On hypotheticals and predictions

[labmath2]

Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain. I think David Hume has an interesting discussion on this when he talked about induction. So when someone brings up how the economy will be better (better in the context of some measurable criteria) in a free market, you have to provide causal link that validates the claim. Even the notion that the world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting is hypothetical. Unless there is data showing either causal link or correlation (it has to be reliable data), the hypothetical is just conjecture.

 

I look forward to your feedback.

[Will Torbald]

The argument from "how you do you know a free market will be better?" is irrelevant when you have the moral case for it. It is just wrong to use coercion.

[dsayers]

Even the notion that the world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting is hypothetical. Unless there is data showing either causal link or correlation (it has to be reliable data), the hypothetical is just conjecture.

What evidence do you have that somebody won't spontaneously start speaking German having never been exposed to it? If you're a rational thinker, you don't need evidence of this because it logically follows.

 

What you claim to be hypothetical isn't hypothetical at all. The Bomb in the Brain, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and The Philosophical Baby have the data you seek and have been promoted ad infinitum around these parts, which you're no stranger to. Ask yourself a question like how could somebody be convinced that taxation is not theft? It's not hard to trace this to child abuse anymore than it's hard to find that you're hundreds of miles off course just by being a few degrees off from your point of origin.

 

So when someone brings up how the economy will be better (better in the context of some measurable criteria) in a free market, you have to provide causal link that validates the claim.

Better compared to what?

 

Again, you need to look at the origin and/or apply rational thought. Since I exist, you exist, and theft is a self-detonating proposition, the onus is upon you to provide data on how a coercive market is better, not the other way around.

 

Again, this is something that logically follows. I can either choose to buy a burrito or somebody can force me to buy one. Which costs more? One has the overhead of formulating edicts and enforcing them. Which again, given that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, you'd have to bypass the moral argument to even arrive at the utilitarian one. Which is an unprincipled approach. The very thing you're trying to use to reject easily established truths.

[labmath2]

What evidence do you have that somebody won't spontaneously start speaking German having never been exposed to it? If you're a rational thinker, you don't need evidence of this because it logically follows.

 

What you claim to be hypothetical isn't hypothetical at all. The Bomb in the Brain, The Origins of War in Child Abuse, and The Philosophical Baby have the data you seek and have been promoted ad infinitum around these parts, which you're no stranger to. Ask yourself a question like how could somebody be convinced that taxation is not theft? It's not hard to trace this to child abuse anymore than it's hard to find that you're hundreds of miles off course just by being a few degrees off from your point of origin.

 

Better compared to what?

 

Again, you need to look at the origin and/or apply rational thought. Since I exist, you exist, and theft is a self-detonating proposition, the onus is upon you to provide data on how a coercive market is better, not the other way around.

 

Again, this is something that logically follows. I can either choose to buy a burrito or somebody can force me to buy one. Which costs more? One has the overhead of formulating edicts and enforcing them. Which again, given that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, you'd have to bypass the moral argument to even arrive at the utilitarian one. Which is an unprincipled approach. The very thing you're trying to use to reject easily established truths.

Unless i am remembering wrong, none of those material go as far as to say parents are responsible for their childrens criminality. The strongest evidence is correlation and even that doesn't explain a lot. I don't mind people going as far as the evidence is available in showing violence is correlated with child abuse, but that is not child abuse causes violence. Unless i am missing some important study that does say that.

 

On the free market, of course its better to voluntarily engage than to be forced, but there is no gurantee that there won't be violators. If we have a free market, then one person steals, is it still a free market? How many violations of the NAP has to occur before its no longer a free market? Free markets are defined by the general adherence of the individuals in the market to free market principles. For comparison, the outlawing of slavery does not mean there won't be slaves (as in fact some people kidnap others today and make them their sex slaves), its the general adherence of the population to a non slave society that makes it so. So likewise, we cannot know what such a world would look llke.

 

In an ideal world all parents would provide the best care to their children and there will be no violations of NAP. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a world is possible and i would very much like to avoid such claims.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

"Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain."

 

I am the logic police (non-violent DRO), you must stop here. Is your statement purely theoretical, or can you show the causal links that make it certain? 

