Philosophical Vegan Forum

Well, there is one thing we agree on: there is no hope we are going to agree about politics. To me, the idea that there is a significant amount of people who want to murder, but don't do it only because of the laws, is too ridiculous to even think about.

Anyway, you've written a lot about epistemology, but I don't think you've addressed my question: why do you think that a statistical correlation is more of an evidence of causation than a theoretical framework behind the claim of a causation? If I dumped a dictionary into a statistical program and claimed to have found that the Grimm's Law was false (and a statistical analysis that doesn't account for the loanwords would probably make it look like that), would you take my finding seriously? If not, why?

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:38 am Well, there is one thing we agree on: there is no hope we are going to agree about politics. To me, the idea that there is a significant amount of people who want to murder, but don't do it only because of the laws, is too ridiculous to even think about.

Well, then you're just admitting to being closed minded.

Those are your personal feelings on the matter/intuition/faith. That's up to you if you want to go with your faith and ignore conflicting evidence, but we put 0 stock in your faith/intuition (and an objective person puts no stock in his or her own either if there's any evidence to be had).
You just can't preach that stuff here without being ready to present some evidence equal to or superior to the quality of existing evidence (even if that evidence is only correlation). Those are the rules, otherwise we'd have people coming here and making all kinds of claims and not backing them up with evidence (and that murder should be legal is perhaps the most absurd one that comes up around here).

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:38 amAnyway, you've written a lot about epistemology, but I don't think you've addressed my question: why do you think that a statistical correlation is more of an evidence of causation than a theoretical framework behind the claim of a causation?

It's a hypothesis; theory is backed by evidence and can be falsified by experiment. You could arguably turn this into a theory if you outline a viable experiment you would like to do, and then it becomes a credible theory when that experiment pans out in support of it.
Ad hoc hypotheses are a dime a dozen, and have no evidentiary value. For every hypothesis and amendment to that hypothesis you can pull out of your ass, I can pull another out of mine to contradict it, and that can go on forever.

This nonsense could kill at bahfest
https://bahfest.com/

Read the Flat-Earth thread; you're doing the same kind of bullshit that flat-Earthers do against evidence for a round Earth by making up stuff about atmospheric lensing to dismiss observations.
What they would have to do to turn their hypotheses on atmospheric lensing into evidence (or to counter evidence) is perform an experiment to show that lensing actually acts in a way that explains the observations. Answer evidence with evidence, not a contradictory hypothesis that makes up reasons for why the evidence isn't valid.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2017 9:38 amIf I dumped a dictionary into a statistical program and claimed to have found that the Grimm's Law was false (and a statistical analysis that doesn't account for the loanwords would probably make it look like that), would you take my finding seriously? If not, why?

What's the consensus among professional linguists?
Any claim that goes against consensus is pretty extraordinary, and requires a higher degree of evidence.
What's the evidence for the consensus?

It's possible to go against consensus and overturn things with a single well designed experiment, but your suggestion doesn't sound like one.
Analyzing a dictionary and ignoring loanwords is ignoring an important confounding variable (one that by its nature is NOT part of the law); much like imagining the outcome of society (a thought experiment) and ignoring psychopaths and the effects of natural escalation (which by nature ARE part of society). Looking only at average people in typical situations, it would be easy to be misled; you're missing significant variables in your assessment. The fact that these thought experiments you're doing conflict with actual evidence suggests something is wrong, and if you ignore that you're no better than any creationist or flat-Earther.

Well, then you're just admitting to being closed minded.

Well, I'd also be so "close minded" if someone was trying to convince me that the Earth was flat or that the Grimm's Law was incorrect. Those things are fairly obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes of thinking, and the same applies here.

Ad hoc hypotheses are a dime a dozen, and have no evidentiary value.

But the problem is that there is a huge theoretical framework behind anarcho-capitalism, it's the Austrian School of Economics. Its theories make predictions such as that the countries with less strict laws should have lower homicide rates, and worldwide statistics confirm that prediction (homicide rate is negatively correlated with the economic freedom index).

Much like imagining the outcome of society (a thought experiment) and ignoring psychopaths and the effects of natural escalation (which by nature ARE part of society).

Well, to me it seems that trying to deduce what would have happened in an anarchy by looking at the tribal societies is much more like that. First, it's incredibly easy to fall into the trap of data mining. Second, there are countless other factors than the power of a government. We, unlike the tribal societies, already have the wealth we've created through time, like, well, the roads, the schools, the supermarkets, and so on. Stealing or murdering is, thanks to those things, almost never the easiest way to get what you want. Saying that once there are no laws all of that will get destroyed is quite an extraordinary claim, and it seems like that's what you imply. Third, the Native Americans often killed because their religion required them to. There is no reason to think that will happen if the laws disappear right now. And so on...

