EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources > EVE OOC Summit
Slavery discussion
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 17:14 ---
It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.
--- End quote ---
I agree.... but for people how havent seen him. It could be intressting.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 17:14 ---Publius,
the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.
--- End quote ---
overhauled: No. I think a miss understanding was that how can I tell..., the Gewichtigung/weight which had Lakaros give to Poppers postivistic view (which he had in some parts of his modles). Im on this point (postivisms) more on the M. Friedman site (as VWLer/Economics not surpising :P ).... which had had wrote (in his tree example)... that is more or less a tool to get theorys working (which is my goal here, to get some stuff working.
http://library.northsouth.edu/Upload/THE%20PHILOSOPHY%20OF%20ECONOMICS.pdf#page=154
So Lakaros point which is almost (Constructvitsic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
"There are no pure data, which consist only of observation. Any statement containing theory, and any observation is only possible because it is based on a theory."
Would I come with Friedmans tree example: "Let us turn now to another example, this time a constructed one designed to be an analogue of many hypotheses in the social sciences. Consider the density of leaves around a tree. I suggest the hypothesis that the leaves are positioned as if each leaf deliberately sought to maximize the amount of sunlight it receives, given the position of its neighbors, as if it knew the physical laws determining the amount of sunlight that would be received in various positions and could move rapidly or instantaneously from any one position to any other desired and unoccupied position. 14 Now some of the more obvious implications of this hypothesis are clearly consistent with experience: for example, leaves are in general denser on the south than on the north side of trees but, as the hypothesis implies, less so or not at all on the northern slope of a hill or when the south side of the trees is shaded in some other way. Is the hypothesis rendered unacceptable or invalid because, so far as we know, leaves do not “deliberate” or consciously “seek,” have not been to school and learned the relevant laws of science or the mathematics required to calculate the “optimum” position, and cannot move from position to position? Clearly, none of these contradictions of the hypothesis is vitally relevant; the phenomena involved are not within the “class of phenomena the hypothesis is designed to explain”; the hypothesis does not assert that leaves do these things but only that their density is the same as if they did. Despite the apparent falsity of the “assumptions” of the hypothesis, it has great plausibility because of the conformity of its implications with observation. We are inclined to “explain” its validity on the ground that sunlight contributes to the growth of leaves and that hence leaves will grow denser or more putative leaves survive where there is more sun, so the result achieved by purely passive adaptation to external circumstances is the same as the result that would be achieved by deliberate accommodation to them. This alternative hypothesis is more attractive than the constructed hypothesis not because its “assumptions” are more “realistic” but rather because it is part of a more general theory that applies to a wider variety of phenomena, of which the position of leaves around a tree is a special case, has more implications capable of being contradicted, and has failed to be contradicted under a wider variety of circumstances. The direct evidence for the growth of leaves is in this way strengthened by the indirect evidence from the other phenomena to which the more general theory applies.
The constructed hypothesis is presumably valid, that is, yields “sufficiently” accurate predictions about the density of leaves, only for a particular class of circumstances. I do not know what these circumstances are or how to define them. It seems obvious, however, that in this example the “assumptions” of the theory will play no part in specifying them: the kind of tree, the character of the soil, etc., are the types of variables that are likely to define its range of validity, not the ability of the leaves to do complicated mathematics or to move from place to place." etc....
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 17:14 ---Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).
The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.
Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.
--- End quote ---
Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion.
Nicoletta Mithra:
Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.
I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.
Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Also, that aside: As I already said, Popper tries to give a model of how science should be done. We aren't doing science here. So, applying Popper here is just misapplying his theories. Arguments in debates aren't scientific theories/explanations. Simple as that.
One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
Also, there are many problems with naive falsificationism beyond what Lakatos has been hinting at. Among other things, that science simply isn't done like Popper would've liked it to be done in his theory. If you take a look at the state of the field of philosophy of science, you'd notice that Popper is simply outdated for several good reasons. That he's playing a role, still, is more or less caused by the fact that the newer theories of scientific process haven't been absorbed into the other disciplines.
--- End quote ---
And there is one problem..... what you call "naive falsificationism" or Lakatos and Kuhn as done. I would say isnt a falzifacation or overhaul of science. It is just a contructivistist model which stays next the Popper or the positivmus etc.... About outdate I would say the opposit. My girlfriend has study physics and she is and as second subject theoretic mathematic. There you learn how to work in a world without full infomation.... Which is the mainy anti-point of positivsm critque. So if you write is outdate. Which is your outlook? I mean whats your examples. I mean the contructivisc science which you proposal (as modern, post-Popper) is actually totally out of left field. This can be seen in physics. Stephan Hawkings and Mias had works on the topic of wissenschaftliche Beweise bei restrikten infromation/scientific evidence with restricted information (will come with the exact title the next days).
But like I said...Im always for any falcifaction. So If you have a work (not just words) to throw had me it would be great.... To see this new contructicstic world.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
--- End quote ---
As if you read.... "Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),": So it is the positivms, which stand as point.