[dsayers]

Unless i am remembering wrong, none of those material go as far as to say parents are responsible for their childrens criminality. The strongest evidence is correlation and even that doesn't explain a lot. I don't mind people going as far as the evidence is available in showing violence is correlated with child abuse, but that is not child abuse causes violence. Unless i am missing some important study that does say that.

How do you know when vacuum cleaner isn't working? When it stops sucking, right? How do you know your lawn isn't getting the nutrients it needs? When the grass becomes dry and yellow, right? How do you know when an empathetic creature is damaged? When it begins to engage in anti-empathetic behavior, right?

 

If you open up a carton of eggs and one is damaged, this isn't necessarily your fault. There were any number of people and handlings that took place before you had your hands on them. This is not the case with children. A child is conceived in a woman's body. Its parents have full control over that embryo/fetus/baby's entire environment. Was the baby attacked by the family dog? Who allowed that dog access to the baby? I'll say it again: All you have to do is apply a little logic.

 

On the free market, of course its better to voluntarily engage than to be forced, but there is no gurantee that there won't be violators.

I'm curious as to why here you would claim that voluntary trade is better than being force when just one post earlier, your position was that "you have to provide causal link that validates the claim." I don't see that you've provided a causal link to validate that claim. This is evidence that you are rejecting something for unprincipled reasons. I hope you will revise your approach now that you are aware of this discrepancy.

 

I don't understand what your point is in saying there won't be violators. There's violators now. A coercive market guarantees that everybody will be violated. How is the possibility it might happen justification for rejecting that the guarantee of it happening, and on a much larger scale is worse?

 

In an ideal world all parents would provide the best care to their children and there will be no violations of NAP. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a world is possible and i would very much like to avoid such claims.

This is our world. All of ours. If we allow child abuse to go down, make excuses for violent parents, call things by improper names to conceal the abuse, then those who would abuse children have no incentive not to. Meaning the possibility is only as present as our resolve.

 

You poison the well with your use of "ideal world." When I stop for gas, I don't rape any of the dozens of people that are there. It's not because I'm living in an ideal world. "Don't assault children" isn't ideal. It's actually quite basic. You don't have to strive for perfection to manage to not steal from, assault, rape, or murder other people.

 

I've seen you ask a lot of great questions. It really saddens me to see you resort to this level of dishonesty

[labmath2]

"Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain."

 

I am the logic police (non-violent DRO), you must stop here. Is your statement purely theoretical, or can you show the causal links that make it certain?

Look up the standard definitions of hypothetical and theoretial, if you still dont have your answer, then i will indulge.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Look up the standard definitions of hypothetical and theoretial, if you still dont have your answer, then i will indulge.

 

what? I know the definitions of those words. Looking them up did nothing to clarify

 

Like you said, either your argument is purely theoretical, meaning it does not necessarily have anything to do with reality, or it is the result of some logical sequence. If it is the result of some logical sequence, then you can show us. Right now all you've offered is a tautology.

 

 

Even the notion that the world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting is hypothetical. Unless there is data showing either causal link or correlation (it has to be reliable data), the hypothetical is just conjecture.

 

I found this first sentence annoying. Which I'm not saying necessarily means you're incorrect, but I felt completely fogged after reading it, as if I was being purposefully mislead.

 

By definition, the world would be a different place is people practiced peaceful parenting, given that they are not practicing it now. Now I have no idea how you could have thought the phrase "different place" would be appropriate there, but if you meant less violent, well also, by definition it would be less violent. Now if you also want to say people would have higher IQs, that is not true by definition, but there is evidence to suggest there would be that, too. In the beginning you said if a hypothesis is not certain because of some causal link, then it is purely hypothetical, so it is a bit confusing for you to change your tune at the end and act as if correlations are a certain relationship.

[labmath2]

what? I know the definitions of those words. Looking them up did nothing to clarify

 

Like you said, either your argument is purely theoretical, meaning it does not necessarily have anything to do with reality, or it is the result of some logical sequence. If it is the result of some logical sequence, then you can show us. Right now all you've offered is a tautology.

 

 

I found this first sentence annoying. Which I'm not saying necessarily means you're incorrect, but I felt completely fogged after reading it, as if I was being purposefully mislead.

