspell card. A lot of fallacies are misused with regularity on the Internet because people treat them as an AH HA moment. Ad hominem for example, has gotten the 'literally' treatment over the last decade or so to mean something not at all to do with its origin. An ad hominem fallacy is when I say "You are a child molester and thus you are wrong." the key is that I am attacking the basis of your argument based not on any logical argument (which is why it is a fallacy) but based on an irrelevant factoid about you. An ad hominem is not simply an insult. If I respond to an argument by calling you a watermelon fucker that isn't an ad hominem fallacy. I'm in no way addressing your argument, I am just insulting you. It is certainly bad form, but it isn't a logical fallacy. Likewise, saying that you are wrong because you are a child molester isn't a logical fallacy if the subject is age of consent. An ad hominem requires that it be an irrelevant fact, whereas pointing out that particular factoid informs the listener of possible personal bias. Ad hominem drives me nuts and I have spent an inordinate amount of time smacking people when they use it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Yeah, pretty much every finding in the natural sciences can be dismissed in the pure logic world by claiming "hasty generalization," because the fallacy gives no threshold of evidence before the generalization is allowable. This is because pure logic, like praxeology, is fundamentally disconnected from reality. Technically speaking the basis for supporting a hypothesis because its predictions pan out is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "Just because something happens after the thing you claim causes it doesn't mean it's the real cause." Fortunately, science is not actually in the business of formal proof and concepts like parsimony help us to determine the most likely cause of something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Technically speaking the basis for supporting a hypothesis because its predictions pan out is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. "Just because something happens after the thing you claim causes it doesn't mean it's the real cause." Fortunately, science is not actually in the business of formal proof and concepts like parsimony help us to determine the most likely cause of something. Just to beat Cingulate to the punch, the modern conception is based around making up a theory by pure conjecture, then figuring out what parts of it could be falsified by experiment. It's called the "falsificationist" or "prove me wrong, bitches" view. Duhem and Quine (and Kuhn, I guess) had objections to this, and Lakatos made some important adjustments, but it's still basically the core. Literally The Worst posted:bruce wayne gives an absolute fuckton of his comic book sized fortune to charity and establishes foundations to help the people of gotham because he knows that the only way to actually stop crime is to make it unnecessary, you goddamn schween "Do not give into evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it." -Ludwig von Mises, economic advisor to the Austrofascist Dollfuss Regime
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:I mean, the founder and "Great Leader" Kim Il-Sung is basically taught to the populace as being a literal god. But the Kims are given titles like "Eternal President," "Sun of Socialism," even "Glorious General Who Descended from Heaven," and others that you would hesitate to use even for a divine monarch. KJI was officially born on Mount Paektu, which is considered sacred. And the propaganda plays praising Kim il-Sung contains scenes where workers reap bounteous harvest and proclaim things like (I'm going from memory here) "Even the wind and the waves recognize his greatness." They imply the Kims are demigods with supernatural powers without making direct claims. Which is a curious balancing act, because they need to credit the Kims are responsible for everything good, but entirely blameless for anything that goes wrong. The official line seems to be that the Kims are larger-than-life heroes like Doc Savage--they don't have superpowers, but they're unique geniuses who are leading experts in every single field of expertise imaginable. Hence the "on the spot guidance" tours that produce all those pictures of them pointing and looking at things. It's clear, though, that the people revere him with a reverence that can only be called religious. Brian Myers said he met many refugees who denounced the regime but couldn't bring themselves to blame the Kims personally, and couldn't even talk about them without getting emotional. Most damning was that none of them knew a loving thing about Marxism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I am okay with that.  