ThoseWhoStayUofM

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect. "Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error." That's just factually incorrect. Incomplete theories are theories that apply to specific situations and don't apply to others. This is why people refer to Newtonian physics as "incomplete" compared to Einstein's theories of relativity. Newtonian's conception of physics applied only to things that are big and slow. Einstein's theories expanded this application to, not merely big and slow, but additionally things that are small and slow, and big and fast. Later, quantum mechanics would be discovered to develop theories for small and fast objects. There are situations beyond the scope of known physics, such as at the singularity of a black hole. The incompleteness of my "objects falling" theory was simply that it must be confined to isolated systems with no external forces other than gravity. The incompleteness of the music example was solely in the ambiguity of "is" where in one instance it was mean to mean "necessary for" and the other it was meant to mean "sufficient for". That is a logical fallacy, not merely an incomplete theory.

Thanks for your thoughts but it seems you missed the point entirely. Obviously we are talking about incomplete logic and incomplete empirical evidence, otherwise logic theories and empirical evidence would never be in conflict. We are specifically talking about the case when a logical theory conflicts with empirical observation.

No it cannot. It required centuries of work and an entirely new way of looking at the universe using what's called "tensors" to understand general and special relativiity and essentially disprove Newtonian mechanics. Yes, yes people like to say that Einstein didn't "disprove" Newton, but merely completed it. That's just because people have codified Newton as some beacon of intellect... whatever. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation of special relativity at low velocities... so... yeah... Anyway, these theories are proved reglardless of empirical verification because they are mathematically and logically consistent with axiomatic principles of the universe. The beauty of Newton's work was that it required zero empirical observation. All you had to do was accept three axioms (Newton's Laws of Motion) and all of the equations of kinematics, work, energy, momentum, and torque followed from those three axioms. I suggest you study Euclidean geometry as well. Euclid just took three axioms and then made an entire geometric theory based off nothing but those three axioms. In theoretical physics, the fewer the axioms, the better the theory. What that means is, the fewer empirical observations required to get people to accept a theory, the better the theory is.

Why must logic be empirically verified? Also, I think you just made a logical contradiction when you claimed that logic needs to be "empirically verified" yet also claim that formal logic is an empirical validation tool. If both are true, isn't logic empirically verifying logic? It's like saying you shouldn't believe empirical evidence without empirical evidence to verify it with. I disagree that physics, as it is taught to us, is detached from formal logic. All theories of physics must be logically consistent and there is a huge amount of time spent ensuring that they are.

I'm not sure it is true that evidence defeats logic. I will give you an example. Suppose I told you that all objects fall at the same rate - that the acceleration due to gravity is approximately the same for all objects near Earth. This is what my mathematical models and abstract concepts of physics tell me. You proceed to drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time and find that the evidence suggests bowling balls fall much faster than feathers. The man who believes only what empirical evidence suggests has now formed a false belief. The issue that arrises is that perception is not reality. The mathematical models and concepts of physics assume no air resistence. The empirical observation does not, but as you can see, the false conclusion that all feathers fall slower than all bowling balls stems from what is not seen. There are always lurking variables. If you ever witness some empirical observation that does not conform to logic - that is to say it is illogical - then you are likely missing key information. This is why I believe logic ought to always trump empiricism. I also take issue with your example. Your argument is really a conflation of terms. You start by saying that music is a lack of silence. What you mean by this is to say that a lack of silence is necessary, but not sufficient, for music to exist, which is true. You then claim that empirical evidence indicates that rests occur in music and therefore silence sometimes is music too. The problem is that this does not contradict your first claim when the meaning is more clearly explicated.