 

By definition, the world would be a different place is people practiced peaceful parenting, given that they are not practicing it now. Now I have no idea how you could have thought the phrase "different place" would be appropriate there, but if you meant less violent, well also, by definition it would be less violent. Now if you also want to say people would have higher IQs, that is not true by definition, but there is evidence to suggest there would be that, too. In the beginning you said if a hypothesis is not certain because of some causal link, then it is purely hypothetical, so it is a bit confusing for you to change your tune at the end and act as if correlations are a certain relationship.

How do i know the statement is true, because it is a tautology. Hypothetical (merriam webster) involving or based on an idea or theory. Once the outcome is demonstrated it becomes practical (certain).

 

On the second point, your point is well taken. I realize now my language was not very accurate in presenting what i understood mentally. It would be more accurate to say your claim must be supported by evidence. Yes, the world would be different if everyone practiced peaceful parenting, but the evidence is not there for some of the claims i have seen people make. This means if your evidence shows cause and efffect, then you can make a cause claim. If it is correlation, you can make a correlation claim. To reiterate, your claim cannot go beyond your evidence.

 

Thanks for the quesions, it actually helped me clarify what i mean.

[ResidingOnEarth]

This may be the last post of yours that I respond to, as I have a suspicion you are trolling.  I have replied in purple.

 

Hypotheticals are purely theoretical unless you can show causal links that show that the outcome isn't merely possible, but certain.

 

Nope.
 

"Certainty" is a standard-of-truth far higher than can be reasonably expected when talking about economic systems and economic predictions.  If you're writing a mathematical proof, then I expect "certainty" is required.  The degree to which an economist is "certain" of any economic prediction or the validity of their economic theory is the degree to which I will ignore that economist.

 

There are simply too many variables to account for in an economy to make a perfect prediction about the future.

 

Some of the things I expect from a good economist are:

* logical consistency

* adherence to universal ethical principles

* acceptance of facts and evidence about the environment their economic theories apply to

 

I think David Hume has an interesting discussion on this when he talked about induction. So when someone brings up how the economy will be better (better in the context of some measurable criteria) in a free market, you have to provide causal link that validates the claim.

 

Do the current set of government funded, Keynsian-type economists work by this standard (of providing a causal link) before implementing their economic system?  Have they proven that their system is "better" than a free market system by providing causal links between a particular "better" outcome and one of their economic policies?

 

You sound like you're asking for a very high standard of proof for free-market theories.  Surely whatever standard of proof you are applying to free-market, Austrian-type economic theories must at least be applied equally to the Keynsian-type theories (of continuous government/central-bank intervention).  The reason I say "at least", is because free market advocates are not the people reaching for the gun to coerce vast numbers of people into changing their behaviour.  The Keynsian-type economists are doing that.  These people want to central manage the economy using violence and threat of violence as their primary tool.

 

A free market is simply what-is when people aren't being coerced.  A non-free-market is what you get when there is coercion involved (IE people are not acting as they naturally would because they are being threatened.)

 

Even the notion that the world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting is hypothetical.

 

What?  Of course the "world would be a different place if people simply practiced peaceful parenting".  I think a pretty strong case has been made by people like Stefan that the world will not only be "different", but it will be better.

 

Unless there is data showing either causal link or correlation (it has to be reliable data), the hypothetical is just conjecture.

 

What? "causal link or correlation".  That makes no sense.  You know right, that a correlation between 2 or more things does not mean there is any causation?  Why do you think either a causation link or correlation is good enough?  Science does not allow truth to be established via either causation OR correlation.  That's not scientific.  That's not rational.

 

Also: your use of the word "hypothetical" throughout your post is quite confusing.

 

If you use the word "hypothesis" it would be more clear that you were describing a "tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

 

If you used the word "hypothetical scenario" it would be more clear that you were describing "something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

 

These are both 2 different interpretations of the term hypothetical.  In the context of your posts it's hard to get a fix on what you're trying to say.  I expect that's because you're confused or you're trolling.

[labmath2]

How do you know when vacuum cleaner isn't working? When it stops sucking, right? How do you know your lawn isn't getting the nutrients it needs? When the grass becomes dry and yellow, right? How do you know when an empathetic creature is damaged? When it begins to engage in anti-empathetic behavior, right?

