On 9/6/16 8:13 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
On 09/06/2016 10:14 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 7:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:23:59 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
I make jokes with Zen, but I respect him too. Just hate his love for some politicians, like Putin and Trump. Every person has own value, but I really abominate politicians, ugh! :P We should be trashing *all* politicians including, of course, putin. But again, a fair amount of people in this list hysterically disagree with the idea of getting rid of politicians and their state. Just ask dear Stephen...
Find something better first, and prove it.
Proofs only exist in formal systems like maths and geometry, and then only because those systems expressly define what constitutes a proof within the given system. In the real world, one may collect evidence based on observation, analysis and experiment, leading to varying degrees of confidence in various conclusions: A massive weight of evidence supports the first law of thermodynamics, but no one will ever prove it "true."
Providing proof doesn't necessarily mean "2 nines" or "a proof" in the mathematical sense. You can win a civil case with a "preponderance" of the proof, >50% for instance. But you need some good evidence in larger and larger test cases. To have a serious discussion, you at least need to have a good theoretical basis that involves reasoning about known aspects of human nature, psychology, and sociology that might plausibly work.
In purely practical terms, demonstrating that one economic and social system works better than another economic and social system depends on two things: The definition of "better" and observation of full scale practical implementations. The massive number of variables, feedbacks and turbulence in economic and social systems rule out accurately predicting outcomes based on thought experiments or simulations.
"Proof" invokes two value reasoning, which strongly appeals to human cognitive and emotional biases but can not accurately model any but the very simplest of systems in the material world. Propagandists love to exploit two value reasoning: I have found that the presence of the word "proof" in the title of a story circulated on the Internet identifies a deceptive or delusion-based story with about two nines confidence.
Two value reasoning creates and strongly supports irrational, delusional, and counter-productive belief systems - especially in the sphere of political ideology. Are you done thinking and ready to impose your will on all the idiots and assholes who disagree with you by force? Then "proof" is your golden ticket to rationalizing violence as a moral imperative for the greater good.
:o/
sdw