/sci/ - Science & Math

1) There're so many types of materialism that I don't know anymore.
2) I am a reductionist, because that's seems like the only logical and scientifical way of looking at things.
3) I've lived in students community for several years, so a little, yes. But not hardcore.

>>3324684

1. Depends on the context.
2. Depends on the context.
3. Yes.

>1. A materialist.
yes I am, if non material influences were real then it would have been classified as material, electric field arnt "material" but is still classified as such, because its real.

>2. A reductionist.
yes, because if seen the opposing theorys, and studied them (feel free to ask about it). it makes no sense, organic molecules somehow have a "life force" making it have other properties than non-organic molecules and such, but we can make organic molecules in the lab, does it mean it wont have some properties then?

>3. A socialist.
not sure yet, leaning towards no, at least if you look at how it has been implemented before, but a similar thing in the future that works better may have my support.

1) Yes,
2) Yes,
3) Fuck no, I'm a Darwinist.

1. Not really, only to a few certain objects, ones that I have either personally made myself or have bits of me in them, like my computer for example, basically because it would be a pain/impossible to replace it 100% if I wanted to.
2. When I first look at things to get the gist of how they work or if I'm explaining it to others, but not much after that as I find oversimplifying things especially when in comes to people and society can lead to unwanted consequences.
3.Yeah, pretty much workers control over production and all that jazz however I'm still in the middle of researching different political theories so I haven't made up my mind completely.

1. No as I do not believe anything can truly be owned. Notice the word "believe" being used.
2. In a lot of cases, yes, because most concepts have parts that are just slightly different from each other. As such, the overall idea can be derived by which parts are chosen.
3. I agree with many of the values of socialism but I believe the benefits of having a socialist economy are not enough to justify a 100% conversion.

1. No. I have an irrational belief in the Christian God.
2. Really depends on context.
3. No, but I believe in a mixed economy. Ideally, socialism would work, but in practise it produces too much inefficiency and corruption. A system in which the state controls portions of the economy and interacts with business leaders to ensure fair wages for workers is most likely to create a transparent form of government.

a: it seems most sensible.

b: it seems most sensible.

c: it seems most sensible (limited to only a few functions).

>>3324705
Actually you did (but that's OK). You provided all the information needed to deduce you are a massive faggot.

I'm a materialist (classify materials: as all things currently understood by humanity and all things not understood to yet to be understood) with reductionist mentalities that also look at how a collection of parts may prove results not otherwise found with a single piece. If I lean toward socialism depends upon how much information I gather on the subject.

1. yes
2. yes
3. uhmm.. social or welfare capitalist, not socialist. Best of both worlds.

>>3324838

Please tell me the results of my answers, OP...

>>3324839

wtf? I didnt sage the post. how?
materialism fail?

>>3324842
The results? There are no results. I'm simply interested in what motivates people in their world views. You seem to have done a decent job of expressing yourself, so thanks.

>>3324851
Why would you want to sage?

I'm a surrealist because I don't give a fuck about what you think is really important.

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive

>>3324877
It's not a single choice question you moron. You elaborate on each of the points.

>>3324877

>>3324864

What are your answers to the questions you presented? I'm fascinated to know...

A socialist becouse it works

>>3324933
I am am materialist in the sense that I think all observed phenomena in the world can be explained by the physical processes that lie at their basis. There is no need for hypothetical spiritual constructs because they are superfluous explanations. They ad a level of complexity which is simply not necessary.

I am a reductionist because I don't see a need to assume any processes are not explainable by the sum of their parts. Some emergent properties do exist, but they are emergent only at first glance. A reasonable explanation for these phenomena always exists. Again, stating that this would not be the case is adding an unnecessary level of complexity to explain an observed phenomena.

I am the closes thing you can come to being a socialist while still being a capitalist. I think the free market can be beneficial to prosperity of a nation, but it has strong limits. There is too much dogmatism in free market capitalism, and these should be cast aside if the system is ever to be made in something that is both fair, and works.

You should clarify what you mean by materialist, the philosophy that holds physical material is all that exists in any meaningful sense, or the more pop culture usage of possessions being the ultimate source of happiness(I'm assuming you mean the former)

1. Definitely, the extent of all meaningful objects that exist in this universe can be defined as all objects that have some causal effects, there may be tachyons or ghosts or whatever but none of these things have any observed causal effect, thus they don't exist in any meaninful sense. Thus physical material is logical equivalent to things that exist in this way, thus materialism. (inb4 God)
2. Definitely, quite misunderstood philosophy I think, but the fact that science (built on reductionism) works is decent evidence that this reductionism thing might be half right.
3. Nope, the other side of things actually, closest pigeonhole you could shove me in is probably libertarian, borderline anarcho-capitalist

>>3324978
>You should clarify what you mean by materialist
>I'm assuming you mean the former
Sorry about that, given the nature of this board I kind of counted on people assuming I mean materialism in the philosophical sense.

