I entirely agree that science is philosophy as is any system of concepts. But not all philosophy is science so by 'philosophy' I mean non-scientific philosophy. I raise the question because, in the past, I would have dismissed non-scientific philosophy as simply unscientific. But now-a-days I find that a naive reaction.

I think my question is a false dichotomy but not for the same reason as you. I'm going to have to paraphrase Dennett but his sense is that when you know what the questions are then you can do good science but if you're not sure what the questions are then you're doing philosophy. Essentially, you can do good science with easy problems but the hard problems require you to do good philosophy too.

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.—Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea

I have to agree.

Solipsists do not exist. Fact. If 'existence' is to mean anything then it has to be such that it applies to some things. If you want it to mean something that applies to nothing or a strictly limited set then be my guest but you're torturing a word in common usage which few people have difficulty using.

Your alternative makes no sense. You'd be waiting a long time for a convicted murderer, subject to the authority of a judge, to actually consent to the sentence handed down.

Absence of corruption largely pertains to private neutrality i.e. officers stand neither to make private gains nor incur private losses through the exercise of their powers. Once we have private neutrality, we can discuss whether the officer is displaying competent exercise of those powers.

1. public loss/neutrality with private gain is corrupt;

2. public loss/neutrality with private loss/neutrality is incompetent;

3. public gain with private gain/loss is untenable;

4. public gain with private neutrality is the ideal;

We're disputing #3. I argue that gain/gain and gain/loss should both still be considered corrupt as they readily lead to corruption. Either because the officer maintains the decision even after the public no longer gains or because the officer changes the decision to avoid a personal loss even while the public would still stand to gain.

A good example of private losses incurred in the exercise of power is the matter of travel expenses. These should always be reimbursed in full. This is common practice. The asymmetry in common practice is that private gains are not declared and surrendered to the office. Without that, all officers always have an ulterior motive for taking office.

Neutrality is the ideal situation and is what I'm driving at by the phrase absent of corruption.

Yes. Good point. I think it's worth adopting a statistical definition. Something like:

For a given trait (assuming a bell curve):

1. normality being within three standard deviations of the estimated population mean;

2. abnormality being > +/- 3 s.d. from the mean.

3. disorder being an abnormality which has harmful effects or carries a meaningful risk of having harmful effects either for yourself or for others.

Here, I'm distinguishing between abnormality and disorder. The first means you're unusual, the second says their's a risk associated with that unusualness.

If the question was:

Everybody has abnormal mental traits.

then I'd have to agree.

Ah yes. A great time to be going into the pharmaceutical industry. The customer base is just going to sky rocket. We could tell people they're broken but they didn't know it. But we do know it and would be happy to cure them of their issues for just a couple of hundred dollars.

We're in the money, We're in the money,

We've got a lot of what it takes to get along.

I think the DSM should be split out into three publications: one consisting of clinical conditions requiring medical intervention, the second consisting of sub-clinical conditions which require attention and occasionally require medication, and the third consisting of normal conditions which require no attention or medication but patients may present if they wish to change the condition through counselling and simple thought exercises.

The third volume would really just be an inventory of personality traits which are not socially problematic to the person but they may not be happy with the trait. Presenting for one of these conditions would be the psychiatric equivalent of a perfectly healthy young woman asking for breast enlargements so that she can just feel more attractive.

Governments without corruption can exist.

Ok. How?

As long as they listen to the people, don't support the corrupt corporations and don't except their demands.

But is listening to the people and ignoring the corporations sufficient to preclude corruption? Well, it's easy to ignore corporations when they don't exist and they didn't always exist but corrupt governments where still seen. I'm sure corporate corruption contributes a fair amount to government corruption but I don't think it is the only cause.

Also, it is possible to listen to the people by pursuing popular projects while simultaneously giving project sub-contracts to the company tied for top rank in the industry which is also offering the largest bribe. In that situation, you would be listening to the people and making illegitimate personal gain from exercise of your legislated powers.

