You are correct. On Monday, December 28, 2015, Eric Charles <eric.phillip.char...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Pat said: *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. * > > This sounds to me like people who don't know much about law (i.e., how > arbitrary the definition of a crime is) and who don't know much about those > bits of good science that psychology has managed. I suspect the later is at > the heart of your connecting the rationalist-empiricist discussions with > those prior bad political-debate experiences. Ultimately, one might assert, > that whether crime is eliminated in a Marxist utopia, is a simple empirical > question, i.e., something to be tested. > > If we treat it that way, the evidence would likely be against the > Marxist's assertion. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that > broad economic policies translate into predictable specific > behaviors among all members of a population. In fact, we would expect > rather dramatic variation unless developmental contexts were specified in > MUCH more detail than would be specified by a simple implementation of > communism. > > However, no amount of evidence I could marshal, nor any amount of > axiomatic assertion the Marxist could lay out, would stop us from viewing > the assertion as something we would not be certain about until it was > tested. > > Am I understanding the connection you want to make correctly? > > Best, > Eric > > > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Lab Manager > Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning > American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A > 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20016 > phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 > email: echar...@american.edu > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','echar...@american.edu');> > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Reilly < > patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net');>> wrote: > >> 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 >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 >> > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
============================================================ 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