>>3324994
You make a convincing argument. No wait, you don't make an argument at all. It's pretty ironic that your post is the one that seems really, really lazy.

1. A materialist. - yes
2. A reductionist. - mostly
3. A socialist. - Socialism and capitalism are just two methods of approximating the same thing. They're meant to serve the same purpose, i think when either functions correctly it largely does not matter which one is being implemented. They're meant to do the exact same fucking thing. Which do i think will work better? Newsflash: they can both work. Either one can, so can a middle-ground-mixture. I dont stick hard and fast to party lines when it comes to politics.

>>3325022
>Newsflash: they can both work.
Sure, but don't you have a moral preference?

>>3325074
>1. Everyone needs materials to live. Pointless question.
Materialsim, as in the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. Not materialism in the sense that you value material possession.
>2. Marx bullshit.
What? Marx has nothing to do with this. Reductionism is the philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.
>3. Marx bullshit.
Explain.

>>3325089
oh, I guess you looked up the meaning of those words and decided to remove your post.

>>3325092
>>3325089

Not sure where it went.

But I was answering with the same responses I did last time.

>>3325101
Right, and those were sort of silly. I think you - just like last time - misinterpreted the questions. That's why I explained what I intended to know from you a little bit.

>>3325110

A personality is not a material.

Reductionism works if you do not logic fail to get there.

Explain why socialism is Marx bullshit? Are you fucking kidding me? Socialism is the emotional belief that positive rights exist, and that there should be no economic freedom, and thereby no social freedom.

>>3325054

>Sure, but don't you have a moral preference?

A moral preference? what the fuck does morality have to do with an economic system, especially as we've just established, they will both achieve basically the same thing? Morality simply does not enter into this equation its about functionality. Morals are based on pragmatism. I could take for ages about morals but meh.

>>3325129
>A personality is not a material.
Agreed, but is it the result of material interaction?
>Reductionism works if you do not logic fail to get there.
Well, that's sort of stating the obvious, but yeah.
>Socialism is the emotional belief that positive rights exist, and that there should be no economic freedom, and thereby no social freedom.
Is economic freedom the most important type of freedom in your opinion?

>>3325140
Well, seeing as how you come to the conclusion that there is in essence no valuable difference between socialism and capitalism because they can both work, you sort of imply you are a utilitarian. Do the ends justify the means in socialism for instance? Is governmental authoritarianism justifiable? Is a completely free market justifiable for that matter?

>>3325141

Nope.

That is the biggest problem with it. Man fucks it up.

You cannot have social freedom without economic freedom. You need to work to survive, you do not need to interact with others to survive. So of course, not having a state get between me and my labor would be most important in terms of freedoms.

>>3325157
So, in your opinion, would banning child labour be morally unjustifiable because it restricts economic freedom?

>>3325155

I'm a utilitarian with regard to economics because i really see no difference in the general quality of life between the two systems, correctly impliamented.

>governmental authoritarianism justifiable?
It can be in certain cases. This is getting kind of abstract.

> Is a completely free market justifiable for that matter?

it can be

>>3325171

That is clearly a parenting issue.

In reality, child labor laws were put on the books to stop communism and socialism.

>>3325187
>That is clearly a parenting issue.
But if it's a parenting issue, shouldn't the parents get to decide whether their child works or not? Or can the state decide these types of things in a restricted number of situations?

>>3325201

Should? No.

The state can decide nothing.

>>3325187

is wanting to fuck your kids, film it, and post it online a parenting issue? Is wanting to beat them with a red hot iron rod a parenting issue?

If we did not have safety nets i could see some merit in child labor. But if the government is going to provide wellfare you dont need to exploit your children for labor under horrible conditions.

We've seen what child labor does. They pay them menial wages, the childs schooling will suffer, they will be abused on the job and threatened so as to not complain, its just not a good situation for a child.

its not a parenting issue its a social one.

>>3325212
>The state can decide nothing.
So child labour should be legal?

1) You need to clarify what kind of materialism you mean
2) You need to clarify what kind of reductionism you mean
3) Like 99%+ of people im somewhat socialist

>>3325227
I clarified what I meant in this thread. Sorry about that.

>>3325212
>The state can decide nothing.
Also, this is what I meant by dogmatism in my own post. See: >>3324958

>>3325219

>>3325225

Part of your comment isn't allowed to be posted :(

That is my only allowed answer it seems.

>>3325286
just give us the tl;dr

>>3325282

> reads the word fair
> laughs

Equal opportunity will never result in equal outcomes. This is because not everyone is equal. The emotional want for "fair" to be thrust upon the market cannot work.

>>3325297

Not allowed. I just get the same response.

>>3325299
Conversely, a completely darwinistically functioning market cannot function either. As in the example with child labour, the market has to be regulated in some instances.