They can exist

I agree. But I dispute that your suggestions would be sufficient to bring that about. Please provide a fuller explanation for me to get my teeth into.

Thanks for posting.

I think it comes down to job design. An artist friend told me he used to be a police officer and he figured that most people who join the police force are people who are politically right of centre. I disputed that. I said that my experience with people about to join the police force are politically representative of the population but have simply found themselves at a stage in their lives where they have several career options and they happen to prefer the police officer option. It is then in doing the job and finding themselves frustrated at times by liberal legislation, designed to do things like protect the human rights of suspects etc., that police officers become politically right of centre. My point is that people are shaped by their jobs and that their thoughts and behaviour are really a result of their job rather than their nature. If some part of the shaping is not desirable then redesign the job.

Your surprise isn't surprising.

I see this as a kind of engineering problem. Suppose you're a microchip manufacturer. The plan is to produce 1,000 working chips. You have a battery of tests to ensure that all the chips are working. Each test has a 90% chance of detecting any faults and thus fails to detect an actual fault 10% of the time. If you choose to use only one test on the 1,000 chips, you'll probably have 100 faulty chips which is pretty bad. Two tests would reduce this down to 10 and three would reduce the probable number of faulty chips down to 1. Adding additional tests would steadily increase your odds of having zero faulty chips, that is, a greater guarantee that your 1,000 chips really do all work. Indeed, a battery of more than 163 tests each being 90% reliable would reduce the odds of missing a fault to less than the odds of you and me both happening to independently choose the same atom in the universe.

Going to the definition of political corruption:

the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain

Ok. So now suppose we're looking at 1,000 cases where a government official has used legislated powers. We need 163+ tests each 90% effective at identifying illegitimate private gain if present. We don't have a government absent of corruption in the strictest sense but the presence of corruption has no practical significance.

So how could we seriously perform 163,000+ tests in any reasonable amount of time? We could have a computer system which monitors the use of powers and any personal gains made. It could red flag any correlations between the two and attach all the evidence which will be required in court to obtain a conviction.

Political corruption can be approached as an engineering problem of a fairly routine variety. It's just that political philosophy doesn't teach engineering problem solving.

Ok. Wasn't sure whether to click support or dispute. I choose to support your argument but dispute your side.

I'm not saying we should (I mean you should... I get so riled up about US politics almost as if I'm a US citizen) favour the Republican perspective. Whenever someone advances their political views, my bullshit detector goes on high alert. It gets tripped far more frequently with Republican speakers than with Democrat speakers. I think the basic social gist that Democrats promise (empty promises) are great but they (Obama) aren't coming up with the goods. The American people suffer as a result of this. The Democrats have the power to change things but are too gutless to do it.

I say we should be upset with the Democrats more because they are in power, they've been put in power to take specification actions and all the American people are seeing is mealy mouthed double-talk telling them "Well, I know I promised you this but...". Not good enough. Americans deserve more.

It would be a travesty to have Republicans in power again but we have more reason to be upset with the incumbent government. Such high spirits. So much laudable intent. So few results.

We should be more upset with the Democrats than with the Republicans. I'm not a US citizen but I have great hopes for America. The founding principles of the nation are amazing and undeniably more forward thinking than any other. The Democratic perspective is closer to the high minded moral intent of the founding fathers than is the Republican perspective. Somehow, I find that getting so near the goal of a truly egalitarian society and then wilfully abandoning it is a far greater transgression than having no concept of the principle in the first place.

(Good question. Venting bile over.)

My central dogma is maintenance, growth, and development. All three need to be served simultaneously. If you don't maintain the population and the physical structures then the society collapses in less than one generation. If you don't grow the population then the society collapses after one generation. If you don't have any scientific, technological or cultural developments then the society's ability to maintain and grow itself is limited to it's initial circumstances.

I don't want anyone disputing this. It's my dogma. And as we all know, we should always respect other people's dogma especially when it's utterly ridiculous and they intend to take political action based on it. ;)

Let's play a game, a person gives you ten dollars to split with me, if I accept we get the money, if I reject we get nada. How much would you offer me?

