Reply With Quote
Perhaps I was wrong and WH really is trolling here.
the bass playing, definitely.Is playing bass guitar and bike riding irrational?
Perhaps I was wrong and WH really is trolling here.
And youre trolling, hypocrite. say something meaningful and I will respond likewise otherwise i will just return to ridicule.
the elation and feelings of physical enjoyment are not perceptibly rational to me
what a surprise
did I fail to respond to something again, allegedly? I'm still here if you think I left something hanging.
forgive me, if the tone of your responses seem to bear a strong resemblance to that of a pragmatists postion on objective truths. by the way i suppose the irony of the bolded sentence fails to hit you here but more to the point, the article you posted was one that posits science as a champion of democracy because scientists are capable of some platonic version of rationalization that trumps all other disciplines (perhaps that of poets in your case). but the author conveniently failed to point out that scientists are capable of the same hubris that politicians are capable of. to a certain degree, science has created some of the technology that places the earth in peril (and it is also science that can perhaps save it). rationalization has been used in politics and that is why i brought up friedman, who tried to make economics a hard science. if you believe his economic theories have been ratified by results i suppose that would depend on what end of the political spectrum you reside in. politicians, for all we know, may be less deaf to science as the author suggests. it may just be that, like scientists can, they fall victim to greed and unethical practices.
life happens and reason tidies up the room afterwards. everything one does is rationalizable after the fact, but the experience isn't as a matter of course. seldom is it strictly reasonable at its origins either. leap in the dark is way more common than reason acknowledges.
I note that you discount the premise of the post. It's not lost that you turned flippant once people asked you to define your romanticized irrationality. It is also not lost on me that you trolled my thread hard. You are trying to be provocative and that is indeed boring.what a surprise
lol people. royal we, much?
is it reasonable or unreasonable to be courteous to one's political adversaries? good question. is this even up for conversation? who does this?Why do you respect them? Do you have a reason for respecting them, or do you just do so? Is your reason for respecting their irrationality an irrationality on your part?
It's ok to have non-scientific viewpoints. Some people act like it ain't.
Irony? What categories? All I hear from you are categories: pragmatists, instramentalists etc. My bashing of WH as a poet goes farther back in a manner you clearly have not witnessed. There is a running diatribe between he and I and he seems to find great joy in continuing it thus his trolling this thread.
I don't create mythical actors in though experiments and then try to insert that for the truth. Perhaps you do not understand the relevance of that and empiricism but its not a hard conclusion to draw.
If a scientist does resort to hubris then the principles the author espouses gives anyone equal footing to demonstrate that objectively. That is the point, empiricism and inductive reason gives a common thread between people to draw conclusions. Additionally, I do not doubt that some politicians are intentionally misleading those they represent, but i believe logic and observation can provide a foil to that. What is disconcerting as the author points out is that said politicians are doing what they can to eliminate the foil. That is doubly insidious in my view. Lead someone astray and gouge out their eyes.
Further i get the distinct impression that you did not read the article. It talks about inductive logic and empiricism as a decision calculus not in technocrats rule the world or that technology will save the day. It champions coming logical conclusions based on what you can actually sense.
On a final note, political bias in determining Milton's success is besides the point. You can measure how well predictions correlate with actual outcomes and base your decisions on that. You can quantify it. OTOH, rejecting it out of hand or accepting it as gospel is needless and unwarranted. there is no basis to do so yet you seem comfortable fitting everyone into those boxes as well. Friedman had no way to have enough data points to really come with a realistic construct. This enters into the entire issue of wholistic and reductionist viewpoints and you have apparently missed that boat with your packaging of me as well.
I do suppose that if you want to box me you could call me a determinist. I am very interested to see how neuroscience and behavioral science progress so I am not a determinist with conviction. I just don't like economists and psychologists overarching thought experiments trying to get there.
following my previous: religion comes in for deserved and undeserved abuse here. with a regularity.
this forum ain't friendly to believers.
Manny and I. Two individuals plural thus the term fits. You really are trying hard today. Good day or bad day, WH?lol people. royal we, much?
you speak for Manny. how chivalrous.
LnGrrrR too. You act like I am the only one that's been saying 'wtf irrational policymaking is desirable?' Your attempt to isolate me is noted however.
No but i do think that i understand what he has said.
Psst: fait accompli, long before LnGrrrR turned on you.
(forum newcomers will find out soon enough on their own)
Ahh at least you are transparent to your motivations. i was unaware that Lng had a take on me one way or another but that is besides the point. He agrees that irrational decisionmaking is not desirable regardless of his feelings about me.
Your little narrative here is great. Your creating a story in your head of my ostracization and demise. I do bring out the best in you it seems.
you did it first. now you're feeding the meme.Your creating a story in your head of my ostracization and demise.
actually, from where i sit, you seem to enjoy the back and forth with WH with equal vigor. but you are correct, i have not seen enough of that to really know or care for that matter.
i beg to differ on the matter of being able to hold hubris in check. i can tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of arrogant, exremely arrogant, R&D scientists who create a cloud over research in general (falsified results, resistance to new paradigms-as in the difficulty research in neural plasticity once faced). human and cultural posits have to be taken into account (as kuhn or even quine would say). politicians in the US are trying to eliminate the foil as a whole but they often have scientists assisting them in this (e.g. scientists in the energy industry)
and it is not you that i am trying to box in, but how is that bolded comment not the very essence of pragmatism?
This thread ing delivers
+10000
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
