The Case for Voting Democrat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 06:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 12:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No such critter. Like hunting snipes. Tongue

there are so snipes. Tongue

Are you maybe confusing those with snarks?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 06:40 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 06:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 06:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  there are so snipes. Tongue

Are you maybe confusing those with snarks?

Why wouid I need to hunt you? Consider


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 08:10 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @cjlr, please bookmark dictionary.com. You seem to be struggling with understanding basic words in the English language, like 'violence', 'physical force', and now 'axiom'.

Dictionary: axiom: a self-evident truth that requires no proof

That's not how it's defined in any rigourous context. Like, oh, say, mathematics. The context in which you mentioned it. In bringing up mathematical examples, you should probably have known that. Unless you're just talking out of your ass...

(protip: "lol dictionary.com" is not sufficient basis for intellectual discussion; a philosophical discussion on the nature and role of violence, for example, requires better definitions)

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, I agree that calling “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” an axiom is, well, an insult to axioms since it's such a basic, primitive statement, and not a theory or logical construct,

And yet you did. Repeatedly. Hmm.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... although it does technically fit the dictionary definition of being a 'self-evident truth'.

Which, as we've established, is not a sufficient definition.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I agree it's embarrassing to call such basic math an 'axiom' since this stuff SHOULD BE so obvious that it doesn't take pages and pages of debate.

"Self-evident" and "obvious" apparently here meaning "in accord with your gut feelings".

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  HOWEVER, even that incredibly basic, primitive statement was too much for the Obamacare defenders in that thread. No matter how many times I asked if they agreed that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” was accurate, they couldn't muster a response. So if THAT basic axiom was already too advanced, there was no point in getting into REAL axioms.

Your point being?

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as the way you copy and pasted stuff about the theory of relativity...

Oh, snap!

Copypasta my ass, chum.

If you don't understand the physics you really shouldn't attempt to use it to make a rhetorical point.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... I don't want to get into a rabbit hole debating this since it's so far off-topic.

Then why did you bring it up?

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However, read about Einstein's thought experiment with a clock. There were no instruments precise enough to measure the distortion of time, and nobody had been able to accelerate an object to near the speed of light to see how the mass increased.

Because time dilation and relativistic mass increase are consequences of his postulates, and not the phenomena he was attempting (successfully) to explain.

You... don't know what you're talking about, do you?

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, he DID have to use axioms and thought experiments to come up with answers where the empirical data was lacking.

The data weren't "lacking". That's very bizarre way to state things.

Nor were the "axioms" of special relativity self-evident, so even your dilettante's definition doesn't hold.

"Einstein didn't use data" is among the most insane leaps of non-logic I've ever encountered. And now you're doubling down on it...

What I take from this is that apparently you don't understand the scientific method or the history of science.

Oh, well. I tried.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And that's all I've been saying.

Like hell.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider the post about 'does raising the minimum wage have any influence on the rate of unemployment'. The Keyensians all say 'no' it has zero effect, and they claim the empirical data supports their position because whenever the Federal government raised the minimum wage there was no spike in unemployment. The Keynesians stop right there, and assume lack of correlation proves lack of causation.

Citation needed.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Austrians accept the empirical data, but use logic and reason. First, we realize the Keynesians MUST be wrong, because anything times zero is always zero. So, if raising the minimum wage $.50 truly had ZERO effect, you could repeat the process indefinitely and it still would never have any effect. But we know that's not true. Therefore, one can conclude that, assuming you're raising the minimum wage higher than what people are willing to work for (which is the whole point), there must be SOME effect, because otherwise we could just keep doing it and raise the minimum wage to $50/hour. So rather than stopping at the Keynesians conclusion, we dig deeper and apply logic to analyze the empirical data. For example, it's easier to get a minimum wage hike passed when the economy is picking up and unemployment is going down, which makes it impossible to say if the minimum wage affected the unemployment rate or vice-versa. Also, when you consider human behavior you realize it could take many years for a change like that to have an affect. For example, all the owners of parking garages aren't going to immediately fire their cashiers the day the minimum wage law takes effect, but the next time they do major building maintenance, which could be many years away, it gives them an extra incentive to replace the cashiers with an automatic kiosk. Therefore, the lack of a sudden spike in unemployment following a minimum wage hike does NOT prove the Keynesians claim that it has zero effect.