Well, for the sake of argument, let's say it can only be split into ten separate dollars. If I offer you zero dollars then you should be indifferent as to whether you accept or reject the offer. If I offer you one dollar then you should accept the dollar rather than get nothing.

But only a free market economist would think that that makes any sense. Since we both have to cooperate to get the ten dollars then you would expect a fair share of that ten dollars. You would expect five dollars and be disappointed by anything less. Below a certain point, perhaps three dollars and less, your disappointment would be enough that you would rather forgo your meagre reward to ensure that I did not receive an unfairly large reward. Not only are you prepared to punish my greed, but you're also prepared to incur losses to yourself in punishing me.

Taking account of your actual psychology, I should probably offer you four or five dollars. But knowing what you're testing me for, and since it's only ten dollars, I would probably offer you the whole ten dollars provided you bought me lunch. I would then, of course, order something priced at nine dollars. ;)

Besides, my method isn't based on imposing a political ideology.

I'm afraid you're views do constitute a stance equivalent to a political ideology in the same way that my Humanism, though not a religion, is recognised by the UN as a non-religious life stance equivalent to a religion and is to be afforded all of the same rights and privileges extended to religions.

Political ideologies as I understand them consist of:

1. a theory of human nature (i.e. individual psychology and behaviour);

2. a theory which extrapolates from this the general character of humanity;

3. and in light of this, a prescriptive theory of ethics which tells us what humanity should be like;

4. and finally, a plan for getting us there.

You have a theory of human nature, you extrapolate to humanity's general characteristics, you prescribe ethics and you have a plan you think will get us there. I don't see how this isn't a political ideology.

Moreover, your theory of human nature isn't supported by the known psychological evidence which invalidates your extrapolation to humanity. Your ethics may or may not survive a collision with the psychological evidence but, given these points, your plan is not justified. I would have to say the same of all political ideologies.

What we need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance. A number of ideologies have started off in that vein but they all fail because scientific knowledge expands and influences our ethical considerations whereas ideologies are... ideological. What we real need is a scientifically valid and ethically considered political stance which also has the ability to expand with science and be influenced by ethics.

We just need to be... sane.

I've yet to come across an ideology that works just as well (let alone better) than the free market.

Depends on what you mean by 'works'. To borrow some cell biology, dollars are basically the stem cells in the economy. You can convert dollars into any commodity and you can also convert some commodities back into dollars. Whereas, all other resources are specific resources, the dollar is the universal resource. Everyone needs to use up some of the universal resource in order to maintain their literal survival and ensure their personal safety. Any resources left over is their actual economic power, their free ability to dollar vote and influence the market.

People use their economic power:

1. to 'work': to provide goods/services which others need for survival/security;

2. to 'entertain': to provide goods/services which others do not need but do desire;

3. to 'play': to purchase goods/services to satisfy desires;

4. to 'invest': to purchase instruments which over time generate more dollar votes than used to purchase them.

The problem with this set-up is the long-term shifts in economic power:

1. At the very bottom you have the 'dying': those who are not able to meet their survival/security needs;

2. Next come the 'survivors': those who are able to survive but cannot afford to then provide any goods/service to others;

3. The 'providers' are those who can afford to provide goods/services from which they can generate more dollar votes;

4. The 'players' are those who are able to meet their needs and then do not work, do not entertain, but do play. Their many purchase is of investment instruments which generate dollar votes for themselves but do not provide any goods/services either needed or simply desired.

5. At the very top are the 'Scrooges': those who do not provide any goods/services, do not play but plough all of their dollar votes into dollar vote generating instruments.

Ultimately, you end up with a society where the least useful members of it (players and Scrooges) are also the most influential. Of the two groups, the least interesting (Scrooges) are the more influential.

A society ruled by useless people is pretty bad but one ruled by the dullest useless people is even worse.

