Hi Nick: In further reply, I've argued with Marxist's who assert craziness like "under true communism there will be no crime". They assert such nonsense under "rationalist" arguments that a "truly fulfilled person", as a communist utopia must exclusively generate, would be a naturally law-abiding citizen.
So the empiricist reliance in the physics dialogue is a useful reference to me in my counter argument of "what actually existing society supports the argument of a more ethical society eliminating irrational crime". I say again that the core strength of using this reference lies in the belief widely held among our intelligentsia that Physics has the quality of offering the purest of all possible truthiness . . . --- Pat On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Hi, Patrick, > > > > Thanks for getting back to me. Wow, was that a form of libertarianism!? I > would have thought the “users” were property owners who “use” the police to > protect them from the anger of the poor. Anyway. > > > > One of the lessons that FRIAM has taught me over the years is to be much > more careful in my deployment of “ist” and “ism” words. They just don’t > seem to have the stability of reference that that I assumed when I learned > them and started to use them. I don’t know quite what to do about that. > It would be nice to be able to identify some clusters of opinion and > associate some people with those opinions and be able to refer back to them > as points of departure in my thought, but every time I try, I fail. One > really good example is the word, “pragmatist.” In some hands, “pragmatism” > means solving problems as they come along with a view mostly to the > immediate tangible future. Americans are said to given to such pragmatic > solutions, as, say, the drone program which eliminates some bad actors in > the short run but runs the risk of recruiting others in the long run. In > other hands, the word “pragmatism” refers to an almost precisely opposite > philosophy which focuses on where human understanding is “headed”, i.e., > where it is likely to fetch up in the very long run. For a pragmatist, in > *this* sense, there are no “facts of the matter” beyond human > understanding, in the broadest sense, because whatever world is “out there” > is filtered through our understanding of it. > > > > Now, I think the debate that occurred at the physics conference had a lot > to do with this latter sort of pragmatism. Philosophical pragmatists have > tended to be very hard on the “theory-fact” distinction. To these folks, a > fact is nothing more than a theory that we would be VERY VERY VERY > surprised to see contradicted. > > > > What I am struggling with, here, is how to map all of this (which may be > irrelevant from your point of view) onto > > > > *On another note, the discussion of the "rationalists" v. "empiricists" > crystallized in me how to best argue against Libertarian-hacks and Marxist > fops;* > > > > Now I get that you are pissed off at some folks. I would probably be > pissed off by those same people. What I can’t yet work out is the > relation between these Libertarians and Marxists and the distinction > between rationalist and empiricist. > > > > Can you help further? > > > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Patrick > Reilly > *Sent:* Sunday, December 27, 2015 1:22 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries > of Science | Quanta Magazine > > > > Hi Nick: > > > > Well, I practice IP/Patent Law in Silicon Valley and I am rather > frequently exposed to libertarian-drivel about how social problems can be > solved by applying the principle of liberty and drowning the government. > Not unusually, the proponents of these views are quite bright, contentious > and have the life experience of, well, and under-30 programmer. > > > > Programmers, especially the really good ones, get used to creatively > solving any problem that is thrown at them with applied logic. And they > often fail to realize that the overwhelming majority of their architecture > challenges are thin problems, wherein all relevant influences and > underlying principles can be assumed or quickly ascertained. In contrast, > most social-legal problems of our technological society exist precisely > because these problems are thick problems and can seldom be successfully > addressed with empirical analysis of applied alternate solutions. > > > > One example of a failed libertarian approach in criminal justice is to > attempt to extract payments from the "users" of the criminal justice system > to fund the police force, al a Ferguson, where frequent fines were > promiscuously issued with the explicit purpose of generating revenue. In > particular, the Ferguson police officers were given increasing ticketing > quotas and were conditioned to see citizens as ATM machines, especially the > less empowered citizens. > > > > So I can now cite the article's noting of rationalist/empiricist > approaches in physics (a discipline that nerds generally hold to be sacred > and inviolate) as a basis for saying, "so first we may want to find a > country where you ideas have been actually applied . . . like Somalia or > Indonesia . . . " > > > > > > ----- Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > I didn’t altogether follow you here. > > > > Can you say a bit more? > > > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Patrick > Reilly > *Sent:* Saturday, December 26, 2015 10:13 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries > of Science | Quanta Magazine > > > > Hi Tom: > > > > Thanks for turning me on to this article. It's valuable to known that we > are likely 10 EE15 degrees away from observing the true fundamentals of > physics. > > > > On another note, the discussion of the "rationalists" v. "empiricists" > crystallized in me how to best argue against Libertarian-hacks and Marxist > fops; the imagined "principles" of political and economic dynamics empowers > empiricists to promise candy mountains when we are better off observing the > actual effect of actually instantiated policies and laws. The US used to be > the world leader in social pragmatism . . . > > > > Great article! > > > > --- Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com> wrote: > > Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day. > > > https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ > > =================================== > Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism > Santa Fe, NM > SPJ Region 9 Director > t...@jtjohnson.com 505-473-9646 > =================================== > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > -- > > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies > of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, > please send an email to patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > > > > > -- > > The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and > confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of > this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended > recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies > of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, > please send an email to patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > -- The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
