Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
Also, the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread is very, very high. Good thread.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Coast to Coast
 Profile

Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:21 am
Posts: 23078
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Gender: Male
Does this have something to do with Immanuel Kant

_________________
For more insulated and ill-informed opinions, click here.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
thodoks wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
I guess I would just say I'm trying to emphasize the distinction between thought and action/behavior. It's clear to me that thoughts (or interests, or whatever) are NOT always egocentric. But employing means and pursuing those thoughts - that is, action, the sum of which is behavior - is an act of self-interest. This is why I phrase my claim the way I do.

i haven't read thru this thread, but i appreciate this distinction, b/c it does make it more clear what you're getting at.

as for the question posed in that other thread, again, i don't know if its in here already and will make an attempt to find it myself, where does giving your life so somebody else can live fall? how does it benefit you, if the only outcome of your "act" is your own death?

In this case, what this tells me is that A values B's life more than he does A's (perhaps A is B's parent). When A is faced with the choice to either save his own life or that of B, he acts in a manner consistent with those preferences. So, yes, A can be said to be altruistic (or at least not be exclusively egocentric). But once A employs means to advance those interests - no matter how altruistic they may be - he is engaging in self-interested behavior, because to do otherwise would not advance A's interests.

It's a subtle distinction, and it certainly takes some hashing out.

like i said, the distinction certainly makes it easier to answer.

i'm only on page 3, but this caught my eye:

given2trade wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
ok, so, guy jumps in front of an oncoming subway train and tackles a man who fell down there, saving his life as he drags the fallen man to the side. where in here is selfish action?


Just because things happen QUICKLY doesn't make them any less selfish. That person is wired in a way that they can't bare to see other humans suffer and it would cause immeasurable pain to watch the other person die in front of their eyes. It's extremely heroic but he made a decision to do it alleviate his pain had he done nothing. Yes, all in a matter of seconds.

this is sort of what i was getting at, it is within them to help another person.

granted, they act on it to alleviate their own pain (in seeing another person suffer), but the initial response is present and outside of self (neglecting their own fate in jumping infront of a train).

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:58 pm
Posts: 1259
Location: Western Masshole
Gender: Male
broken iris wrote:
dscans wrote:

The progression of the human mind (and on a larger scale, society as a whole) shows decreasing egocentricism.



Walking around any major city, I find the opposite of this to be true.

I'm going to respond to this because I think it fits in here with what we've been talking about.

yes, in a city you probably see people acting selfishly quite often. But that's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about the concept of identity.

For instance, I work for a 100+ year old children's home that is aligned with the Baptist faith. Years ago the Baptist church split into the Baptist General Association of Virginia (moderate) and the Southern Baptist Conservatives (conservative, duh). The children's home aligned itself with the BGAV after the split and I believe it will eventually lead to our undoing, barring major change, because of the growing increase of worldcentricism.

The SBC churches are very enthnocentric and will only support charities that express their particular view (we have a female chaplain so they will never support us). BGAV churchs, on the other hand, are more worldcentric. They support us some of the time, but they don't see as many distinctions as SBC churches which means they also support other charities, even secular ones. What we're starting to see is that the same youth groups that used to come to our walk-a-thon years ago are now too busy doing missions abroad. Why? I think the next generation is moving toward a more worldcentric view. I think its also the reason the concept of patriotism among the younger generations isn't as strong as it used to be. It's not that people don't love their country, their view has just grown to transcend it.

Technology might be the impetus for this progression, but I think it would've happened anyway.

_________________
Paul McCartney told me to never drop names.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
dscans wrote:
broken iris wrote:
dscans wrote:

The progression of the human mind (and on a larger scale, society as a whole) shows decreasing egocentricism.



Walking around any major city, I find the opposite of this to be true.

I'm going to respond to this because I think it fits in here with what we've been talking about.

yes, in a city you probably see people acting selfishly quite often. But that's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about the concept of identity.

For instance, I work for a 100+ year old children's home that is aligned with the Baptist faith. Years ago the Baptist church split into the Baptist General Association of Virginia (moderate) and the Southern Baptist Conservatives (conservative, duh). The children's home aligned itself with the BGAV after the split and I believe it will eventually lead to our undoing, barring major change, because of the growing increase of worldcentricism.