Gentlemen,

Can I suggest you both split up your posts so that each post corresponds to a single argument for Yes or for No to the question. Also, when supporting or disputing an argument, make each separate reason a separate post. You'll find that it makes it easier to come to terms on some of the points and therefore tease out exactly the specific points you're both really disputing. I assure you, it works!

Thanks.

Sorry to butt in here, PrayerFails.

Consumer protection create more competitive atmosphere to avoid fraud or other flimflam practices, and again, consumer protection doesn't fall under the category of destroying tariffs and government monopolies.

Um. That's just wrong. Do you really think companies cheer in applause for the greater challenge when consumer protection laws are introduced or added to? I'm afraid not. Individual consumer protection laws are introduced precisely because, without the threat of severe legal reprisal, the free market by design favours companies which only seek a profit. If a company were to spend any money on maintaining any quality standards or safety standards which the consumer is not able to appraise personally then it would not last very long. The free market is just the 'political market' with dollar voting. And the political market favours:

(according to michey5321 also posting on this debate)

the best liars with the best empty promises, because what they want is an organized and systematic group of soothe sayers to offer them hope and salvation.

Hm. I've just had a day to think about my comparison of your ideological grievances and my own and have a little more to add.

For all of the liabilities that religions bring, they do have some benefits which an Atheist must acknowledge and at least attempt to provide rational alternatives for. The main advantages of religions that I can see are these:

God: an entity which decides and hands down the law and occasionally makes changes or provides new laws.

Theologians: a community of experts who interpret the law in the most difficult of cases.

Priests: a community of overseers who ensure the law is obeyed.

Temples: community centres providing a range of needed goods and services not being provided elsewhere.

So now we have something like:

God --> The State

Theologians --> Ethicists

Priests --> Judges

Temples --> Various charitable organisations

I think a democratic state is an imperfect but rational and morally superior alternative to God. I'm curious, in a stateless society, where would the laws come from? (assuming there would be any laws at all) If you abolished the state, who would enforce the ban and prevent any future state organisation gaining control?

True. It takes much greater understanding to explain something simply and early explanations are always very complicated because much of the understanding has yet to develop. Also, we shouldn't mistake simple for easy. Simple means calling on the fewest concepts where the concepts themselves could be anything from immediately transparent to requiring years of training to grasp. Just think of something like quantum theory. The equations are often very simple but you still need plenty of schooling to appreciate the simplicity.

Considering the length of some philosophical treatise and how little understanding is actually conveyed, I get the distinct impression that philosophy has become the collection of questions which humanity has made virtually no progress with. As soon as some progress is made with a topic then it becomes it's own subject.

Without offending any philosophers, but some philosophers do seem to want to obstruct the development of any understanding on a topic because they don't want to lose the ability to speak authoritatively on it. There's something quite archaic about someone who advances himself as an authority on all of the unrelated topics we know almost nothing about.

1. To direct money towards things people otherwise wouldn't pay for.

Yes. And that's a good thing. Everyone wants functioning infrastructure but no one wants to be be the one to pay for it. With taxes everyone has to pay.

(An idea follows. I'm sure it's been thought of and studied before.)

Perhaps what irks people the most is that they know they're paying for something they were hoping to get for free. There's this guy I know who takes a similar stance on taxes as you do. He insists he shouldn't have to pay any taxes for anything and yet his usage of the public library vastly outstrips the number of books he could purchase if he didn't have to pay taxes. I get the feeling that if the library was run as a charity open to all, he'd be one of the big users who never makes a donation i.e. a free-loader.

But rather than waste too much time condemning obviously parasitic behaviour, let's try for a solution. What if the library didn't actually take any donations from the public? There would be no difference between him and everyone else. But where are the donations coming from? Well, how about a ladies shoe store whose sole shareholder is the public library? All profits get used to maintain and expand both the shoe store and the public library. In this way, people are paying for something they want to pay for (the shoes) and they're getting something they need but don't want to pay for (free access to books).