Keynesians (all Keynesians, apparently) are wrong about a specific (unattributed) thing,
THEREFORE,
Keynesians (all of them) are wrong about all things.

"Logic".

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Therefore, the only way to know for sure what effect it has is with a controlled study, meaning you take 2 identical jurisdictions and raise the minimum wage for 1 group, but not for the other, and then fast forward several years and measure unemployment. Of course, it's impossible to do since you can never find 2 perfectly identical jurisdictions. But the closest thing would be to look at the 50 states and compare the minimum wage vs. the unemployment rate. This way you're measuring the cumulative effect that may have taken many years to build, and which cannot be determined from a simple time graph. When you do that, voila, the empirical data DOES actually support the logical axiom. The Keynesians were just looking at the wrong data and failing to understand that correlation!=causation. Keynesians ignore logic and axioms, focusing only on empirical data, and only the data that supports their beliefs since they refuse to address the state-based empirical data which the Austrians present. They ignore that empirical data, and ONLY consider the empirical data that DOES support their view. By contrast, the Austrians try to reconcile the empirical data with axioms and logic.

Data analysis you agree with: axioms and logic!
Data analysis you disagree with: statistical cherry-picking.

"Logic".

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That is how Einstein and other scientists work.

You've more than demonstrated you have no idea how Einstein thought. Please find a different example.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-12-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As far as the way you copy and pasted stuff about the theory of relativity...

Oh, snap!

Copypasta my ass, chum.

If you don't understand the physics you really shouldn't attempt to use it to make a rhetorical point.

Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity, might as well go for the trifecta and argue with a computer scientist over computational complexity. Tongue

[Image: bro.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
03-12-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, I agree that calling “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” an axiom is, well, an insult to axioms since it's such a basic, primitive statement, and not a theory or logical construct,

"Self-evident" and "obvious" apparently here meaning "in accord with your gut feelings".

You realize you just argued that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”. Ok, if you say so.

(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Nor were the "axioms" of special relativity self-evident, so even your dilettante's definition doesn't hold."Einstein didn't use data" is among the most insane leaps of non-logic I've ever encountered. And now you're doubling down on it...

No, you're making up strawmen. I didn't say he didn't use data. I said he used logic and reason to make sense of the data, and he reached conclusions beyond what was contained in the data. Unless you can show me some empirical data where scientists back then were able to measure the change in mass as objects approached the speed of light, or had clocks accurate enough to measure the change in time with motion, I stand by that claim. However, I'm not embarrassed to admit it when I'm wrong, and I'm not claiming to be an expert on theoretical physics. So, if you have links to show that Einstein reached those conclusions through a review of empirical data alone, without axioms and logic and reason, then I will eat my words and admit you're right. But, so far, you've digressed into lots of irrelevant details but still have not, imo, done anything to refute my claim that the Austrian economists approach economics the same way Einstein approached physics: use reason and logic to make sense of data and look for new ways to look at data that do not contradict known axioms. As opposed to the Keynesian approach of just looking for data that supports your views, ignoring that which doesn't, and leaving it at that. Lest you dispute this, refer to my other thread today on Obamacare where Chas did exactly this just a few minutes ago, and GirlyMan and Sporehux 'liked' it.


(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider the post about 'does raising the minimum wage have any influence on the rate of unemployment'. The Keyensians all say 'no' it has zero effect, and they claim the empirical data supports their position because whenever the Federal government raised the minimum wage there was no spike in unemployment. The Keynesians stop right there, and assume lack of correlation proves lack of causation.

Citation needed.

I don't know why I bother since you'll just ignore the citation anyway. But here it is:
http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/03/06/th...nce-of-it/
He is a typical Keynesian economist. Where does he address the empirical data that shows that states with higher than average minimum wage have higher than average unemployment? He doesn't. He completely ignores it. He can't explain it, so he chooses to pretend it doesn't exist. Whereas an Austrian economist accepts ALL the empirical data, and tries to find a theory that unifies everything and doesn't defy logic. Lest you say this guy is an exception, he links to other economics appears like this one from Berkeley that do the same thing.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf


(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Data analysis you agree with: axioms and logic!
Data analysis you disagree with: statistical cherry-picking.