I, as I hope many of you can relate, often think to myself before falling asleep about philosophical quandaries... ideas...I was thinking as abstractly as humanly possible about what actually matters. It really just comes down to relationships. I mean, living in the western world, everything essentially is delivered to me on a silver spoon. It's virtually impossible to die of lack of resources. Ultimately, if we can sustain ourselves through our labor and aren't a parasite on societie's wellfare state that we all love to talk about, then what ought we do with our lives? The only answer I can come up with is relationship building. Of course, there are other theories about "helping people" but what does that really mean? As we've found out through psychological evidence, peaceful parenting and honest relationship parent-child transactions are fundamental to human flourishing. Providing "resources" is trivial at this point. What matters is real, serous, connections. I'm talking trust, loyalty, and supreme value of the human being over all other "goods" or "means to ends". You want to talk "meaning of life"... that's it, baby. The trick is finding a person who hasn't been sufficiently damaged enough to reject this level of "connectedness".Stef is really on to something here. We need to change the culture... the "norms" we live by... if we want to even begin to make this world a better place.Lastly, I think it's super important to introduce Elinor Ostrom to the freedomain community. This community, which I consider myself LOOSELY a part of, sees government as a "monoply on the initiation of force". That is a convenient definition to have if you want to argue against the "social contract meh... coercive meh... violent" government that EVERY nation is ruled by. This is not... IT'S NOT... the only form of governence that exists. You can have government that is totally voluntary. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT! Please please please read her stuff. Common Pool Resource management is the name of game. Google it.I am learning about her work in my class taught by Elizabeth Anderson. It's amazing. This class is amazing. Please investigate...This entire community needs to move away from "moral arguments". We get it... the initiation of force is wrong. We need to start talking about how we solve collective action problems without a coercive government institution. How do we solve the problem of "freeloaders"? It's easy to argue that the current system not only DOESN'T solve this problem, but institutionally reinforces it through the wellfare state, but that doesn't mean.., therefore anarchy by default. I think we can do better than that. We can SOLVE this problem. Read Ostrom. Investigate this problem.

My professor does not work for the state. My professor works for the University of Michigan, which receives about 6% of its funding from the state. The state has absolutely zero influence on the academic affairs of the university, since the University of Michigan lobbied to have the ban of state intervention explicitly written into the state of Michigan's constitution. The university itself is completely autonomous. It is obvious that Cass Sunstein is a statist and socialist. He is one of Barack Obama's top advisors. The reason why the book is important is not because of the truth it tells us about the world, but rather the truth it tells us about the beliefs and motivations of those who happen to be in power. It's unfortunate that you have to be logged in to simply read the documents. My apologies. The reason why I'm telling you this is because, when large social movements or big stories consume the media's attention, the powerful elite always seem to use it for their own self-interested gains. The gay marriage movement is trying to change the social norm of disavowing homosexuality by exposing how well-received gay marriage is to the traditional marriage advocates who only claim opposition to gay marriage because they think it's the socially acceptable position. Here's the true theory about how to break social norms. There exists 3 types of people; true traditional marriage believers, true gay marriage believers, and the large majority group of people who assume the position of what they think almost everyone truly believes. The idea is that everyone thinks that everybody else is a true believer when, in fact, almost everybody is not. At the present time, many scholars think that the topic of gay marriage fits that description. If that's the case, in order to break the social norm of rejecting gay marriage, all you have to do is expose the non-true believers to the fact that there exists just as many true gay marriage believers as there are true traditional marriage believers. This would be accomplished via facebook, and the switching of profile pics to indicate who is a true believer. When everybody is switching their pictures on a specific day, it shows up in the news feed... you can't miss it. You get a giant wall of updates about a bunch of your friends declaring that they support gay marriage. What you don't see is a giant wall of updates about a bunch of your friends who don't support gay marriage... because the "not support" option dictates that you do nothing. This creates the illusion that there are far more true believers of gay marriage than that of traditional marriage. This is called social engineering. Know thine enemy.

I'm sorry, but I also want to quote your banner as well, "to see crazy, you have to know sane." Oh... so true my friend. *takes sip of brandy, on the rocks

I originally wrote this in the "Show Suggestions" thread but realized this was a much better place to put it. That being said, I'm in a political philosophy class at the University of Michigan. My prophesor scheduled our class to read Cass Sunstein's book, "Free Markets and Social Justice" but just the segment titled, "Social Norms and Social Roles" (link below). Cass Sunstein, “Social Norms and Social Roles,” in Free Markets and Social Justice Even more importantly, she had us read "Bruno Frey, “A Constitution for Knaves Crowds Out Civic Virtues.” The Economic Journal 107 (1997): 1043–53." and Dawes, Robyn, Alphonse van de Kragt, and John Orbell. 1990. “Cooperation for the Benefit of Us--Not Me, or My Conscience,” ed. Jane Mansbridge. In Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Now I know most of you haven't just stopped everything and taken the time to read those big giant walls of text, f*** that. Hopefully what I'm about to explain will entise you to go and read those texts for yourself though... anyway... Today, March 26, 2013, advocates of gay marriage posted large "=" images as their profile pictures. As they did this, people began to see all of their friends slowly change their picture to this red "=". As they saw their social group divide into "real faces" and "big honking red "equals sign" images on their screen, they realized they had to make a decision. They actually have to step out in front of everybody and say what they think about Gay Marriage [bold][double bold]... [triple bold that s**t]. And suddenly, they switched. I'm writing this at 4:43 so I have no idea what the result of this will be. If you still don't want to read giant wall monster of text at least read the first two paragraphs of this wikipedia article about how this worked to overthrow a government. That might get the attention of anarchist libertarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

