Anarchy

Post Reply New Topic

The newer the date on the Ostrom the stronger her rejection of rational choice.

(1) Not a strawman but a rejection of Argument from authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Why are you trying to convince me Elinor is stupid? She was a lovely and intelligent woman.

So, question, what is the logical fallacy of someone who dismisses all counterarguments? Those based on source data as argument from authority and those based on anecdote as arguments from anecdote? You have for all intents and purposes only established that the only recourse when you say something is to ignore you.

Cool lets go with that.
If you can only argue from authority or anecdote I would appreciate not hearing your arguments.

The problem is that you dismiss any argument as either being from authority or anecdote, so the problem quite frankly is you.

You promised to ignore me why are you still talking?

... But you just made an argument from authority yourself (AKA "If Ostrom currently believes this, then it must be true"). I did not, as I was quoting a specific work with a specific methodological and empirical content, not the entirety of Ostroms' work, or the fact that she was "a lovely and intelligent woman".



How quaint. You actually managed to create a post where you first reject the claim of straw man arguments, and then you present... a straw man argument.

I did - of course - not try to convince you that Elinor Ostrom was stupid, and my previous statement concerning her (true to Karl Popper) approach to human action certainly does not suggest anything less of deep respect for her work. I was pointing out that *you* were disregarding the part of her work which was instrumental in her getting the Nobel prize.

(Statement: Master, your opponent might choose to point out that there is no official Nobel prize in Economics (as It should be when studying the insignificant existence of meat bags), but simultaneous developments in other threads might restrict such outbursts. Nonetheless, I still recommend facilitating communications and terminating hostilities by utilizing existing (Addendum: Assassination) protocols... Heuristic computation suggests that sustained blaster fire will yield a high probability of success and a minimum of dissent - assuming sufficient accuracy).

Oh, and your previous posts were more challenging... Refuting your claims is getting easier over time...

Check your premises. Science and mathematics has we have come to know them originated during the Renaissance.

The Middle Ages do get a bad rap. Lots of interesting stuff was going on during the Middle Ages.

ruveyn

Define "Dark Ages" and "Renaissance". I can find at least three different meanings for each: Greek Dark Ages (12th-8th centuries BCE or thereabout), the Middle Ages in general (typically, 5th-15th centuries), or more specifically the Early Middle Ages (5th-10th centuries); the Carolingian Renaissance (8th century), the 12th-13th century Renaissance and the Renaissance proper (14th-16th centuries), all of which are part of the Middle Ages/Dark Ages in the broadest, most inaccurate sense, the first being also part of the shorter Dark Ages.

In sum, don't use "Dark Ages" unless you absolutely have to. The term is loaded with pejorative connotations. I don't know if there is another name for the Greek one, but there is for the Middle Ages and Early Middle Ages, namely those I just used.

Also, technically, the (latest) Renaissance is more of an intellectual and artistic movement than a real historiographic period. Unless you mean "Renaissance" as the return to the ideas and standards of Greek and Roman Antiquity, a definition which applies to all three renaissances, avoid it as well.


Yes and no. More accurately, between the 14th and 16th centuries, they continued to approach the mathematics and science we know today. Honestly, that could be said of almost any period.

Besides, the history of humanity is not the history of mathematics and science.

Not really a strawman I said Rational choice folks are stupid you argued that Elinor was a rational choice person hence stupid.
Or was it a appeal to authority that you were using that seems to be your favorite.

Here is a fairly good paper on the evolution of Elinors views.
http://2011patnet.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ersion.pdf

Apparently she was dumb as hell in the 70's
But wised up before I met her.
read up on the IAD framework.

You actually managed to pull of a *double* straw man...



And a double argument from authority.

But since I actually *read* what opponents throw at me in a discussions, let me quote the conclusion of Larry S. Luton's article:

"In her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize, Ostrom looked back over her professional
life and concluded that “The most important lesson for public policy analysis derived from [my
intellectual journey] is that humans have a more complex motivational structure and more
capability to solve social dilemmas than posited in earlier rational-choice theory” (Ostrom, 2010,
p. 664). She clearly has an amazing amount of confidence in the prospect of rationally designed
scientific research into public and collective choice dynamics to enhance knowledge in our field,
and given her recognition of the complexity of decision making in her area of interest, collective
decision making in common pool resource situations, this is no small matter—but she is not a
rational choice theorist." (Luton, 2011: 8 )

The Scotsman strikes again. The magic word is - of course - "earlier".

And interestingly, Luton did not in fact quote "Governing the Commons" in his article, and he doesn't mention it at all... Why are you delegating the representation of Ostrom's academic career to an article which omits her most crucial work? When she is a scholar you claim to hold in high esteem?

It depends on what you mean by anarchy....

