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