Not at all. Out of the hundreds of pages in debates in this forum, find one instance where anybody ever presented me axioms or logic or data which I ignored. I can safely say you can't, because if I see axioms or empirical data that conflict with my views, and I can't explain them, then I'll just change my view and admit that I was wrong. Try to find one instance where your side has lobbied questions at me that I've run from, the way you run from the questions I pose. Or find one instance where your side presented a basic axiom like I did (“100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”), where I refused to acknowledge that it was right, or to dispute it.

No, when I call out cherry-picking it's NOT because it's on one side of the debate or the other. It's when data or axioms are presented and people refuse to address them and just pretend they don't exist, only willing to acknowledge data that supports their view. Just like the papers I linked to on the minimum wage where the authors chose to ignore state data, and focused only on Federal data, because the state data proved them wrong. That is cherry-picking, no matter which side does it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 08:55 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity

I seriously doubt Cjlr is a physicists. I have a strong suspicion somebody else wrote the tech part. After all Cjlr just got through saying my statement that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”. I'm sorry, I don't buy that a physicist (or a mathematician) would say that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 09:07 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 09:17 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 08:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity

I seriously doubt Cjlr is a physicists.

You are wrong. ... Not your first time, by the way. Oughtta be familiar territory to you by now. Drinking Beverage

(03-12-2013 08:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 08:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity

I seriously doubt Cjlr is a physicists. I have a strong suspicion somebody else wrote the tech part. After all Cjlr just got through saying my statement that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”. I'm sorry, I don't buy that a physicist (or a mathematician) would say that.

Depends on how you define "x" now doesn't it? It means the cross-product in Girly's world.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
03-12-2013, 10:31 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 08:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Argues with a mathematician over axiomatic theory, argues with a physicist over the origins of the Theory of Special Relativity

I seriously doubt Cjlr is a physicists. I have a strong suspicion somebody else wrote the tech part.

Oh no you di'in't!

Search my posting history if you so desire, you pissant. If you can find the sources I plagiarised my physics lectures from, please let me know - 'cause now I'm curious!

(but for the observer following along at home - ol' frankksj here has, apparently, given up on responding to my corrections of his understanding of science, physics, and history; he has instead decided to play the "but you just copied that from somewhere else" card - and, I can only presume, therefore conceding its validity, and settling for denigrating my integrity instead)

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  After all Cjlr just got through saying my statement that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”.

Protip: I didn't say any of those things. As well you'd know, should you ever take a break from fatheaded chicanery long enough to read what I said.

But then again, we've established that connecting with reality isn't your strong suit. It's so much easier to just make things up and ascribe them to other people!

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm sorry, I don't buy that a physicist (or a mathematician) would say that.

Nobody outside your head said that.

Weeping

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
03-12-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I didn't say he didn't use data. I said he used logic and reason to make sense of the data, and he reached conclusions beyond what was contained in the data.

What you said was:
(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is how Einstein did it. The empirical data appeared to contradict his theory of relativity. But by starting with axioms and thought experiments he was able to find another way to look at the empirical data that was compatible with axioms he knew had to be true.

Which is in no way true. As I pointed out to you.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Unless you can show me some empirical data where scientists back then were able to measure the change in mass as objects approached the speed of light, or had clocks accurate enough to measure the change in time with motion, I stand by that claim.

I literally just explained how this was not particularly accurate. Scientific method. Learn how it works.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So, if you have links to show that Einstein reached those conclusions through a review of empirical data alone, without axioms and logic and reason, then I will eat my words and admit you're right.

You really don't get it, do you?

Nobody, ever, in the history of all time, has gone about analysis in the farcical "without axioms and logic and reason" manner you have here invented.

Nobody ever.

I can't even tell what you're trying to say. "Without axioms and logic and reason". That is not cogent.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But, so far, you've digressed into lots of irrelevant details...

Oh, so that's what we're calling correcting your erroneous examples?

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... but still have not, imo, done anything to refute my claim that the Austrian economists approach economics the same way Einstein approached physics: use reason and logic to make sense of data and look for new ways to look at data that do not contradict known axioms. As opposed to the Keynesian approach of just looking for data that supports your views, ignoring that which doesn't, and leaving it at that.

I invite you to conduct a simple experiment for me:
define Keynesianism.

According to you it can be done without any postulates. I am curious.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Lest you dispute this, refer to my other thread today on Obamacare where Chas did exactly this just a few minutes ago, and GirlyMan and Sporehux 'liked' it.