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56355#msg56355
And why Im doing this? Is a question you can answer. :P
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---Friedman's tree example is theory laden. It assumes a lot of things: That leafs of trees are used for photosynthesis, that optimal sunlight exposition is 'sought' after for this process, the mathematics that one needs to predict optimal leaf density at positions etc.pp.
--- End quote ---
Oh...see.... He had a larger point. Like I said. See it as tool, which can fix things. Thats his approach to the positivism. Many constructivistc scholar (like ours mention before). Have a always critque the positivms of his "welt sehen"/world seeing. He say more or less that it doesnt matter as long, you can formulate a hyptheses (of course the book is longer than my two copy past lines).
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---
Insisting on Popper won't lead that far. It is, after all a debate, not even an exercise of or attempt at scientific explanation. Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It won't convince anybody of anything. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy. If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!
--- End quote ---
Arrrg...Dude... what I wrote always.... read all the stuff...all the links which I give all the books... which I link.
so back what I have I wrote:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff. [...]*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans)...."
See.... Popper is just the start.... that people understand where I come from. The next point when we all agree that we make Postivistic science. That we define the words. We make our theory logical and deductiv (and falsifiable).
See... as you can see on Morwen comments I can make a nothing out of it. Like I already said. He could also wrote "I love Hamburgers." It would make the same sence. Thats is my critque.
Again... It isnt just Popper. It isnt just the Postivisms. It is the whole package. And agian my offer still stands. When Im back eveyone which shows the errors of the comments (page 7-13). Of some people gets 300 Mio isk. So again I repeat so that it gets understand. You see an logical error in a argumention (which I already can see 4). The post them here. So that this discussion moves on. A discussion on 100 pages, about the same topic and with the same logical errors is just.....
I hope you can see my greater point which I try to make white the first post. And you can be one of the lucky people which gets the 300 Mio. And like I said it easy to get. Read some comments, and find out "ehm, I think, the argumention isnt logical"; and get the money. :P
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---One can't expect from people having a debate on a forum on internetspaceships that they first take a course in classical logic and some other subjects before they are allowed to participate. Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.) But being a good old German battleship about that doesn't help here. People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
--- End quote ---
See. I think Battleship had help more. I know my folks. So Im first surpirse that nobody, had come around the corner and said..."Dude, Popper is a nazi".
So as a veteran on this, I think Battleship can help and has help. But that is a style question and doesnt change the content. I could be friendly (but my LA friendly mask on, and lie to people); but It would change the problem which this thread had face since page ~7. If I say it nice, would it change this reality, of course not.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---People won't develop skills in logics because of your rant here. Best thing you'll get is that people who already have those skills and forgot to apply them will get to that. One doesn't need a rant for that, though. A polite reminder is usually enough.
--- End quote ---
So many cases in which it had work :P . So many. But like I already said. It is a question of style not content. I talk about content all day long and as you see; I will answer every content question as you like or wish.
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---I've been taught in my scientific studies that Popper is the height of how science has to be done. The physicist at the university already knew it's outdated. Having had philosophy as a secondary subject, I learned how outdated Popper is. Popper is, the way he himself envisioned his falsificationism, practically as dead as Popper himself or Friedman as well - some people just didn't take notice of that, yet.
--- End quote ---
Like I already said. Throw some books at me. But plz outside of the construvtistc science. Im as you had already saw, not a huge fan of it. I dont say like Mia that it isnt science. But I have large doubts about Lakatos model of science (and not just the constructivsitc ideas).
Edit: totally forgot the one question. "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
Now bcak.... to that I let stand the postivism against it....so the question would be: "You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering postivisms around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
As you and all other know.... Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that in the social as well as natural sciences, data derived from sensory experience, and logical and mathematical treatments of such data, are together the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge. As it nicely stands in the wiki page. What does it mean? It means that I belive we life in a world with gesetzen/laws. Science has the task to find those laws; like Gossens laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossen%27s_laws. The way to find those laws is a hard ones... and had many discussions over the years (Poppers task was more or less a "empiristisches Sinnkriterium zu formulieren" with ot he try to get away from a positvistic view.. .... Im way out of field now).
So back to Positivms.... as a world in there we CAN find those laws without useing normative science.
The cultural relativism trys to avoid own world view on analyse of another culture. So you my ask what is the problem? The problem is that the postivism already avoids this point. It like saying the samething twice.... It is almost in the topic use tautlogical (it isnt equal, thats way it is just almost :P ). As an example or out cry to use postivistic methods. As can be seen here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55816#msg55816
There are others too... im to lazy to search.
So know.... we know we can skip all the "culturell relatisms debate; if we just use a postivistic model in the first place. We avoide this way any meaning less discussion about is there any "laws", "knowledge", "views" be outside of the own world view. As it done in the constructivsm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Thats why I wrote "Some reasoning, some positivism (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate),"
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 23 Aug 2012, 22:17 ---If your skin tickles, than that's because you subscribe to Poppers doctrine, not because you're right and the cultural relativist is wrong without further qualification. You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"
--- End quote ---
Plz read again why my skin tickles.... Im so friendly and read your stuf... and write not just stuff down.
