Perry: Government you can TRUST.

[Cain]

 

[Kai]

Just to be clear, I do think that people can live and thrive together because I don't think we would have survived as a species for the last 2 million years if it wasn't so. Once we understood microorganismal causes for diseases and cultured various bacteria, it became possible to discover vaccines and antibiotics. Before that, doctors just did things to people and hoped that they worked, never knowing why if they did. Right now, that's how we react to economic and social systems that seem "sick". Various authorities prescribe cures and sometimes they work, often not, and it's unknown why.

So I disagree with Pent, in the same way I would disagree with a medieval doctor who told me that whether his practice worked was up to god. Sometimes these cynical blanket statements sound like analogues to creationist diatribes. "Human social systems can't work, because, so there. I mean, just look at them! They're hairless apes, they can't do anything right!"

[Kai]

Possibly.  I've thought Behavioural Economics may work as a framework, also.

Anything that acknowledges that humans are social animals whose interactions are based largely in dominance hierarchy struggles and due to memory problems, poor future sense and cognitive bias will often take perceived short term gain over rational best interest is much better than the farce which is being prescribed right now.

Well, exactly.

The problem is, "science" is kinda a dirty word in many of the social sciences right now, among intelligent people, precisely because of the kind of "theorizing" I mentioned above when I replied to PopeTom.  And that's not entirely without merit, when you consider how horribly wrong the likes of the Chicago School of Economics and the Harvard School of Government have been on every major topic in economics and politics in the last 50 years.  They're applying a sort of quasi-scientific approach...it's just so horribly flawed and wrong that anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by their little academic cults is immediately turned off.

The thing is, at least with politics, the historical factor has to be present.  As does the humanist factor.  Coupled with actual experiments of how people actually behave in situations which can be scaled up to the level of concern which the researcher is involved with.  Economics requires the psychological and cultural factors which are almost entirely ignored (or, more cruelly, acknowledged but then advocating their destruction in order to bring about the perfect economic future).

The instrumental-rationalist/quasi-scientific approach in the social sciences has been an utter disaster, not just for our understanding of the world, but on a real, practical level.  It cannot go on like this forever.

If I understand this and your earliest post, the best description, the most parsimonious, simplest rulebook for an economic system is actually not simple or easily described by simple factors. The most parsimonious answer, when using all of the factors including psychological and cultural factors is one of startling complexity, far more complex than what the current economic authorities are selling.

Therein, as you say, is why Harvard Economics is quasi-scientific, as a full scientific approach would attempt to include all factors (or at least attempt to isolate them individually and then combine them later) and not stop at an easy answer if it didn't fully explain the system.

[Cain]

Precisely.  The author I quoted makes exactly the same point.  Yes, a theory should not include unnecessary information....but when you're dealing with groups of people, the pool of relevant information is going to be a lot larger.  Off the top of my head, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, behavioural economics, sociology, social psychology, history, the sociology of religion, political philosophy and strategic cultures would be a starting point for understanding in IR, and likely economics as well.

There is actually a branch of IR which deals with this multi-level approach quite well.  Conflict studies, at least as I was led to understand it, works at the individual level (psychology, ideology), the social level (culture, socio-economics) and the national/international level to fully understand any given conflict situation.  However, they're generally more taken with the critical (quasi-Marxist) or postmodernist approaches, due to the same perception of science = abstract parsimony a la Kenneth Waltz.

[Triple Zero]

Just to be clear, I do think that people can live and thrive together because I don't think we would have survived as a species for the last 2 million years if it wasn't so. Once we understood microorganismal causes for diseases and cultured various bacteria, it became possible to discover vaccines and antibiotics. Before that, doctors just did things to people and hoped that they worked, never knowing why if they did. Right now, that's how we react to economic and social systems that seem "sick". Various authorities prescribe cures and sometimes they work, often not, and it's unknown why.

So I disagree with Pent, in the same way I would disagree with a medieval doctor who told me that whether his practice worked was up to god. Sometimes these cynical blanket statements sound like analogues to creationist diatribes. "Human social systems can't work, because, so there. I mean, just look at them! They're hairless apes, they can't do anything right!"