>>3325329

We have already established that regulation does not actually end what it sets out to end.

>>3325339
Have we? I must have missed that.

>>3325212

You do realise the free market cannot work without strictly enforced property rights? How do you propose to do stateless enforcing, that won't devolve into a mafia war?

>>3325346

What has regulation ended? Rape, murder, torture, fraud, and coercion, all exist now with heavy government regulation.

>>3325347

I do not support a free market, I support a Liberty market.

It would start with good parenting.

>>3325364
Are you implying regulation of rape, fraud coercion and extortion have not reduced the incidence of rape, fraud coercion and extortion? And that banning child labour has not reduced the number of children being exploited? Ending it altogether is impossible, but that does not justify assuming rules have no effect at all.

>>3325373

Right. So you are most probably 15, but that's fine.

Can you give a brief rundown of how your market will function?

>>3325393

Give me the rape rates of America in 1800. I would bet you they are much lower than today.

Give me the murder rates of America in 1800. I would bet you they are much lower than today.

Etc...

Exploited is not a definable word. Commies, for example, believe exploitation is when another person can labor without unwanted force from government.

>>3325397

> supports Liberty
> you must be 15
> implying Liberty is juvenile
> implying force, coercion, and fraud is rational adult thinking

Rundown: Liberty

>>3325415
>I would bet
That's not how a discussion works. Are you seriously unable to answer any question directly? You keep on avoiding the point.

>>3325415

Seems they were the highest before centralised government was established.

>>3325440

You implied that with more regulation comes less of those things. Are you telling me there was a higher rate of rape in 1800? Are you telling me there was a higher rate of murder in 1800?

>>3325431

>Use vague, meaningless terms
>You must be 15

Alright, liberty. Let's say I buy a cow from you. You give me the cow. Then I use my liberty to not give you any money for it. Is that admissible in your market? Why/why not? If not, how will you stop me from doing it?

>>3325431
>Rundown: Liberty
No offence, but given this answer, your fanaticism and the fact that you didn't know what reductionism is, makes me think you're really not much older than 15.

>>3325446

That is the most hilarious graph I have seen in my life. It is almost as if they took rates from 1776, then rates from 1852, and simply drew a line from one to the other while ignoring all those years in between. The best part is the sharp increase after slaves were set free. And the huge increase after the civil rights act of 1964.

>>3325449
Yes.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5W3iYkk9TrMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

>>3325454

> buys a cow from me
> then claims to not give me the money which means you did not buy it yet

Well that sucks, you gave conflicting information.

Try again, but this time ask what can happen if you steal from me. And does theft happen today with the massive amounts of regulation. Ask those two things.

>>3325457

I do not know what reductionism is because I said I support Liberty? You must be 15 because you do not understand simple logic.

>>3325468

>Slavery = government regulation, low crime
>Abolish slavery = less regulation, high crime

>>3325481

I am glad you admitted that slavery was a government regulation.

I am also glad that you admitted the slaves were savages incapable of handling freedom thrust upon them so quickly.

>>3325479

We signed a contract saying I will deliver the money to you by sun down. I don't. Or does your market preclude non physical fiscal transactions?

>>3325488

So you committed fraud?

>>3325494

Yes. Is there a law against it? Written by whom? Enforced by whom?

>>3325479
>I do not know what reductionism is because I said I support Liberty?
No, you did not know what reductionism is because you are probably 15. That's all I implied.
Also, please don't ignore the book I linked to.

>>3325497

Fraud happens today with laws against it, so we can establish that laws against something does not end it.

It would be enforced by the person you aggressed, if they so wanted to.

>>3325415
cool correlation = causation "argument", bro

So the standard form of contract dispute resolution would be armed force?

>>3325502

That is also illogical.

> gives me 300 page book
> implies I should read it because it backs up his claims

The whole book? No specific pages?

>>3325506

Exactly. Keep that in mind for regulations today.

>>3325512

Self-defense if chosen? Sure, why not.

>>3325515
Ideally, yes the whole book, because it would thorroughly show you why your arguments are flawed. Alternatively, the first chapter, which specifically relates to murder rates. Did you even read the first page?

>>3325523
>thorroughly
thoroughly*

>>3325519

Why not indeed. I'm not making moral judgments, I'm just trying to see what exactly your Liberty market looks like.

So am I right in concluding that I could get a couple of my mates, go to your house, beat you up, and take your cow?

>>3325504

Ability to enforce things depends only on wealth, in the absence of the state and public police protecting all (even those who did/could not pay for it).

Anarchy: Wealthy people would be able to enforce anything they want, poor people would not be able to enforce anything.

experientialist reporting in
>thou jelly

>>3325523

So you cannot specifically give me pages that prove your claims?

The book literally has listed the rates they have in on of the first pages, it goes back to 1880 only. That would not work well against my claim.