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 am Well, I'd also be so "close minded" if someone was trying to convince me that the Earth was flat or that the Grimm's Law was incorrect. Those things are fairly obvious to anyone who spends a few minutes of thinking, and the same applies here.

Then you're closed minded.

Those things are in no way obvious from thought alone for the average person; you're guessing. Neither are MANY instances of counter-intuitive statistics:
https://hubpages.com/education/Counterintuitive-Statistics

People are very bad at reasoning on their own.
It's not impossible, but if you believe you're capable of it despite your biases you are not a sensible person.

The reason we know the Earth is not flat is the presence of credible empirical evidence, even as simple as the way a boat disappears over the horizon, but still empirical evidence that has fed into reason. Of course we can always misinterpret such evidence, particularly in light of bad intuition. This is why science has the rigor it does today, and why we look at concordance from multiple strains of evidence to reach the most solid conclusions.

You would be closed minded but sensible if you just believed the consensus.
It's more sensible to close mindedly reject flat-earth or anarchism, not sensible to close mindedly accept those things.

But you're closed minded and believe something that goes against consensus. That's insane. Your belief and choice to be closed minded about it is no more sensible than the same with respect to believing Flat Earth.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amBut the problem is that there is a huge theoretical framework behind anarcho-capitalism,

Anarcho-capitalists do not typically believe murder should be legal, but that private companies take over law enforcement.
E.g. this kind of stuff:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2cw5vy/what_happens_with_murder_in_an_anarchocapitalist/
The idea is that capitalism is powerful enough to prevent conflict as companies and insurance fund private police forces and peace keepers, and that may be true for the wealthy (it's de-facto legal to kill poor people in some contexts), but even if you don't care about poor people it does nothing to prevent monopolies so it's still insane and it goes against consensus in economics (anarcho-capitalists just deny that harmful monopolies would form or pull another ad hoc hypothesis out of their asses that monopolies magically break up due to their natures).

But let's assume you have some kind of huge conceptual framework in which murder is legitimately legal; there's no legal system in place (public or private) that provides recourse:
There's a huge "theoretical" framework behind Catholocism too. That doesn't make it true. No volume of masturbatory ad hoc hypothesizing generates credible evidence.

This is actually a serious criticism of string theory too.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amIts theories make predictions such as that the countries with less strict laws should have lower homicide rates, and worldwide statistics confirm that prediction (homicide rate is negatively correlated with the economic freedom index).

That's not a prediction, that's an observation; one that ignores known confounding variables.
Strict laws do not necessarily help with homicide rates (they may in those countries, but probably not), that doesn't mean that having no laws causes zero homicides. Most social variables work on a curve, with an optimal amount with increasing harm in either direction.

Again, you're going against consensus here. You've buried yourself in this nonsense the same way an apologist buries her or himself in theistic metaphysics and all of the twisted excuses and pseudoscience of that.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amWell, to me it seems that trying to deduce what would have happened in an anarchy by looking at the tribal societies is much more like that.

It's the closest thing we have, and a credible data point against your beliefs.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amStealing or murdering is, thanks to those things, almost never the easiest way to get what you want.

It's 100% the easiest way to get what you want if you want to murder, as is true of one in 10,000 people. And one in 100,000 are actually intelligent too; one in a million are VERY intelligent, and the only thing that currently stops them is the difficulty due to police resources.

Stealing is also a pretty easy way to get ahead right now if there's no recourse; the fact that you have to be so careful is what makes it difficult.
Moderately intelligent criminals who aren't addicts often get very rich, and then they get caught.

You could argue that theft should be decriminalized as long as assault, murder & recklessness are criminalized because people can physically protect their stuff in their homes. Libertarians who agree that the only thing the government should do is prevent violence & monopolies have much more sensible arguments. It would have a significant economic cost, though, and you'd have to look at the outcome.

We know what stripping all law looks like; we've seen it in formation of monopolies and crime syndicates.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amSaying that once there are no laws all of that will get destroyed is quite an extraordinary claim, and it seems like that's what you imply.

I'm not saying it will magically get destroyed. If you're talking anarcho-capitalism, it will end up being consolidated by monopolistic companies with private police forces, and we'll basically be back to serfdom where poor people are owned like cattle and own nothing. Until automation takes over, then we have no idea what will happen.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:44 amThird, the Native Americans often killed because their religion required them to. There is no reason to think that will happen if the laws disappear right now. And so on...

