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
     >> [1]<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

References

   1. mailto:cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com