Seriously, they need to look inwards for the pseudoscience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:It's clear, though, that the people revere him with a reverence that can only be called religious. Brian Myers said he met many refugees who denounced the regime but couldn't bring themselves to blame the Kims personally, and couldn't even talk about them without getting emotional. Most damning was that none of them knew a loving thing about Marxism. It's charming that "the good king badly advised" is still relevant somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Just to beat Cingulate to the punch, the modern conception is based around making up a theory by pure conjecture, then figuring out what parts of it could be falsified by experiment. It's called the "falsificationist" or "prove me wrong, bitches" view. Duhem and Quine (and Kuhn, I guess) had objections to this, and Lakatos made some important adjustments, but it's still basically the core. Yes, I brought it up as an indictment of the notion that purely logical conclusions can be applied without fail to reality. Also thanks, I never looked into why it was called the Austrian School. I had no idea von Mises was part of a bold-faced Catholo-fascist regime. That's awesome. GunnerJ posted:It's charming that "the good king badly advised" is still relevant somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Also thanks, I never looked into why it was called the Austrian School. I had no idea von Mises was part of a bold-faced Catholo-fascist regime. That's awesome. Yeah, there's a reason why Walter Block is so obsessed with the idea of using libertarianism as a valid defense in Nuremburg-style trials. The reason he uses "a libertarian professor who preaches his ideology at a public university" as his example is because Hoppe worked at UNLV. fake edit: it has not escaped my notice that, of all the prominent members of the Austrian School, the Actual Literal Fascist seems to have said the least amount of heinous poo poo by far. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It's charming that "the good king badly advised" is still relevant somewhere. For a long time, they were able to do a lot with the fact that their population wasn't very mobile and was truly ignorant of how things were proceeding outside the country. Kim Jong Il blamed the 90s famine entirely on the American military threat, and declared that he couldn't fix economic matters because he was going to be spending all his time racing between military bases to shore up their national security.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Assumptions are bad and economics in today's practice rely on them a poo poo ton. That's a summarized version of how I view ~keynesian~ economics, but I think we've already passed that discussion
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I've been thinking for a while that "No True Scotsman" is too often misused as a fallacy. Taken as far as many people do, to the point where anyone feels nervous about claiming that anything isn't really what it claims to be, leads to never being able to define what a term means beyond whatever anyone uses it to refer to. That isn't even the point of the fallacy, though. The original example is something like claiming that Scotsmen don't put jam on toast, and when presented with an example of a Scotsman doing just that, it's waved off because he couldn't really be a Scotsman, because "no true Scotsman" would. The point here is that claims about how one eats toast aren't really plausibly within the basic definition of what it means to be Scottish. Saying "All Scotsmen are either citizens of Scotland or close descendants of Scots" is a claim much harder to find meaningful counter-examples where one couldn't appeal to some basic understanding of what national identity means. At that point the argument would have to be over what it means to have a nationality, not playing a logical fallacy like some Magic: The Gathering counterspell card. But yeah, there's never been a True Scotsman, but there's multiple guys who say they were inspired by True Scotsmanism, and they're all huge dicks. And that means something. Not sure what, but definitely something. Edit: I have no idea what I was writing here with Hoover. I'm pretty uneducated about US history, and economic history in general. Caros posted:A lot of fallacies are misused with regularity on the Internet because people treat them as an AH HA moment. Goon Danton posted:Just to beat Cingulate to the punch, the modern conception is based around making up a theory by pure conjecture, then figuring out what parts of it could be falsified by experiment. It's called the "falsificationist" or "prove me wrong, bitches" view. Duhem and Quine (and Kuhn, I guess) had objections to this, and Lakatos made some important adjustments, but it's still basically the core. Speaking for the fields I know well - cognitive neuroscience, psychology, linguistics - they are surely not even superficially about falsificability. In practice, and moreso in rhetoric, a lot of scientists - including many physicists - are rather positivists. I personally consider this a mistake, but it's still the situation. Generally, the status of Popper as normative vs. descriptive is unclear. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's at the moment salient to me is that while there has probably never been a large-scale, stable, by-the-book socialist/communist or libertarian society, we can see (not to speak for now of fascist) multiple attempts at creating the former - people who, we have all reason to believe, were truly trying to create a socialist utopia - with well-known results. And we don't really have that with libertarian societies for some reason. I guess you could say Hoover and the Great Depression was something like that, and if I was a libertarian, I'd actually like if people swallowed that, because Hoover and the Great Depression was bad, but not Great Terror or Holodomor bad. But then, I doubt actual libertarians would call Hoover a libertarian. You won't see much in the way of attempts at society-wide libertarianism because it's a small and impotent movement. The rich have no use for it because the status quo works fine for them, and poor mass movements won't form around an ideology that brags about how much it will gently caress them over. There will be the occasional ideologue raising money to found a new libertarian order outside the reach of current society, but that brings its own host of hilarious problems. China Mieville explains it better than I can. As for Hoover, he wasn't so much a libertarian as he was a follower of mainstream economics of the time, which libertarianism cribs from in a big way. To put it one way, "libertarianism" is the remnant of that research program after the Depression pushed it into a degenerative spiral.