It wouldn't happen instantly; it takes time for feuds to escalate (usually years). Intelligent sadistic psychopaths would begin killing immediately, though. Of course they would mostly kill poor people who can't afford to hire private investigators and hit-men to retaliate. If you think it's OK to cull the poor like that, you might not have a problem with that outcome.
If companies can take over the police force quickly enough they may be able to put down feuds that are large enough to be bad for business, but at the same time we know the dystopian outcome of monopolies that stem from unregulated capitalism.

Ah, there you go again, "Trust the scientific consensus, or else you are unreasonable!". Let's imagine, just for a minute, that 50% or more scientists who have studied the issue think that the laws are irrelevant in preventing murder. How would you know that? You think that politicians would even know that? You think that they would, if they know that, decide to decrease the government power? You think that the media, which nearly always supports the expenditure of the government, would even report on that, yet alone make a big deal out of it? I don't see how you came to the conclusion that it's the scientific consensus that laws prevent murder. You've only cited Steven Pinker, who studies some distantly related field (neuroscience). For evolution and global warming, we do have studies that show that somewhere between 90% and 100% of scientists in the field believe in them. The same is, for the vast majority of the problems the scientists study, not true. How would you prove that most of the linguists agree that the Grimm's Law is true? The best evidence for that is that it's obviously true. Right now, you are just doing an appeal to an anonymous authority.

I am well aware of the Monty Hall Problem and other puzzles you linked me to. How does that suggest that Steven Pinker is right? At best, they could suggest that we shouldn't base our epistemology too much on statistics, because it's easy to get fooled by them.

Also, you seem not to see the benefits of having an ideology in your head. It allows you to think about a complicated world you live in, and not just act instinctively. A person who doesn't have an ideology can't think about the complex world he lives in, he simply acts instinctively. Is that what you want people to do?

Lots of conspiracy theory nonsense from you here. Nice unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis there.

Look, are you going to stop talking about this pro-legalizing murder nonsense or not?
Yes or No?

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:25 pm I am well aware of the Monty Hall Problem and other puzzles you linked me to. How does that suggest that Steven Pinker is right? At best, they could suggest that we shouldn't base our epistemology too much on statistics, because it's easy to get fooled by them.

It's an indication that we should not trust INTUITION, not that statistics are untrustworthy. There are entire fields devoted to understanding statistics. A correlation is pretty simple, though.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:25 pmAlso, you seem not to see the benefits of having an ideology in your head.

Ideology is fine as long as you update that ideology when you get more evidence instead of using it as a reason to deny evidence and create increasingly absurd ad hoc beliefs to protect it like you're doing.

You have no evidence, you're just pulling more speculation out of your ass. I have explained as clearly as I can why that is not acceptable or intellectually honest. Are you or are you not going to stop advocating this pro-legalizing murder nonsese?

You don't have to stop believing it, but you can't preach it here.

If you have some evidence that it is indeed a scientific consensus that laws help prevent murder, then I will stop believing in anarchism. But as far as I can see, you are just doing an appeal to an anonymous authority. Someone who doesn't know biology could use those same arguments to argue that rabbits eat carrots or that mice eat cheese (both of which are false). You are trying to override the Occam's Razor with evidence that isn't there, by pretending to know things you don't. You've had to come up with ad-hoc hypotheses about natural monopolies and about capitalism increasing inequality, both of which are contrary to the evidence and to the widely accepted theories (though not contrary to the intuition, it's instinctual to think that government can protect the poor). That's what I've seen from you.

OK, maybe that's just my impression, maybe you do have some evidence that it is a scientific consensus. Let's see.

And why would what I am doing be against the forum rules, but Teo123 claiming that airplanes don't exist (which is way more absurd) wouldn't? Could it be that you just don't like when your political beliefs are questioned?

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 pmAnd why would what I am doing be against the forum rules, but Teo123 claiming that airplanes don't exist (which is way more absurd) wouldn't? Could it be that you just don't like when your political beliefs are questioned?

Nice try. The forum rules and conversation guidelines have changed since that time, largely because of Teo's behavior in some conversations.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 pmIf you have some evidence that it is indeed a scientific consensus that laws help prevent murder, then I will stop believing in anarchism.[...]
OK, maybe that's just my impression, maybe you do have some evidence that it is a scientific consensus. Let's see.

I already explained that I have no obligation to do additional research for you. You're just ignoring everything I say.

You can keep BELIEVING in anarchism. You just can't continue to preach it here. You could if you would link to some evidence.

Here's how it goes:

Person A makes a hypothetical argument
Person B can respond with a contradictory hypothetical argument

This is fine, and it can go on forever without violating rules.

But as soon as ONE of them puts up some evidence, the other is obligated to respond in kind with evidence; the ante of the conversation is upped.

I referenced Pinker's evidence, correlative but very strong correlation, on Scientific American (generally a pretty credible source, not some conspiracy theory rag).