That's the most agreeable and sensible reason for optimism I've considered in a long time.

Still doesn't guarantee we won't fuck up this planet into becoming unlivable to our own species within this century, but it does provide a possible way out.

[Cramulus]

Prophecy:

Economic and social sciences finally discover functional scientific models.

This creates a tribe of "folk economists" who prefer the old methods and ignore the contemporary scientific findings. Economic homeopaths, if you will.




also to kai

[BabylonHoruv]

My dad used to say, "The entire field of biology, with all it's advancements, discoveries, and innovations, is ultimately based on evolution.  There is no meaningful argument against evolutionary theory."

I dunno if that's precisely true (paging Kai), but it makes a lot of sense.  Science is connected.  If you deny evolution, you have to re-explain everything that's been built off of it.

It is. Frankly, there wasn't biology before 1859. Once we knew that species changed over time, and that the mechanism was natural selection, life started to make sense. After the Mendelian and molecular revolutions, it /really/ started to make sense, because then we not only knew how changes occurred, but where inherited variation originated (i.e. DNA).

The great geneticist Theodosius Dobzansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and he was a theist. It's basically like claiming geocentrism is the best supported cosmological model. It's /way/ out there. Any biologist who doesn't accept it...wait, lets put it this way. A person who doesn't accept decent with modification cannot be a biologist in any real sense of the word. It's that essential.

This is why the difference between creationism and intelligent design matters.

Intelligent design includes descent with modification.  Creationism does not.

[BabylonHoruv]

Indeed.  Though I dare say, politics and economics would likely benefit from those involved in them taking more dirt naps.

That sounds like one of the commonly taken political solutions.

[Adios]

My dad used to say, "The entire field of biology, with all it's advancements, discoveries, and innovations, is ultimately based on evolution.  There is no meaningful argument against evolutionary theory."

I dunno if that's precisely true (paging Kai), but it makes a lot of sense.  Science is connected.  If you deny evolution, you have to re-explain everything that's been built off of it.

It is. Frankly, there wasn't biology before 1859. Once we knew that species changed over time, and that the mechanism was natural selection, life started to make sense. After the Mendelian and molecular revolutions, it /really/ started to make sense, because then we not only knew how changes occurred, but where inherited variation originated (i.e. DNA).

The great geneticist Theodosius Dobzansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and he was a theist. It's basically like claiming geocentrism is the best supported cosmological model. It's /way/ out there. Any biologist who doesn't accept it...wait, lets put it this way. A person who doesn't accept decent with modification cannot be a biologist in any real sense of the word. It's that essential.

This is why the difference between creationism and intelligent design matters.

Intelligent design includes descent with modification.  Creationism does not.

Prove it.

[Elder Iptuous]

right. i thought that 'irreducible complexity' was one of the bulwarks of ID.  This would seem to deny descent with modification, no?

i don't see how ID is anything other than a way of referencing creationism by saying, "Look at this fucking eyeball! it's fucking awesome! you can't put watch pieces in a bag, and randomly hit it with a hammer and make an eyeball!  It has to be designed by some intelligence.  And he has a beard.  And he hates people like you."

It's just a new term because they soiled the last one that meant the exact same damn thing.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm not arguing for intelligent Design, it's a fundamentally flawed approach.  But it is distinctly different from creationism in that they aren't saying everything is the way it is because made it that way in the beginning.  It allows for the modification of species and assumes genetic inheritance in the same way that evolutionary theory does.  The difference is where the modifications in genetic inheritance come from, to a Darwinian they are the result of random mutation and survival of the fittest, to an ID advocate they are the result of god's hand.

It's basically an attempt by Christians to explain why you can't experience the invisible dragon in any way other than sight, without resorting to silly stuff like "god put dinosaur bones underground that appear to be millions of years old just to trick you"  not that the idea of god tinkering with dna is all that much less silly, but it is silly in a more subtle way.