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's at the moment salient to me is that while there has probably never been a large-scale, stable, by-the-book socialist/communist or libertarian society, we can see (not to speak for now of fascist) multiple attempts at creating the former - people who, we have all reason to believe, were truly trying to create a socialist utopia - with well-known results. And we don't really have that with libertarian societies for some reason. I guess you could say Hoover and the Clutch Plague was something like that, and if I was a libertarian, I'd actually like if people swallowed that, because Hoover and the Clutch Plague was bad, but not Great Terror or Holodomor bad. But then, I doubt actual libertarians would call Hoover a libertarian. I thought the Gilded Age was the libertopia
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I thought the Gilded Age was the libertopia There was still a government, which is why there was all the bad stuff like patent medicine, and cholera, and racism. A proper libertopia would only contain the good parts like technological progress, and child labor, and racism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Yeah, pretty much every finding in the natural sciences can be dismissed in the pure logic world by claiming "hasty generalization," because the fallacy gives no threshold of evidence before the generalization is allowable. This is because pure logic, like praxeology, is fundamentally disconnected from reality. Is this why Objectivists hate Kant and write lengthy anti-Kant diatribes into heavy metal album reviews (this actually happened)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Is this why Objectivists hate Kant and write lengthy anti-Kant diatribes into heavy metal album reviews (this actually happened)? that sounds like a great F Plus episode
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Is this why Objectivists hate Kant and write lengthy anti-Kant diatribes into heavy metal album reviews (this actually happened)? No, that argument is Hume's, and Kant basically dedicated his career to fixing everything Hume broke. I'm pretty sure Objectivists hate Kant because he laid out a case for a morality that (a) stated we have an obligation not to treat other people as a means to an end, and (b) isn't rooted in a religious scripture that they can easily dismiss. Rand called it Kantian Nihilism for reasons I can't even begin to figure out. edit: found a blog post describing the animosity in detail. Shockingly, Rand had no idea what the gently caress she was talking about. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Apr 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What's at the moment salient to me is that while there has probably never been a large-scale, stable, by-the-book socialist/communist or libertarian society, we can see (not to speak for now of fascist) multiple attempts at creating the former - people who, we have all reason to believe, were truly trying to create a socialist utopia - with well-known results. And we don't really have that with libertarian societies for some reason. I guess you could say Hoover and the Great Depression was something like that, and if I was a libertarian, I'd actually like if people swallowed that, because Hoover and the Great Depression was bad, but not Great Terror or Holodomor bad. But then, I doubt actual libertarians would call Hoover a libertarian. Trying to compare the human cost of socialist vs capitalist economies through history is definitely not going to come out looking good for the capitalists. Mornacale fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Trying to compare the human cost of socialist vs capitalist economies through history is definitely not going to come out looking good for the capitalists. But your answer doesn't really make contact with my post; I said libertarian, not capitalist. All-out libertarians have so far not have a chance to show if they'd also do e.g. the genocide thing. Margaret Thatcher was into Hayek I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Trying to compare the human cost of socialist vs capitalist economies through history is definitely not going to come out looking good for the capitalists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That depends on your definitions; social democracies (as socialists) vs. robber barons is a different fight than social democracies (as capitalists) vs. any explicitly Marxist state. The british empire's famines kinda...outdoes anything in history in scope. quote:But your answer doesn't really make contact with my post; I said libertarian, not capitalist. All-out libertarians have so far not have a chance to show if they'd also do e.g. the genocide thing. British empire banned the Ottoman's from supporting Ireland during the potato famine because the market was sorting itself out, does that count? Or their removal of the system's in place in India to stop famine in order to create "free markets"? WhitemageofDOOM fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