I'm not concerned with other people in other discussions. But let's consider your, uh, thought process here:
Chas, Girlyman, and sporehux behaved in a certain manner,
THEREFORE,
Keynesian economists (all of them) behave in a certain manner.

"Logic".

Are you capable of making a single post without engaging in ludicrously fallacious overgeneralisation?

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I don't know why I bother since you'll just ignore the citation anyway. But here it is:
http://aneconomicsense.com/2013/03/06/th...nce-of-it/

Well, that's finally a citation. It's a random blog post, but okay. It's a start.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  He is a typical Keynesian economist.

Citation needed.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Where does he address the empirical data that shows that states with higher than average minimum wage have higher than average unemployment? He doesn't. He completely ignores it. He can't explain it, so he chooses to pretend it doesn't exist.

Or, possibly, the writer of a discussion piece on federal minimum wage in a blog post didn't see the need for addressing related topics with academic rigour.

But you clearly know exactly what the author was thinking, so I'll defer to that.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Whereas an Austrian economist accepts ALL the empirical data, and tries to find a theory that unifies everything and doesn't defy logic. Lest you say this guy is an exception, he links to other economics appears like this one from Berkeley that do the same thing.

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Comparing a casual blog post with an academic article. Seems legit.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Data analysis you agree with: axioms and logic!
Data analysis you disagree with: statistical cherry-picking.

Not at all. Out of the hundreds of pages in debates in this forum, find one instance where anybody ever presented me axioms or logic or data which I ignored.

You... do realize that that's not a response, right?

See, what I said (in an admittedly quite jocular manner) was that you discount things you disagree with as illegitimate. After all, you did try to claim, with a straight face, that your self-identified in-group were the only ones who used "axioms, logic, and reason" in their analyses.

It follows, though, that it is not possible for you to recognize a premise as valid while simultaneously rejecting it - thus, your request, if one accepts my rhetorically hyperbolic summation, is literally impossible.

Things that are "self-evidently" true are exceedingly rare. This eludes you. You've declared the particular set of premises you hold as being axiomatic and self-evident; this despite the fact that they are, self-evidently, not acknowledged as such. It's a bizarrely contradictory stance to open with.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I can safely say you can't, because if I see axioms or empirical data that conflict with my views, and I can't explain them, then I'll just change my view and admit that I was wrong.

Since you don't really get what axioms or logic are, I'm not sure what that's worth from you.

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Try to find one instance where your side has lobbied questions at me that I've run from, the way you run from the questions I pose. Or find one instance where your side presented a basic axiom like I did (“100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”), where I refused to acknowledge that it was right, or to dispute it.

That's not an axiom. Why do you keep mentioning it?

(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, when I call out cherry-picking it's NOT because it's on one side of the debate or the other. It's when data or axioms are presented and people refuse to address them and just pretend they don't exist, only willing to acknowledge data that supports their view. Just like the papers I linked to on the minimum wage where the authors chose to ignore state data, and focused only on Federal data, because the state data proved them wrong. That is cherry-picking, no matter which side does it.

Let us consider a starting point. Do you, or do you not, acknowledged that data admit of multiple interpretations?

Do you, or do you not, acknowledge that according to your silly little definition, there are no axioms of economics, given that there is no consensus view of economics in the field?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-12-2013, 11:07 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
Oh, and one last thing to round it out for tonight. Y'all may notice, further up the page, frankksj's post 25, wherein the following two statements were taken from posts 18 and 23 respectively.

(03-12-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Look, I agree that calling “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” an axiom is, well, an insult to axioms since it's such a basic, primitive statement, and not a theory or logical construct,
(03-12-2013 08:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  "Self-evident" and "obvious" apparently here meaning "in accord with your gut feelings".

To which he adds:
(03-12-2013 08:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You realize you just argued that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” is neither “self-evident” nor “obvious” and that it's just my “gut feeling”. Ok, if you say so.

It's slickly done - I didn't even notice at first (because I really shouldn't care too much how some blowhard tries to misinterpret me).
(I mean, I did notice the falsehood, but not the under-the-hood context editing!)

But for reference, these two statements did not occur together in my original post. My quoted statement was not a response to frankksj's quoted statement. So there's that.

One might be inclined to call that a little bit dishonest.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: