[saraid216]

> It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be.

> it doesn't square with the things I've observed in my own life.

> To do that, we have to look at adults - lots of them, ranging from bums to billionaires, across time and professions, on and on. Then at young adults, then at small children (to fully see the contrast with adults).

I like that you've indicated your own confirmation bias right there.

[javert]

He's actually doing it the right way: looking at lots of empirical evidence and forming the right abstractions from it. That's how science is done, and it's how philosophy should be done.

You are free to present contradictory evidence and conclusions if you think he's made a mistake.

He's not talking about evidence limited to his personal, one-on-one interactions. He's talking about all the evidence available to us, about people in society.

[saraid216]

It is better to take cognizance of how things really are rather than how you really, really wish them to be.

Where you start in life matters. It squares with the things I've observed in my own life; hardworking people who spend every waking hour working for the betterment of their friends and family are nevertheless constantly battered by mischance and bad fortune. I've learned to differentiate the good luck that I possess in my own life from the bad luck that others have. Despite my continued work in supporting them with financial aid, useful contacts, and marketable skills, they are still forced by circumstance to end up destitute.

At this point, some might say, "you didn't earn your brain/parent's money/etc." I say that's nonsense, because the entire idea of "earn" arises in order to distinguish real people who choose to act toward a goal from those that choose not to. And of course, that is the point. None of these things were earned. This is a basic framing problem[1], and the entire basis of chaos theory[2]. Initial conditions matter. A proper scientific experiment includes a control group measured against an experimental group, and both of these groups are impossible to meaningfully distinguish at the beginning of the observation. If this is not the case, say because one group is more intelligent by some accepted measure of intelligent, then the measurement of a variable, say the application of choice to arrive at earnings, becomes utterly nonsensical. The causative agent could be either the initial difference or the experimental variable.

Using simplistic philosophical bases for one's beliefs is tantamount to unexamined religious dogma and in no way demonstrates any kind of empirical basis. Furthermore, claiming to have surveyed "bums to billionaires" without proof is merely, in the sophistic style of javert, a logical fallacy.

But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Exper...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[maxharris]

Using simplistic philosophical bases for one's beliefs

Whoa there - why do you call what I've written "simplistic"?

But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.

And of course, that is the point. None of these things were earned.

That wasn't my point. Let me put it another way: it is not valid to apply the concept of "earn" as you do, in a situation where no choice exists. You can't say that a person has earned his brain, nor can you say that he hasn't. I've already explained why. This is not some minor epistemological issue that I'm going to simply let pass.

But it's cute you two believe you have any grasp of epistemology, rhetoric, or logic.

Please stop with the insults.

[saraid216]

> Whoa there - why do you call what I've written "simplistic"?

Because it does not appreciate complexities. This is the danger of confirmation bias; it reduces a complex reality down to a simple explanation by dismissing contrary evidence.

> You can't say that a person has earned his brain, nor can you say that he hasn't. I've already explained why.

And you're wrong. Your central claim is this: "A person has earned any given X if and only if this person has made a choice." We can say "A person has earned any given X" is P and "A person has made a choice" is Q. Thus, the claim is a simple P <-> Q, which is shorthand for P -> Q AND Q -> P.

Your next claim, however, is "If a person has not made a choice, then this person has neither earned nor not-earned the given X." This looks like ~Q -> ~P, which is logically valid, but it's not. The claim depends on a statement which is completely new. You've defined a third category of existence.

> Please stop with the insults.

Earn my respect. That's a choice on your part, right?

[javert]

> Earn my respect.

This is supposed to be a community where we all respect each other. There is no excuse to be disrespectful to other people here, especially over disagreements about politics and philosophy.

If you want to be part of a community where you are free to be disrespectful to people until they "earn" your respect, you should go somewhere else.

I'm not even commenting on how you made fun of me and maxharris, which is kind of irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument intellectually. I'm only talking about your explicit assertion that you don't have to be respectful as part of the bargain of being in this community.

[saraid216]

Such an authoritarian. If you want me to be respectful, then make a choice and earn that respect from me. What is this, a pg-subsidized respect space? That's immoral.

[saraid216]

Yes, he agrees with you. I got that.

[maxharris]

I like that you've indicated your own confirmation bias right there.

Does that really make any sense? Everyone, including you, has beliefs and hypotheses.

I've summarized some of what I've considered in coming up with my conclusion, and all you've done is to throw a convenient label on me. You'll have to try harder than that.