WhitemageofDOOM posted:The british empire's famines kinda...outdoes anything in history in scope. To abbreviate the counter case: 1. by absolute numbers, Maoism in China was greater. By relative numbers, Cambodia (and possibly the Holodomor). 2. famines had killed millions before the British took over - or before Mao took over. And neither Mao nor the Empire let people starve because they wanted them gone, it was economic incompetence in either case. But a Great Terror? A Pol Pot? (Belgish Congo is an often ignored strong contender, although, yeah, that was a king.) 3. Following #2, it was the Green Revolution that nearly ended famine in SE Asia. It's not trivial, and largely depends on what instances you admit. WhitemageofDOOM posted:British empire banned the Ottoman's from supporting Ireland during the potato famine because the market was sorting itself out, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Yeah I talked to a worker and one of the rights he said he likes having is the right to not be sent to a labor camp forever where you have to eat rats to survive If you want me to believe that work camps exist in North Korea, you need to show me the evidence. And I don't mean CIA-fabricated "evidence" like eyewitness testimonies from defectors or satellite images or written records any of that. And I don't mean evidence that could be planted in my brain by CIA mind control, like an offer to personally fly me to North Korea, see the camps for myself, and talk to the people there. I mean real evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:And neither Mao nor the Empire let people starve because they wanted them gone, it was economic incompetence in either case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yet somehow this exculpates the capitalists and condemns the socialists in the same breath. What I was saying here is that one has the option of differentiating intentional genocide from incompetence, and that this totally changes the numbers, but not in a clear way. I do not understand why you said what you said, considering the first sentence of my post was "Not necessarily", and the last "It's not trivial, and largely depends on what instances you admit.". The issue is, however, rather black and white if one compares capitalist liberal democracy to (marxist) socialism. Historically speaking, anything with liberalism in the title dominates every other mode of being as a society, in being, by a large amount, less awful than them. That would even be a bit closer to my original point, and to the thread topic: that while socialism has readily proved to make a great inspiration for terror on an unbelievable scale, libertarianism has so far not dishonored itself in this manner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That would even be a bit closer to my original point, and to the thread topic: that while socialism has readily proved to make a great inspiration for terror on an unbelievable scale, libertarianism has so far not dishonored itself in this manner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The economic theories that the British cited to justify letting the Irish starve in the Famine were in essence the same economic theories advanced by libertarians. Now granted there are and were more Chinese than Irishmen, but I would call that a signal dishonor. The point I am making, however, is that while the Capital has been the inspiration for a great many genocides, Road to Serfdom has not, Anarchy, Utopia and the State has not, and in fact, neither has Atlas Shrugged. Granted, neither has the Lord of the Rings, so it's debatable how far that point will get anyone. But still: conceding that neither a libertarian, nor a communist regime ever existed, libertarian books have not inspired genocides, but Marxism has. So what I am talking about is: when people set out on the road to their personal utopia, one kind of utopia somehow guides one into gulags, one into a Starbucks, and one into a really really bad science fiction book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The point I am making, however, is that while the Capital has been the inspiration for a great many genocides, what
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:what
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're making it too hard on yourself here. By that mode of reasoning, communism is innocent, because no (large) communist regime ever existed (Stalinism was not communism, but autocratic dictatorship etc).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Our goal wasn't to kill millions of Indians, that would be socialism and of course terrible. Our goal was to make money, killing millions of Indians was just a means, so see no one was really at fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
You'll notice I brought up intentionality primarily to give everyone not Mao a chance, because if we include famine, it's just Mao all over the scoreboards. (If you don't notice that, that is an interesting data point.) This should be viewed separately from intentional genocide through starvation, such as the Hunger Plan. Mao and the British, in contrast, most likely didn't do what they did because they hated Chinese/Indians, it's just that they didn't particularly care either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
I guess I don't understand the significance of that distinction. If Hitler had worked six million Jews to death because he really wanted tanks instead of because he hated Jews it wouldn't have been mass murder? Or what, why is it important whether they had hate in their hearts
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:10
|
|