You need to respond in kind if you wish to continue to argue your position. Simple as that.
Find a credible source and some correlative examples that support your claims. Link to it. Then you can ask ME for more evidence in return, and we can go back and forth like that with a proportional amount of hypothetical rebuttal and empirical evidence.

You are failing to uphold your end, and if you believe that answering evidence with more ad hoc hypothesis is acceptable you are mistaken: that is not acceptable here.

Simple as that. It's as true for Anarchism as it is for Flat-Earth claims.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 pm Someone who doesn't know biology could use those same arguments to argue that rabbits eat carrots or that mice eat cheese (both of which are false).

That they just eat those things/those are their natural diets?
Link to a credible source that rabbits eat carrots and mice eat cheese, and we'll discuss that if you want. Scientific American would be fine, or another moderately credible science publication. A cartoon would not be adequate.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 pmYou are trying to override the Occam's Razor with evidence that isn't there, by pretending to know things you don't.

Incorrect. I'm just not wasting my time with you like I did with Teo on the Flat-Earth thread.
The moment you uphold your end and start responding in kind with evidence, I'll tear it apart and flood you with links and references.

I'm not doing all of the work this time, and the forum rules mean I don't have to. It's unfair to offload the burden of evidence, and just respond lazily by pulling claims out of your ass and doing no research/providing no references at all.

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:30 pmYou've had to come up with ad-hoc hypotheses about natural monopolies and about capitalism increasing inequality, both of which are contrary to the evidence and to the widely accepted theories

Unregulated capitalism ultimately does that compared to regulated capitalism, due to monopolies.
As it turns out, both extremes are wrong. Neither fascism nor anarchism are ideal (this isn't the case for everything, but it often is, and is in this circumstance; don't try to misrepresent all opposition to anarchism as fascism).
The problem of monopolies and inadequate competition is well established in consensus through both historical evidence and economic modeling.
You're pulling more pseudoscientific claims out of your ass and misrepresenting me.

Thinking in economics used to be a lot softer (soft science) and influenced by bias (including political), but it has evolved into a much harder science today, and there's very little actual difference between economists on major issues (lots of opinions on how much government is best, but virtually none agree with anarchism as you are representing it).

This link is for anybody else who is interested in the subject, not for LogicExplorer:
Regarding monopolies and competition, this is an interesting article on the shift (although it doesn't really go into the change in rigor in the field).
https://www.economist.com/news/business/21720657-its-economists-used-champion-big-firms-mood-has-shifted-university-chicago

OK, let's move this discussion to a bit less, you know, emotional topic. So, there is a relatively high correlation between ice-cream sale and the death by drowning rate.

Both of them increase significantly during the summer (in actuality, drowning increases because people swim more recreationally during summer and there are more floods in summer because it's the time when the snow melts high on the mountains and a lot of water gets into the rivers, but let's pretend we don't know that). Therefore, it's probably that the small amounts of opioids such as beta-casomorphins in ice-cream can cause drowning in some people. That's evidence that we need to ban ice-cream sale during summer and that doing that will reduce death by drowning. Oh, you ask for a proof of a scientific consensus? Well, the correlation should be enough evidence of the scientific consensus, unless you have some better evidence that scientists don't agree that ice-cream causes drowning. Have I convinced you?

LogicExplorer wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 4:47 pmHave I convinced you?

I'm convinced you have no idea what you're talking about.

For a policy decision like that you always want to have the best evidence possible. With something like ice cream we could easily do controlled experiments; that wouldn't be possible with anarchism (although we can look at instances of breakdown of law or lack of enforcement and see the results in the real world: it's not good).
It would be unacceptable to change policy without higher quality evidence when higher quality evidence is practical to collect (even if we weren't aware of those confounding variables).

When you can't do a controlled experiment, you have to go with the best correlation based evidence you can find and do your best at controlling for confounding variables.

Evidence against something like this is as simple as showing evidence for an obvious confounding variable that has not been controlled for (e.g. more swimming or more floods in the summer).

Some great confounding variables against the stabilizing power of government would be:

Population density. Much like people drown more when they swim more, we might expect murder rates to rise with population density as people have more opportunity to kill each other through more interraction.
If it turned out that population density has been lowering over time, that would be a confounding variable that could possible explain the some or all of the results.

But no... population density has risen. For some reason murder is less common despite that.

Perhaps weapons explain it? If we had lost the technology to develop lethal weapons or run out of materials to make them (there are certainly fewer swords now) then that might explain why we've been having more trouble killing each other.

But no... weapon technology has improved; we're better at killing each other than ever now. For some reason we do it less despite that.

Your job is to find some evidence for a confounding variable that might explain the results, particularly one that exists in spite of government rather than because of it (I already talked about economics).