But now you'll complain that he's the biggest user of the library and yet he's not buying any ladies shoes so the ladies are paying for his free-loading. Okay, so what if there are now several stores each selling a different type of good/service that he's sure to be buying at some of the stores and indeed everyone would be buying at some of the stores in order to obtain goods/services they do want to pay for.

How about expanding the charitable arm. Instead of just providing a library, what if it also provided a school, public baths, a park, a museum, garbage collection, etc.? So now you have this huge charitable corporation where the corporate arm provides goods/services people actually want to pay for and the charitable arm provides goods/services which people don't want to pay for but still do need. It could operate on a national scale and compete fairly with other corporations for the profits to maintain and expand.

Such a charitable corporation could take over much of the work currently done by a state. It could even provide for enforcing the rule of law provided the laws are drawn up by way of a reasonable democratic process. This charitable corporation would, for all intents and purposes, be a state funded not by taxes but by commercial profits.

If I understand what you mean then I think you're describing your M.O. incorrectly. I can illustrate this most easily by comparing myself with yourself as an example because we're using the same strategy in different battles.

I try to be a good Scientific Skeptic and I think you try to do the same thing. I wouldn't say either of us manages it at all times because I don't think anyone does. We all have our lapses and we need to count on those who love us enough to embarrass us with "Honey, you're wrong and the evidence is right there so whether you accept it or not, everyone else will know." :D

None of the religions satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why I don't believe any religious claims. The word for that is an Atheist. No religious ideology.

You're arguing that none of the political ideologies satisfy the burden of proof placed on them by Scientific Skepticism which is why you don't believe any political ideological claims. I'm not sure if their's a suitable word to describe the position "No political ideology" (maybe A-statist or Astatist?).

And yes, that's a good characterisation of political ideologies you make with the phrase "theories displaced in the future". Political ideologies do take the flavour of "We can and we should have a future world like such and such which in order to reach we'll need to compromise on this or that."

But the thing with religious ideologies is that they provide ready made answers to real world questions so, as an Atheist, what are my answers to these questions? ... Humanism!

I'd describe Humanism as "morality without mythology" and Secular Humanism as "morality without mythology goes para-political". By 'para-political' I mean that Secularism (the separation of church and state) isn't a political ideology as such but a concept which you attach to other political ideologies.

You're analogue of Secularism is "the separation of market and state" but you're also an Anarchist meaning that you claim that all the actually important functions that a state provides can be provided by the market without a need for anything external to the market.

So to sum up:

Base epistemological philosophy?

You: Scientific Skepticism

Me: Scientific Skepticism

Ideological grievance?

You: political ideology

Me: religious ideology

Skeptical of what?

You: Statism

Me: Theism

Scientifc alternative to this?

You: Nothing. No alternative needed.

Me: Humanism

Para-political proposal?

You: abolishen of state.

Me: separation of church and state.

Final philosophical/ideological tags?

You: Scientific Skeptic, Astatist, Anarchist, Capitalist.

Me: Scientific Skeptic, Atheist, Secularist, Humanist.

I think we're going to disagree on a lot of things but, none-the-less, we're going to get on great. :)

I'm not sure. I guess it depends on how your dictionary defines general corruption. I'm not even sure what general corruption is. I've always taken corruption to mean political corruption unless I'm speaking on a specialised topic, like on data storage, where the specialised definition of corruption is more likely to be what is meant.

How does your dictionary define general corruption?

Just to clarify, I think it is significant to note why this fraudster would get killed. It would be because he was a fugitive. The US does kill fugitives but I think many countries avoid actually killing fugitives, unless they are armed, strongly preferring instead to apprehend them again. I hope you don't think I'm imagining governments handing down direct death penalties for not paying taxes.

Just two of the books immediately at hand:

"Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely

"How We Decide" by Jonah Lehrer

or slightly more comical would be:

"Quirkology: The Curious Science of Everyday Lives" by Richard Wiseman.

I'm not saying you have to read these but if you do read any of these then the most germaine to this discussion is Dan Ariely.