Some people claim they're anarchists to look rebellious. I legitimately heard someone say before that they believed in anarchy because if there were no rules + and no government, they could rape all the "hot chicks" they wanted. That disgusts me, and yes, I know true anarchists are not like that. If we had that kind of anarchy, where there were no leaders, no rules, and everyone just kept on killing each other and hurting each other and raping each other, a new leader would just take over.

If I ever say I believe in anarchy, I'm basically saying I'm against power and that I believe in equality. I do not believe that one person or group of people should have power over everyone else. This does refer to politicians, yes, but even without politicians...I don't think ANY group should oppress another....women shouldn't be oppressed, blacks shouldn't be oppressed, people with disabilities shouldn't be oppressed, LGBT people shouldn't be oppressed, and the list goes on. In the 1st kind of anarchy, those forms of oppression would still be there. I'm not sure the 2nd kind of anarchy would ever exist though with all the brainwashed people in the world.

Or just a bad choice in your original appeal to authority and a bunch of path dependent arguments afterward.

You could have chosen Hayek he has one of the fake Nobels in fact the first one and is a rational choice moron without any qualifications or asterix.

Smug Statement: [Begin emulation of the voice of Bane] Calm down, JV. Now is not the time for complete surrender in the face of superior logic. That comes later. [Stop emulation of the voice of Bane] Perhaps we should host a poll on who's winning this debate... I wonder if the WP populace will forgive you for your lack of empirical support...

You have fallen victim to something that I can only describe with a movie quote:
"You're a big man, but you're out of shape and with me it's a full time job." (Sylvester Stallone, Get Carter, 2000)



Ah, and let me guess, you assume that I haven't read Hayek as well?

I have no knowledge of the so-called "fake Nobels". If you are referring to the Nobel Prize in Economics, it was awarded for the first time to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969. Hayek and Myrdal recieved it jointly in 1974. How can Hayek then be "the first one" as you claim?

In fact, the "first one" to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics unshared was Paul A. Samuelson, who is probably the closest thing neoclassical economics has to a "founder". He also spearheaded the mathematical approach to economics, thus bringing it closer to the physical sciences... And he most definitely belongs to the rational choice tradition.

Face it, JakobVirgil... you picked a fight with someone smarter than you, and you lost... I destroy every single counter-argument you post with increasing ease... And your replies have degenerated into pointless one-liners.

Sorry, what were you two arguing about? I was just enjoying the snappy back and forths, like in a film where the couple don't realise they're falling for each other despite the differences (but everyone around them does).

But you lose points for quoting the remake, I know that much. Ugh.

So why did you make the weak choices of Ostrom and Captain Side burns when you had much better choices off the to of your head?
Because you were holding back your amazing mind as not to hurt me?

Yes a lot of Dumb-asses and pseudo-scientists were given fake Nobel prizes in economics.
Economics has yet to become a predictive science even with all the prizes, misapplied math and Just so stories.

You have yet to make an argument that is not an appeal to authority.
not one.

The null hypothesis is that Rational choice theory does not predict anything.
until Empirical data shows that it does I am gunna stick with the idea that it is BS.
Same with homeopathy and astrology.

Even if they start to give fake Nobels in those too.

That particular aspect of altruism is not part of my repertoire.

Oh, and Ostrom is not a "weak" choice. I choose her because you attacked the empirical content of Rational Choice, and I - naturally - responded with the best example of the empirical content of Rational Choice... Which is "Governing the Commons". And who is Captain Sideburns? (awesome title, by the way)



One moment. I just have to rebound from the astonishing number of peer-reviewed articles present in your post. In fact, It might take me decades to survey this treasure trove of bibliography.

I assume that your omission of my previous illustrations of *actual* examples of The Tragedy of the Commons - predicted by Rational Choice theory and very much real - is due to a lapse of memory alone, and not a deliberate attempt to evade the harsh realities of... reality?



This is the part where I should include the famous Kevin Spacey quote from Superman Returns, but I shall attempt to contain my silliness.

1. GGPViper makes claim that Rational Choice has a relevant empirical content
2. JakobVirgil makes counter-claim that Rational Choice has no relevant empirical content
3. GGPViper refers to Elinor Ostrom as an example of relevant empirical content (Isolated, this *is* in fact an appeal to authority)
4. JakobVirgil makes claim that Ostrom is not a Rational Choice author and makes claim that GGPViper has not read Ostrom (valid attack against appeal to authority)
5. GGPViper refers to "Governing the Commons" as evidence of having read Ostrom and that she is a Rational Choice author (A specific work, and thus not an appeal to authority)
6. JakobVirgil makes claim that Ostrom is not a Rational Choice author and makes claim that GGPViper has not read Ostrom. (Note the similarity with number 4)
7. GGPViper refers to specific passages in "Governing the Commons" as evidence of having read Ostrom and that she is a Rational Choice author and that Rational choice has a relevant empirical content
8. JakobVirgil - now facing a losing battle - decides to abandon serious discussion and engage in incoherent rants instead.



Look up (in my post, of course).