"Thats is the error... I see.... just look beyond page 7.... I get tickling in my skin; if I read that stuff. Some reasoning, some postivitims (so that we dont get some culturell realtisms debate), and some Popper arnt hurtful.... in the oposit even. It will just help this discussion."
As I wrote.... logical deductive arguments arnt aweful.
Like I laready said.... about the 300 mio... I have to add... not just illogical stuff is welcome. If you find some inductive reasoning it is welcome too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
So if you write about "It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." Like I already said.... you can falzifcy me always...(not forget on stuff which I had wrote , we dont be little Gottis arnt we, and of course your point as to be logical deductiv and falsable). So "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. " as you see... you have done a Gotti.... as I discribe in the post before. My point was way larger......
As someone how belives in greed.... again.... I have given so many hinds and tips.... can you show me a argument line in thgis topic which is illogical or inductive... and so full of false premises. Yes, you get 300 mio isk.
* You see someone like Nicoletta Mithra post.... which just had "read Popper" and not the whole package, and has instate of falzifacy an argument post just some lines like: "Hauling Popper as an absolute authority against someone who's taking the position of cultural relativism doesn't help at all. It's not even a good argument, it's a fallacy." As poeple see... I have "throw" positivms, and not without reason, my construvistic friends :P
* But has forget the larger Point of an argument, and has on this topic just talk with himself without bringing a argument forward for his standpoint.... done a Morwen :P .... post it here.... you will get 300 mio isk.
* You have saw someone.... which had post a comment which can just work with an global law which says: "individuals dont act/makeing decisions, just cultures (not "social roles"... like the homo sociologicus... I mean cultures as whole). You will get 300 mio.
* This is the most important ones.... and maybe the easiest ones.... You see a comment which is inductive (not deductiv).... post it here. You will get 300 mio.
* You see a comment. Which is not logical, the argument as whole isnt logical and has internal errors.... Post it here.... You will get 300 mio.
* On another not.... as Lyn had hinted...you are affronted, by false as assumptions...like you are x or y. Post it here... I will roast Gotti for you. You have see someone doing a Scumbag Steve move.... ah... its the same... post it.
So overall like Nicoletta Mithra siad: "Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate."* So lets do this and make her and me happy....
________________
by the way....you havent show me a logical answer to:
* ("Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)" Why isnt that the case in your Book? Plz answer logical and deductiv... thx. I have try to answer all questions, be so friendly...when you do assumptions like "naiv falsizication" is overhauled.... bring the falzification of this models... not a model which stays actually next to it. You are doing than just a normativ assumption. Whithout actually doing science (Hint from Publius.... you will work more with a paradigm change than with an constructism, so more Kuhn). As he will have a explaination for my point (your point). That it is "naive falsificationism".... and not as you thing :P.... So again... take your time... read it again... I havent choose Friedman without a reason. He says in his essay an important error/point in postitivism (next hint: but comes in the end that - this error - it doesnt matter).
Edit: 300 mio isk for every example. Make my tickling go away. As you see Nicoletta my tickle skin comes from many points, and you can help, that it goes away :P
Chell Charon:
The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God.
That is likely the reason most anti-slavers IC either go for an atheist argument or with claiming all holders abuse all slaves (with a possible exception with a minority).
For those going:
Slavery is abuse = All amarrian slaveholders abuse slaves in all ways.
I contest with:
Animal husbandry is abuse = All farmers abuse their animals in all ways.
It is an insane claim for anything else. So it should be here. Can I argue that animal husbandry is abuse of animals? Yes I can, easily enough. There is however no way in I can argue that all farmers abuse their animals beyond the terms of animal husbandry. It is not a consistent argument and nobody would accept this logic in anything else.
As for power corrupts?
For instance prisons. Nobody will argue that prison guards abusing the prisoners happens. However anybody saying this is the majority of prison guard => prisoner relationship will have some serious qualifying to do.
From these flow the question of how many innocent victims of slave abuse there are and especially from Amarr. Remember capsuleers are a minimal fraction of populace.
Amarrian practice of slavery is by internal logic a morally good deed.
Sansha can make a case for their form of slavery either being a moral good or at least with Means to an end argument.
Blood Raiders can make an internally consistent case for slavery being a non moral deed and merely being the way of the world. (Bloodletting, now there is a moral good ;) )
Angel cartel, Serpentis and Guristas (Seven as well) Do not make a moral case for enslaving people. It is a for profit action, end of.
So to return to the analogy of animal husbandry. Which of these would you firebomb first if you believed animal husbandry to be a clear moral evil.
1. a Farm that tries to assure that the animals are well taken care of and only suffer the abuse of animal husbandry, because of their personal believes.
2. a Farm that is only intrested in profit by it's own admission and has no intrest beyond profit to avoid any other abuses from being visited on the animals. And hey if there is a profit in abusing the animals somehow..?
And before we get to "RL Horreeeble person". RL I am not of Amarrian faith nor do I live in Eve universe. IN RL we do not have any moral code that can argue an internally consistent case for the moral goodness of slavery.
WAY OT: Maybe one could actually get there via the codes of Satanism? (Not devil worship for those less familiar with terminology.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version