DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

 

 

If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information.

 

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

 

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your Paypal email/Bitcoin address/etc as well as your board account name and the situation will be addressed ASAP.

 

We just upgraded the board software, and now your email address is used to log in. If you're having trouble, please Contact Us.

jrodefeld

Libertarians should not align with the Alt-Right or support Trump

106 posts in this topic
6 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:
On 4/26/2017 at 0:42 PM, Tyler H said:

My argument is that anything less than the scientific method is not the scientific method at all. The scientific method is a set of steps, each necessary but not sufficient. If you skip a step or vary from the method in any way then you are no longer adhering to the scientific method.  You may be following some steps of the scientific method, but without all the constituent parts you do not have the scientific method. Saying people who manipulate data to advance their own agenda are adhering to the scientific method in any way is exactly the kind obfuscation I worry about permeating the philosophical arena. 

The same with the NAP. It's a principle which posits that all actions are allowed but for actions of physical aggression. Therefore if you act in a physically aggressive way, you are no longer adhering to the NAP. If you make the exception that there are gradations and there is no way to adhere to it in the ideal, then you leave a crack in the foundation for evil to gain social acceptance. 

I really think the language and specificity are important, especially with the constant co-opting of language by sophists. 

Then there has never been such a thing as a scientist, because every generation of scientists have had their own biases that had to die with them before the next generation was able to move on. 

The scientific method is like an asymptote: a perfect ideal that you reach for but can never fully attain. Same with the NAP: there is no such thing as a perfectly free society. The non-aggression principle is like one of the cardinal directions, it isn't a place in and of itself, it's a concept that guides actions.

Furthermore, talking about it is easier than applying it. Things get difficult where the rubber meets the road. I'm not saying you can get more NAP by violating it, but I am saying the direction to choose may not be so radiantly clear.

Of course I'm open to correction, but I don't see that how that logically follows from what I said.  Also, I think we would need to define scientist.  

I don't think the scientific method is a perfect ideal you cannot attain.  It is a set of steps you either follow or do not follow.  If you do not follow them, then you are not doing science in that instance.  Later, if you follow the steps, well then you are doing science.  How often someone is allowed to waffle between the two in their professional work and still be labelled a scientist is debatable.  I wouldn't say they need to reach perfection in always adhering to the scientific method, but a certain level of consistency would be required to categorize them as such in our minds, wouldn't you agree? And wouldn't you also agree that if someone were blatantly disregarding the scientific method while simultaneously calling themselves a scientist we would recognize that as a contradiction?

I think the same is true for the NAP.  I do not think it is a perfect ideal; it's a principle, and you are either following it or not following it at any given point in time.  And how often you vacillate between that adherence will have an impact on your ability to support the claim that you follow the principle. Furthermore, if someone were in the act of aggression claiming that they adhered to the NAP we would recognize that as an affront to the concept.  Which would be the same as saying "I think it is perfectly fine, nay just!, for you to be threatened with murder and thrown in a cage to be raped for not paying for my child's education/the national defense/the prevention of competition in industry/social welfare/<insert government program here>.  Oh, and by the way I adhere to the NAP."  Nope! No, you don't.  Not until you change your tune on telling other people to use force for you so you don't get your hands dirty or face any risk.  

It is a corruption of science for someone not following the scientific method to claim that what they are doing is science, as we recognize is happening in the scientific community now.  And it is a corruption of voluntarism to claim that an institutional system of coercion, or anyone who endorses it, is at all associated with the non-aggression principle.  I push back so hard against this because the manipulation of language is the philosopher's undoing.  It really matters how we say things.

 

7 hours ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

Same with the NAP: there is no such thing as a perfectly free society.

I was re-reading before posting and this part really stuck with me for some reason; why are these two things put together this way?  So after some thought this is what I have to say, let me know what you think.  A perfectly free society is, I think, an unattainable ideal, and necessary for the pursuit of that ideal is the NAP.  However, a perfectly free society is not necessary for the pursuit of the NAP.  Is there something in your life where you feel you cannot avoid violating the NAP? I don't mean to detract from the conversation, but it would seem to me that there is no reason we can't perfectly adhere to the NAP in our own lives which sparked the thought that maybe there was something where you felt violating the NAP was necessary and so therefore an unattainable ideal on which we can, at best, only compromise.  I could be way off but these thoughts were floating around in my head so I thought I'd share them.  If it's nonsense go ahead and toss them in the trash or tell me to go pound sand, or inform me on how I've misunderstood the content of your post.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now