 

If you open up a carton of eggs and one is damaged, this isn't necessarily your fault. There were any number of people and handlings that took place before you had your hands on them. This is not the case with children. A child is conceived in a woman's body. Its parents have full control over that embryo/fetus/baby's entire environment. Was the baby attacked by the family dog? Who allowed that dog access to the baby? I'll say it again: All you have to do is apply a little logic.

 

I'm curious as to why here you would claim that voluntary trade is better than being force when just one post earlier, your position was that "you have to provide causal link that validates the claim." I don't see that you've provided a causal link to validate that claim. This is evidence that you are rejecting something for unprincipled reasons. I hope you will revise your approach now that you are aware of this discrepancy.

 

I don't understand what your point is in saying there won't be violators. There's violators now. A coercive market guarantees that everybody will be violated. How is the possibility it might happen justification for rejecting that the guarantee of it happening, and on a much larger scale is worse?

 

This is our world. All of ours. If we allow child abuse to go down, make excuses for violent parents, call things by improper names to conceal the abuse, then those who would abuse children have no incentive not to. Meaning the possibility is only as present as our resolve.

 

You poison the well with your use of "ideal world." When I stop for gas, I don't rape any of the dozens of people that are there. It's not because I'm living in an ideal world. "Don't assault children" isn't ideal. It's actually quite basic. You don't have to strive for perfection to manage to not steal from, assault, rape, or murder other people.

 

I've seen you ask a lot of great questions. It really saddens me to see you resort to this level of dishonesty

It seems you are making the claim that parents are resposible for their childrens criminality. Would you care to put up the evidence for that claim. The analogy with inanimate objects does little ti resolve the issue.

 

On the voluntary exchange thing, by defiition if i want something, then i think its better for me than the alternative. What i am talking about is not imdividuals voluntarily exchaging goods and services, but a free market society. If you define a free market society as one deviod of force, then yes it would be better, but how do we eliminate all force. The point is none of us knows what that world looks like, so you cannot make any claims about that world. Again you can still argue that violations of NAP is immoral.

 

No where in here did i say child abuse was good nor use of force acceptable. My argument is simply about making claims about a world we haven't experienced nor have evidence for what such world would look like.

[dsayers]

The analogy with inanimate objects does little ti resolve the issue.

Only because you reject Gopnik's work after asking for it. Broken is broken whether its an inanimate object or a person. This state of a person is only less clear because people like you try to obfuscate it and/or protect abusers.

 

What i am talking about is not imdividuals voluntarily exchaging goods and services, but a free market society.

What is a free market if not the aggregate of individuals trading voluntarily?

 

how do we eliminate all force.

You'll have to be more specific. Competition and consequences could be described as market forces, but that's a very good thing. Do you mean the initiation of the use of force? Because defensive force is not only justified, but the answer to your question. It's like asking how do I stop a mugger from taking my wallet? If that's not what you mean, then you'll need to clarify. Of course we already know the requisite, which the elimination of would act as prevention.

 

The point is none of us knows what that world looks like, so you cannot make any claims about that world.

In my last post, I conceded that we cannot know the SPECIFICS. For you to repeat this... did you not read what I wrote? Or are you saying it is known that nothing can be known? Repetition does nothing to clarify. It's as if you're saying that we don't know what a cancer survivor's life will look like, so we should just let the cancer run its course.

 

Also, I keep inviting you to apply logic. You can't know that Socrates was mortal, but if all men are mortal and Socrates was a man, you should be able to figure it out.

 

No where in here did i say child abuse was good nor use of force acceptable.

Strawman. No where in here did I say you said child abuse was good or the initiation of the use of force acceptable. You revealed your bias when you referred to peaceful parenting as an "ideal world" and I pointed out that perfection isn't a requisite for not stealing, assaulting, raping, and murder.

 

Besides, you don't have to say child abuse is good to inadvertently promote it or protect those who engage in it. However, once you've been presented with the idea, such promotion and protection can no longer be described as inadvertent. In other words, I'm going to listen to your behaviors over your words because you don't possess the self-knowledge to spoof those behaviors as well as you're spoofing the words.