The SBC churches are very enthnocentric and will only support charities that express their particular view (we have a female chaplain so they will never support us). BGAV churchs, on the other hand, are more worldcentric. They support us some of the time, but they don't see as many distinctions as SBC churches which means they also support other charities, even secular ones. What we're starting to see is that the same youth groups that used to come to our walk-a-thon years ago are now too busy doing missions abroad. Why? I think the next generation is moving toward a more worldcentric view. I think its also the reason the concept of patriotism among the younger generations isn't as strong as it used to be. It's not that people don't love their country, their view has just grown to transcend it.

Technology might be the impetus for this progression, but I think it would've happened anyway.

i read this as more popularity/trend-science than self-interest v. altruism (whatnot)

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
EllisEamos wrote:
i'm only on page 3, but this caught my eye:

given2trade wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
ok, so, guy jumps in front of an oncoming subway train and tackles a man who fell down there, saving his life as he drags the fallen man to the side. where in here is selfish action?


Just because things happen QUICKLY doesn't make them any less selfish. That person is wired in a way that they can't bare to see other humans suffer and it would cause immeasurable pain to watch the other person die in front of their eyes. It's extremely heroic but he made a decision to do it alleviate his pain had he done nothing. Yes, all in a matter of seconds.

this is sort of what i was getting at, it is within them to help another person.

granted, they act on it to alleviate their own pain (in seeing another person suffer), but the initial response is present and outside of self (neglecting their own fate in jumping infront of a train).

I tend to think we're all hardwired with the desire to see our species propogate and flourish, that we all have a stake in the relative health and well-being of others. That culture, politics, and the poverty of our understanding invent obstacles to subvert and distract from those ends doesn't mean those instincts can't be sussed out with enough hard work.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
thodoks wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
i'm only on page 3, but this caught my eye:

given2trade wrote:
corduroy_blazer wrote:
ok, so, guy jumps in front of an oncoming subway train and tackles a man who fell down there, saving his life as he drags the fallen man to the side. where in here is selfish action?


Just because things happen QUICKLY doesn't make them any less selfish. That person is wired in a way that they can't bare to see other humans suffer and it would cause immeasurable pain to watch the other person die in front of their eyes. It's extremely heroic but he made a decision to do it alleviate his pain had he done nothing. Yes, all in a matter of seconds.

this is sort of what i was getting at, it is within them to help another person.

granted, they act on it to alleviate their own pain (in seeing another person suffer), but the initial response is present and outside of self (neglecting their own fate in jumping infront of a train).

I tend to think we're all hardwired with the desire to see our species propogate and flourish, that we all have a stake in the relative health and well-being of others. That culture, politics, and the poverty of our understanding invent obstacles to subvert and distract from those ends doesn't mean those instincts can't be sussed out with enough hard work.

Image

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
tribalism, yo

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
AnalLog
 Profile

Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:28 am
Posts: 28541
Location: PORTLAND, ME
fuckin' unicorn-obama was my 20,200th post.

:shake:

_________________
Winner, 2011 RM 'Stache Tournament


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Former PJ Drummer
 Profile

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:16 pm
Posts: 19724
Location: Montreal, QC
Gender: Male
earlier today i saw episode one of the trap by adam curtis. it was a bit underwhelming.

_________________
chud wrote:
Posting! Glorious Posting!

durdencommatyler wrote:
iPones, man. Fuck.


Proud member of: Team Binaural and Team Argo


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 5:59 am 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
I like making this argument. Also taking it a step further and positing that people are therefore rational (that they do what they perceive to be in their self-interest and don't just act without rhyme or reason).

EDIT: Sorry, the self interest part, not necessarily that intent does not matter. While in the short run, I might accept that intent doesn't matter, in the long run, it does, as ideas and their prevalence within society make a real difference in the course history takes.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:15 am 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
I guess I would just say I'm trying to emphasize the distinction between thought and action/behavior. It's clear to me that thoughts (or interests, or whatever) are NOT always egocentric. But employing means and pursuing those thoughts - that is, action, the sum of which is behavior - is an act of self-interest. This is why I phrase my claim the way I do.

i haven't read thru this thread, but i appreciate this distinction, b/c it does make it more clear what you're getting at.

as for the question posed in that other thread, again, i don't know if its in here already and will make an attempt to find it myself, where does giving your life so somebody else can live fall? how does it benefit you, if the only outcome of your "act" is your own death?