>>3325528

Could you steal from another using majority force rule? Is that a real question?

>>3325564

Wealth has no correlation to safety. In fact, poor hand workers routinely seek out those that are rich to attack.

>>3325577
>So you cannot specifically give me pages that prove your claims?
Like I said, the first chapter (excluding introduction, obviously)
>The book literally has listed the rates they have in on of the first pages, it goes back to 1880 only. That would not work well against my claim.
It gives you insight into the social dynamic of crime rates and how they relate to regulations.

>>3325586

The book says I am wrong but you cannot source with any statistics from the book that say I am wrong?

What specifically does the book say that is important to the discussion?

>>3325577
your claim is fucking retarded you stupid shit

you responded to my sarcastic correlation = causation post yet failed to understand what I was referring to

that crime rose when regulation increased doesn't show that more regulation increases murders, it doesn't even show that more regulation doesn't reduce crime because you fail to account for the very likely possibility that the rise in crime was for reasons completely unrelated to regulation and the increased regulation prevented it from rising further.

>>3325591
Jesus christ, you asked for a source as a basis for my own argument. I provided it, and now you want me to spell out the argument again? No kiddo, I'm done debating here because you simply do not seem to know the niceties that come with a proper discussion. Have a lovely day.

>>3325581

>Wealth has no correlation to safety.

Wealth has a huge correlation to ability to enforce your own safety.

So your only counter point is that you would be safe in anarchy when you are poor and cant afford to pay for private protection service, because noone will try to commit crime to you?

laughingwhores.jpg

>>3325577

It just seems to me your system is sub optimal. You have a neighbour, let's say. Could you not go up to him and say, "Hey mate. There's some bad folk 'round these parts. How about I watch your back if you watch mine?"

This way, when I come to stir things up you won't be alone and your chances of coming out of it alive, and maybe even with your cow, would be substantially higher. Is that a good idea?

>>3325592

Rape has gone down from 1800?

I am well aware that more regulation has nothing to do with a decrease in crimes related to that regulation.

also, inb4 you say socioeconomic conditions

>>3325598

You gave me a book that claims to not have rates from before 1880 in reference to me making a claim about 1800.

>>3325601

If wealth has no correlation, it has no correlation from low to high. I made no claim of lower anything due to less money.

>>3325604

My system is not good because something that happens now everyday could also maybe happen within my system? Where did I refer to never talking to a neighbor?

>>3325605
try actually reading my post you stupid sack of shit

sage for tripfaggot moron

>>3325615
>You gave me a book that claims to not have rates from before 1880 in reference to me making a claim about 1800.
Except your claim related to the 1800. Mine simply related to regulations. Off now, again, have a lovely day.

How many of you have actually read Das Kapital ? Honestly, I bet none of you did.

>>3325615

Well all you did refer to is "Liberty". I've checked the OED but nowhere does it say, "Arranging with your neighbour to defend each other in case a roving thug tries to take your cow."

Now suppose you have spoken to your neighbour about this, and made that agreement. I come to your neighbour's house, and start causing trouble. Do you intervene? Or do you use your liberty to stay home and not risk getting hurt yourself?

Yes.

No.

No.

>>3325652
Can you elaborate a little bit?

>>3325635

Logical deductions can be easily figured out from a definition.

Depends.

>>3325664

Depends? Now this is getting interesting. You've made an agreement. Whether you'll uphold it or not "depends". Is this a general feature of your system? There is no a priori obligation to uphold your agreements?

>>3325664
It's funny how unwilling you are to elaborate on your views. It just shows us how unscrutinized they are. What are you even doing on a science board?

>>3325615

>I made no claim of lower anything due to less money.

Of course, because you will have to admit that poor people would not be able to protect themselves in anarchy. Protecting yourself requires paying to protection service or buying weapons. Poor people are incapable of both.

Rich people are always more powerful than poor in anarchy.

Depends on the state of the anarchy. What if there's no money?

>>3325581
Security is an illusion. Human beings are wild animals and just as a pet chimp might suddenly turn on its owner (or might not), any of your friends or family could one day snap and kill you in your sleep.

Stranger things have happened. We are all heading toward death it's silly to try and arrive safely.

The war on Terror is the same as saying:

"I declare a war on Fear" and then actually killing people to defeat it.

>>3325736
Individuals would establish trade agreements and a trade group might start accepting vouchers as long as they are agreed to be accepted by all in the trade agreement.

Money would not have a central controller, and you could bargain your vouchers for vouchers that are accepted by a different merchant. Money will always exist independently of government as it stems from the market itself.

>>3325738
>Security is an illusion.
It's easy to say that sitting behind your computer in your nice suburban neighborhood while your soccer mom is getting groceries at wallmart.

>>3325745

In the long run, sure. But say the economy collapses and we go lynch rich people.