[Adios]

I'm not arguing for intelligent Design, it's a fundamentally flawed approach.  But it is distinctly different from creationism in that they aren't saying everything is the way it is because made it that way in the beginning.  It allows for the modification of species and assumes genetic inheritance in the same way that evolutionary theory does.  The difference is where the modifications in genetic inheritance come from, to a Darwinian they are the result of random mutation and survival of the fittest, to an ID advocate they are the result of god's hand.

It's basically an attempt by Christians to explain why you can't experience the invisible dragon in any way other than sight, without resorting to silly stuff like "god put dinosaur bones underground that appear to be millions of years old just to trick you"  not that the idea of god tinkering with dna is all that much less silly, but it is silly in a more subtle way.

Bullshit. The story of Cain finding a wife among the others automatically disputes your claim. I can counter the myth with another one, that there was more than one creator and they were in a pissing contest and each made people. One wasn't arrogant enough to claim perfection right out of the clay and allowed people to evolve at a normal pace. Where does that leave us?

[Cain]

I'm not arguing for intelligent Design, it's a fundamentally flawed approach.  But it is distinctly different from creationism in that they aren't saying everything is the way it is because made it that way in the beginning.  It allows for the modification of species and assumes genetic inheritance in the same way that evolutionary theory does.  The difference is where the modifications in genetic inheritance come from, to a Darwinian they are the result of random mutation and survival of the fittest, to an ID advocate they are the result of god's hand.

It's basically an attempt by Christians to explain why you can't experience the invisible dragon in any way other than sight, without resorting to silly stuff like "god put dinosaur bones underground that appear to be millions of years old just to trick you"  not that the idea of god tinkering with dna is all that much less silly, but it is silly in a more subtle way.

Bullshit. The story of Cain finding a wife among the others automatically disputes your claim. I can counter the myth with another one, that there was more than one creator and they were in a pissing contest and each made people. One wasn't arrogant enough to claim perfection right out of the clay and allowed people to evolve at a normal pace. Where does that leave us?

Uh, I wasn't informed of this....

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm not arguing for intelligent Design, it's a fundamentally flawed approach.  But it is distinctly different from creationism in that they aren't saying everything is the way it is because made it that way in the beginning.  It allows for the modification of species and assumes genetic inheritance in the same way that evolutionary theory does.  The difference is where the modifications in genetic inheritance come from, to a Darwinian they are the result of random mutation and survival of the fittest, to an ID advocate they are the result of god's hand.

It's basically an attempt by Christians to explain why you can't experience the invisible dragon in any way other than sight, without resorting to silly stuff like "god put dinosaur bones underground that appear to be millions of years old just to trick you"  not that the idea of god tinkering with dna is all that much less silly, but it is silly in a more subtle way.

Bullshit. The story of Cain finding a wife among the others automatically disputes your claim. I can counter the myth with another one, that there was more than one creator and they were in a pissing contest and each made people. One wasn't arrogant enough to claim perfection right out of the clay and allowed people to evolve at a normal pace. Where does that leave us?

huh?  I think you are talking right past me.  Cain finding a wife east of Eden counters the creationist theory, it doesn't really touch ID.  ID isn't an origin theory, it's an evolutionary one, focusing on how things develop and how they are developing.

[Adios]

I'm not arguing for intelligent Design, it's a fundamentally flawed approach.  But it is distinctly different from creationism in that they aren't saying everything is the way it is because made it that way in the beginning.  It allows for the modification of species and assumes genetic inheritance in the same way that evolutionary theory does.  The difference is where the modifications in genetic inheritance come from, to a Darwinian they are the result of random mutation and survival of the fittest, to an ID advocate they are the result of god's hand.

It's basically an attempt by Christians to explain why you can't experience the invisible dragon in any way other than sight, without resorting to silly stuff like "god put dinosaur bones underground that appear to be millions of years old just to trick you"  not that the idea of god tinkering with dna is all that much less silly, but it is silly in a more subtle way.

Bullshit. The story of Cain finding a wife among the others automatically disputes your claim. I can counter the myth with another one, that there was more than one creator and they were in a pissing contest and each made people. One wasn't arrogant enough to claim perfection right out of the clay and allowed people to evolve at a normal pace. Where does that leave us?

Uh, I wasn't informed of this....

I sent you the memo...