In this case, what this tells me is that A values B's life more than he does A's (perhaps A is B's parent). When A is faced with the choice to either save his own life or that of B, he acts in a manner consistent with those preferences. So, yes, A can be said to be altruistic (or at least not be exclusively egocentric). But once A employs means to advance those interests - no matter how altruistic they may be - he is engaging in self-interested behavior, because to do otherwise would not advance A's interests.

It's a subtle distinction, and it certainly takes some hashing out.

OK, I buy this distinction--the interest of the individual is not necessarily "selfish" or "self-interested" because it involves accounting for the well-being of others, although of course this reflects back onto the self in various ways and increases the self's well-being so it's probably not entirely altruistic. But once those interests are determined, they are the interests of the "self," so acting to advance those interests is self-interested.

Coming over from the Supreme Court thread, my criticism still stands: This is pretty much non-falsifiable. Within this framework, any action which is sufficiently thought through beforehand must be in the interests of the individual acting: Why would that individual act unless that action aligned with his perceived interest? In fact, how could he act in a way divergent from his interests, if he thought through his act and had full control over it? But there's no conceivable way he could act outside his self-interest--there is no conceivable way to falsify the theory that individuals act in a self-interested way.

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:22 am 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
A separate point I want to make:

I don't necessarily want to hold others to any standard. For myself, though, intent does matter. I've got this thing about authenticity, and if/when I'm not authentic, well I feel dirty and stuff.

At the societal level, I also doubt the sustainability of actions with ulterior motives. The best thing about aligning altruistic intent with altruistic actions is that no matter the changes in the surrounding structure, the choices can remain consistent. Internalizing good norms does more to further good than incentivizing good behavior, even though incentives are necessary and useful because people will not always internalize said norms.

(of course, good is subjective and up for debate)

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:00 am 
Offline
User avatar
statistically insignificant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:19 pm
Posts: 25134
dkfan9 wrote:
thodoks wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
I guess I would just say I'm trying to emphasize the distinction between thought and action/behavior. It's clear to me that thoughts (or interests, or whatever) are NOT always egocentric. But employing means and pursuing those thoughts - that is, action, the sum of which is behavior - is an act of self-interest. This is why I phrase my claim the way I do.

i haven't read thru this thread, but i appreciate this distinction, b/c it does make it more clear what you're getting at.

as for the question posed in that other thread, again, i don't know if its in here already and will make an attempt to find it myself, where does giving your life so somebody else can live fall? how does it benefit you, if the only outcome of your "act" is your own death?

In this case, what this tells me is that A values B's life more than he does A's (perhaps A is B's parent). When A is faced with the choice to either save his own life or that of B, he acts in a manner consistent with those preferences. So, yes, A can be said to be altruistic (or at least not be exclusively egocentric). But once A employs means to advance those interests - no matter how altruistic they may be - he is engaging in self-interested behavior, because to do otherwise would not advance A's interests.

It's a subtle distinction, and it certainly takes some hashing out.

OK, I buy this distinction--the interest of the individual is not necessarily "selfish" or "self-interested" because it involves accounting for the well-being of others, although of course this reflects back onto the self in various ways and increases the self's well-being so it's probably not entirely altruistic. But once those interests are determined, they are the interests of the "self," so acting to advance those interests is self-interested.

Coming over from the Supreme Court thread, my criticism still stands: This is pretty much non-falsifiable. Within this framework, any action which is sufficiently thought through beforehand must be in the interests of the individual acting: Why would that individual act unless that action aligned with his perceived interest? In fact, how could he act in a way divergent from his interests, if he thought through his act and had full control over it? But there's no conceivable way he could act outside his self-interest--there is no conceivable way to falsify the theory that individuals act in a self-interested way.

