Author Topic: Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate  (Read 2174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Conrad

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Respect: +4
Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate
« on: December 06, 2012, 12:14:20 PM »
0
by way of (what else?) a great analogy


in this thread, specifically in this post.


the criticism brought up in this thread is obviously correct: there is a strong tendency among FDR'ers in general and Stefan in particular to 'play science', by gathering every bit of research that can be interpreted to back up one's theories while ignoring all the other research that might contradict it.


and then Stefan's defense of this practice is basically the bizarre analogy in that post. I mean, really? the best way to find out what is nature is by acting as if everything is nurture? ponder that for a while.


Also, this is not how he presents this practice: I mean, when he does that thing where he only gathers all the evidence that may support his theories and ignores the rest, he is not 'acting as if everything is nurture': instead he presents these things as scientific evidence for the thesis that something is caused by the environment, not as some sort of experiment wherein he acts as if everything is caused by the environment (hell, you wouldnt even need 'evidence' for such an experiment, you can start doing it entirely without evidence. the whole thing is exactly that evidence doesn't matter, we just have to act as if there is evidence) in order to then be able to found out later what in fact is caused by the environment.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 12:22:13 PM by Conrad »

Conrad

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Respect: +4
Re: Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2012, 12:26:55 PM »
0
and I mean, even the source part of the analogy (let alone the target part) is insane: the best way to find out what is immovable and what isn't is by trying to move everything? really, would it not be better to try and determine (through theories from other parts of science, through inductivism etc.) which features tend to make things unmovable, you know, develop a theory, so that you don't have to blindly start trying to pull and/or push every single thing in the world to see if you can move it or not?


I mean, f*ck.

Anarchist

  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 641
  • Rarr!!
  • Respect: +11
Re: Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2012, 02:15:59 PM »
0
and I mean, even the source part of the analogy (let alone the target part) is insane: the best way to find out what is immovable and what isn't is by trying to move everything? really, would it not be better to try and determine (through theories from other parts of science, through inductivism etc.) which features tend to make things unmovable, you know, develop a theory, so that you don't have to blindly start trying to pull and/or push every single thing in the world to see if you can move it or not?

I mean, f*ck.

How in the hell are we supposed to toggle a few things and then decide that everything important must be movable if we don't have a massive, unfinishable workload that it would be unjust to expect us to take on for very long (after we come up with the conclusions we started with)?!

He has a debate shield daughter, after all!
Quote from: STer
Advocating for peaceful, voluntary interaction is a goal and a noble one. The question is "What is the most effective strategy for doing that?"

Stefan already decided that years ago for us! And look at how well libertarianism is doing since he published UPB. It's great now!

All you have to do to figure these things out is to simplify what everyone is doing into a stereotype, using hammers to cram things in if necessary. Then, you try the opposite and see if that works! After all, what else is left?! We've already tried everything else!!! For years! No one has ever tried moral arguments for libertarianism before!

All this talk about fallacies and confirmation bias is just a stall tactic by a nitpicker! Life is too short to waste time on all that!

megi

  • FDR Authority
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
  • Respect: +20
Re: Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2012, 08:00:52 PM »
0
Selective use of evidence is a big problem. And that issue is avoided in Stef's response. He talks about how to approach new research.

But...

The raised issue is that there already is (or may be, but he haven't looked yet) research that shows that thing is immovable, but we're just ignoring it by focusing on what's movable. To use his way of putting it
« Last Edit: December 06, 2012, 08:03:14 PM by megi »

Conrad

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
  • Respect: +4
Re: Stefan solves the nature / nurture debate
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2012, 08:08:54 PM »
0
Selective use of evidence is a big problem. And that issue is avoided in Stef's response. He talks about how to approach new research.

But...

The raised issue is that there already is (or may be, but he haven't looked yet) research that shows that thing is immovable, but we're just ignoring it by focusing on what's movable. To use his way of putting it
yes, well said.