I'm in a political philosophy class at the University of Michigan. My prophesor scheduled our class to read Cass Sunstein's book, "Free Markets and Social Justice" but just the segment titled, "Social Norms and Social Roles" (link below). Cass Sunstein, “Social Norms and Social Roles,” in Free Markets and Social Justice Even more importantly, she had us read "Bruno Frey, “A Constitution for Knaves Crowds Out Civic Virtues.” The Economic Journal 107 (1997): 1043–53." and Dawes, Robyn, Alphonse van de Kragt, and John Orbell. 1990. “Cooperation for the Benefit of Us--Not Me, or My Conscience,” ed. Jane Mansbridge. In Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Now I know most of you haven't just stopped everything and taken the time to read those big giant walls of text, f*** that. Hopefully what I'm about to explain will entise you to go and read those texts for yourself though... anyway... Today, March 26, 2013, advocates of gay marriage posted large "=" images as their profile pictures. As they did this, people began to see all of their friends slowly change their picture to this red "=". As they saw their social group divide into "real faces" and "big honking red "equals sign" images on their screen, they realized they had to make a decision. They actually have to step out in front of everybody and say what they think about Gay Marriage [bold][double bold]... [triple bold that s**t]. And suddenly, they switched. I'm writing this at 4:43 so I have no idea what the result of this will be. If you still don't want to read giant wall monster of text at least read the first two paragraphs of this wikipedia article about how this worked to overthrow a government. That might get the attention of anarchist libertarians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

If I am employed by a boss who perpetually calls me names, belittles me, and makes me feel worthless, that is psychological domination and violance. There are PLENTY of psychological studies that show the effects on the brain that this type of treatment has. Also, look at poverty as a social determinant of health. Studies show that the mindset of being inferior to others significantly harms your health.In fact, you can't "opt out" of being psychologically dominated. People like to think that they have more control over their environment then they actually do. If you actually believed people could "opt out" of this, then why do women buy $3000 purses? It's because their trying to stay competative with other women... as not to be dominated.I would argue that people buy brands that others perceive as "socially valuable" despite the outrageous cost and lack of quality solely because people are compensating for a low self-worthy. If the self-esteem of all of these people were healthy, this type of behavior would not exist.The irony of calling what I said a "red herring" is that you totally misrepresented the point I was trying to make. If you buy a piano made by one piano manufacturer simply because the sound quality or "feel" of the instrument is more appealing to you, then OBVIOUSLY there is no deception, domination, or violence occurring. On the other hand, if you buy a particular piano so that you can invite your friends over to show them how great it is with the attempt to illicit jealousy, and ultimately lower thier self-worth while boosting your own, then OBVIOUSLY there is deception, domination, and violence occurring.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1bGOvGWxI] Here's another video that touches on the subject of deception in branding (skip to time code 4:45). I'm linking this video because it shows that regular, non-philosophers understand how we use items of "social value" to dominate eachother. It's inherently violent! We all do this and NOBODY seems to care.Why don't we see this as equally violent as parental abandonment or neglect? i mean, I understand that the bond between a child and a parent is far more important than the social relations between strangers, but domination based on arbitrary possessions is still fucking insane and evil in the same way that arbitrary parent-child domination is insane and evil.We all see it. Everybody fucking knows it!!! Yet, we do nothing. We don't care. We ignore it.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean exactly. The words printed on the cloths are not always the tools for deception. For instance, the materials your cloths are made out of can also be used to deceive. If I want to force the perception that I am wealthy, and thus valuable, on others, I may choose to wear boots made from italian leather or aligator skin. Italian leather doesn't keep you warmer. Aligator skin isn't more durable. Likewise, those materials don't have any barring on my character or work ethic. The only purpose of these materials is to deceive.I'm trying to think of a mechanism for good in all of this. I think the route of this is in representative symbolism. Nazis wore swastikas to represent the ideals they held. This was very useful. You could identify characteristics about a person based on the brand they were wearing. If I make a patch of the FDR logo and put it on my jacket, this could indicate to you that I'm of the libertarian persuasion or that I value philosophy. It's not a gun because it's not designed to force false beliefs on you. However, when this representative branding becomes vague and arbitrary is when it because something other than representative symbolism. What does the Nike swoosh on my shoes tell you about my ideals? Nothing... in reality. It's purpose is to deceive others into thinking I'm athletic, dedicated, and skilled in some sport despite the fact that 99.99% of the people who wear Nike don't play sports at all.The fashion industry itself is the real issue, I think. The idea that a pair of boots meant you were interresting, fun, and socially inviting, 20 years ago, but today means you're boring, uncomfortable, and unappealing, is an idea that just doesn't sit well with me. It's not just fashion either though. It's the idea that you need to buy the latest ipad despite already owning the iphone and the macbook.. which functionally can do everything the ipad does and more. You don't need to buy the ipad because of what it can do. You need to buy the ipad because of what owning it implies to the perception of others. I'm trying to formulate a tenable position on this matter but I am kind of thinking in circles here, as you can see. I'm not as skilled of a philosopher as somebody like Stefan so maybe you all can help me out with this.I would love if Stefan could make a video about his views on this topic.