I don't really disagree (though behavioral economics and neurobiology/neuropsychology are making inroads). I wasn't saying the analysis in the Supreme Court thread was exclusively non-falsifiable, or that the arguments I was making weren't. It was more of a comment on the complete lack of any type of concrete foundation or criteria by which claims could be evaluated. Some quotes:

"I'm also firmly in the 'the constitution means whatever the hell the justices say it means' camp."

"...this stood out for me, and got me back to my constitutionality is sort of bullshit (which, to me, is pretty much the same as 'the constitution means whatever the hell the justices say it means')"

"these clauses can mean anything. They have meant anything...Its usefulness stems from the fact that it can mean whatever we need it to mean."

"the important thing is that YOU think that the words have meaning, and that the court got them wrong."

There are plenty of exceptionally intelligent people in the legal world, but in light of those realities outlined above, I find it difficult to accord the discipline much respect. There are simply no objective measures by which one can say legal scholar X or lawyer Y or Political Science professor Z was absolutely right or absolutely wrong on any particular issue. Goalposts are always moving. There is no constancy, no mooring. Words mean one thing today, and something else tomorrow. Precedent is authoritative and binding and deserving of deference...until it isn't. Say what you will about the world of economics - and I hardly disagree with the majority of the criticisms - but relative to the world of law and humanities, the analytical methodologies and instruments employed therein enable a determination of relative competence and are far, far more useful and powerful than anything that exists this side of the physical sciences. The theoretical and philosophical liberties afforded legal "scholars" in the construction of most of their arguments are larger in law and the majority of the humanities than in any discipline that regards burdens of proof as non-trivial, and the acquiescence to such amorphous foundational construction seems to me to be more about ensuring one is able to indulge sociopolitical preferences rather than abide any kind of objectively binding constraint.

I reject theory without evidence, and evidence without theory. Regardless of the particular theory advanced, there is simply no evidence that can ever be produced that would capably falsify the majority of theoretical legal claims. Which makes engaging in legal and philosophical arguments pretty futile, particularly when one can abandon definitional and first principle constraints seemingly at will.

_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:51 am
Posts: 4009
Location: S. Florida
Gender: Female
given2trade wrote:
I am the belief that there are no altruistic deeds. Everything we do is done for selfish reasons. This sounds much more cynical than it really is. When someone does a good deed, they do it because it makes them feel good. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Should we care why someone does something or should we just judge them by the effect it has on others?


But there's also actions performed that are done out of a sense of duty.

Like acting interested when listening to a boring relative.

or going to church.

or war for that matter. How good do you think those people feel?

_________________
Can you feel the magic?
Oh, yeah


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:51 am
Posts: 4009
Location: S. Florida
Gender: Female
nothin'

_________________
Can you feel the magic?
Oh, yeah


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar
Reissued
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:38 pm
Posts: 20059
Gender: Male
thodoks wrote:
dkfan9 wrote:
thodoks wrote:
EllisEamos wrote:
thodoks wrote:
I guess I would just say I'm trying to emphasize the distinction between thought and action/behavior. It's clear to me that thoughts (or interests, or whatever) are NOT always egocentric. But employing means and pursuing those thoughts - that is, action, the sum of which is behavior - is an act of self-interest. This is why I phrase my claim the way I do.

i haven't read thru this thread, but i appreciate this distinction, b/c it does make it more clear what you're getting at.

as for the question posed in that other thread, again, i don't know if its in here already and will make an attempt to find it myself, where does giving your life so somebody else can live fall? how does it benefit you, if the only outcome of your "act" is your own death?

In this case, what this tells me is that A values B's life more than he does A's (perhaps A is B's parent). When A is faced with the choice to either save his own life or that of B, he acts in a manner consistent with those preferences. So, yes, A can be said to be altruistic (or at least not be exclusively egocentric). But once A employs means to advance those interests - no matter how altruistic they may be - he is engaging in self-interested behavior, because to do otherwise would not advance A's interests.

It's a subtle distinction, and it certainly takes some hashing out.

OK, I buy this distinction--the interest of the individual is not necessarily "selfish" or "self-interested" because it involves accounting for the well-being of others, although of course this reflects back onto the self in various ways and increases the self's well-being so it's probably not entirely altruistic. But once those interests are determined, they are the interests of the "self," so acting to advance those interests is self-interested.

Coming over from the Supreme Court thread, my criticism still stands: This is pretty much non-falsifiable. Within this framework, any action which is sufficiently thought through beforehand must be in the interests of the individual acting: Why would that individual act unless that action aligned with his perceived interest? In fact, how could he act in a way divergent from his interests, if he thought through his act and had full control over it? But there's no conceivable way he could act outside his self-interest--there is no conceivable way to falsify the theory that individuals act in a self-interested way.

I don't really disagree (though behavioral economics and neurobiology/neuropsychology are making inroads). I wasn't saying the analysis in the Supreme Court thread was exclusively non-falsifiable, or that the arguments I was making weren't. It was more of a comment on the complete lack of any type of concrete foundation or criteria by which claims could be evaluated. Some quotes:

"I'm also firmly in the 'the constitution means whatever the hell the justices say it means' camp."

"...this stood out for me, and got me back to my constitutionality is sort of bullshit (which, to me, is pretty much the same as 'the constitution means whatever the hell the justices say it means')"

"these clauses can mean anything. They have meant anything...Its usefulness stems from the fact that it can mean whatever we need it to mean."

"the important thing is that YOU think that the words have meaning, and that the court got them wrong."

There are plenty of exceptionally intelligent people in the legal world, but in light of those realities outlined above, I find it difficult to accord the discipline much respect. There are simply no objective measures by which one can say legal scholar X or lawyer Y or Political Science professor Z was absolutely right or absolutely wrong on any particular issue. Goalposts are always moving. There is no constancy, no mooring. Words mean one thing today, and something else tomorrow. Precedent is authoritative and binding and deserving of deference...until it isn't. Say what you will about the world of economics - and I hardly disagree with the majority of the criticisms - but relative to the world of law and humanities, the analytical methodologies and instruments employed therein enable a determination of relative competence and are far, far more useful and powerful than anything that exists this side of the physical sciences. The theoretical and philosophical liberties afforded legal "scholars" in the construction of most of their arguments are larger in law and the majority of the humanities than in any discipline that regards burdens of proof as non-trivial, and the acquiescence to such amorphous foundational construction seems to me to be more about ensuring one is able to indulge sociopolitical preferences rather than abide any kind of objectively binding constraint.

I reject theory without evidence, and evidence without theory. Regardless of the particular theory advanced, there is simply no evidence that can ever be produced that would capably falsify the majority of theoretical legal claims. Which makes engaging in legal and philosophical arguments pretty futile, particularly when one can abandon definitional and first principle constraints seemingly at will.

I'm pretty much with you there, and it's part of why, say, being a constitutional scholar doesn't really appeal to me. Also why the debates, especially the impassioned ones, over the ACA's constitutionality or any other law's constitutionality don't interest me much. On the other hand, analyzing the politics of the issue does interest me, but that's a relatively scientific, if speculative, enterprise.

As an aside, I'd say throwing most of political science and history (and probably other social sciences though I haven't studied them enough to know) in with the type of theory you're critiquing is wrong. (I don't know that you're doing this, but your mention of political science prof Z got my attention).

I say that because the majority of those subjects, and the scholars working within those subjects, are trying to explain rather than judge the "rightness" of something. They may not be using regressions (though plenty do), but the idea is the same: determine the most important causes of some given act or pattern of behavior through an appropriate form of analysis. Econ obviously mostly relies on stats, history mostly on in-depth "case study," and political science generally draws on both techniques; and sometimes the disciplines are hard to distinguish (e.g. Thomas Woods' Meltdown does economic history, economic theory, and political economy, though this kind of thing is more common to the heterodox folks).

_________________
stop light plays its part, so I would say you've got a part


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Intent vs. Actions and Altruism
PostPosted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar
Global Moderator
 Profile

Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 44183
Location: New York
Gender: Male
we've actually changed the name of our department from political science to politics because so much of what we teach is normative, rather than empirical. On the other hand much of economics is also normative as much as it is empirical. this is true of all the social science disciplines. There is, of course, also much that is empirically verifiable, although that wasn't what was being discussed in the Supreme Court threat.

And the normative stuff is no less important for not being empirical

_________________
"Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."--FDR

The perfect gift for certain occasions


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 158 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 10:29 pm