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA]I recently watched the music video of Macklemore's single, "Wings". This song really spoke to me in ways I had never thought about before. I had an epiphony moment in the same way when I was first introduced to countries as merely tax farms, taxation as theft, and divorce as a death threat to children. There are two types of domination that human beings encounter. The first is physical domination. This is the use of physical force. We are all familiar with physical domination and can easily see it and identify it. The second type of domination is the one that is challenging to identify. This second type is psychological domination. We all attempt to dominate others, and are dominated by others, without even realizing it. At one time I suspect we saw it for what it was, but quickly learned to supress this truth. Personal accomplishments and virtuous actions cannot be displayed for others to see. We can not brandish our moral superiority or dedication to cultivating our skills to other people, as weapons of good. Because of this fact, brands are used to dominate others. Truly think about why we value certain brands over others. Does my Nike swoosh make me jump higher? Does my Macintosh Apple make me smarter? It's nothing more than a weapon used to force others to perceive me differently... as better. Caring about what other people think is good. It is part of what treating people with the respect and dignity they deserve is all about. But fashion and branding is deceptive. It's only purpose is to exploit people's expedient value processes. I can choose not to deceive others by wearing only what is comfortable and functional for my daily needs. I can let my actions speak for themselves! But the sad truth is, others will not play by those rules. Others will deceive and benefit from it - at my expense. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma. I only stand to benefit from deception because if ever called out on it (of course I never will since everybody does it) I always have plausible deniability. "Oh, Nike shoes are just more comfortable than any other shoes. the quality of Abercrombie clothes is superior. This North Face jacket is so much warmer than others like it." We all know this is bullshit. Deep down we know, but we accept these lies because we all want to justify our own illusions. Take a drive through a poverty stricken neighborhood, but don't act surprised when you see the boarded up, dilapidated houses with the expensive vehicles parked out front. Don't pretend you don't understand. Visit a school where you can meet kids who arrive with expensive outfits, jewelry, electronics... and empty stomachs. All of this worthless crap that we waste our money on serves only one purpose... to deceive. It's a means to an end. It's a gun. It's violence of the mind. Stef said, "to see the farm is to leave it." Interestingly enough, to see the gun of branding is to defeat it.

Of course people build off of other people's philosophical works and that's totally legitimate. I assumed UPB was a prescriptive moral theory. What you're telling me is that UPB can invalidate certain moral rules, such as lying, stealing, rape, and murder. That's fine if anybody was espousing that these things could be moral rules. I just don't see the usefulness of UPB if all it does is invalidate things that nobody actually believed was valid in the first place.

Kant's categorical imperative was written about extensively in his work, "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals: With the Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns". This categorical imperative states, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I'm really having a hard time distinguishing the differences between this moral philosophy and that of Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB). In Kant's work, he discusses the exact example of how lying is morally impermissible regardless of circumstance. He claims that, when you universalize the act of lying when it's convenient, you would be living in a world where everyone MUST lie when it's convenient. It is also true that a lie can only be told if the listener of that lie is predisposed to believe the liar is telling the truth. For example, actors and actresses are not lying when they are performing as fictional characters on stage because the audience is predisposed to believe they are being lied to. Going back to the universalization of lying, people would know when it's convenient to lie and when it isn't, and so the lie would be exposed every time a person tried to lie, and thus, truly lying is logically impossible.The execution of UPB follows this exact format. You universalize some maxim and then show that it leads to a contradiction. Doesn't this make UPB just a rip off of Kantian ethics? Isn't that academically dishonest to say it's Stefan Molyneux's theory of ethics if he just attached a new name to somebody else's intellectual property? Likewise, isn't UPB exposed to the same criticisms that Kantian ethics are exposed to, e.g. utilitarianism?