DiegoT: I agree with ssu above, that you likely confused the pseudo-science drivel of Astrology, with astronomy. Astrology is made up garbage, on the order of other pseudoscience junk, like healing crystals and pyramid power.

As far as the rest of your comment, you have simply made unfounded assertions. Like your claim that it is a bad thing that biologists use concepts from economics. No, it isn't, and one could not even explain evolution without referencing economics. For example, our distinctive advantage as humans is intelligence. So why are we not getting smarter and smarter and an exponential rate? It's because we have costs as well as benefits associated with our big brains --- like the bigger our brains, the harder it is to have successful births as a baby's skull has to fit through a narrow birth canal. There is also an enormous energy cost associated with a bigger brain, as we presently use about 20% of our energy on our brains. Economics is also used to study how collections of cells form communities and when it would and would not be advantageous to do so.

I also am not aware of any economist rejecting biology in engaging in economics.

DingoJones: Revenge is not the same as justice. The difference is revenge involves an excessive punishment. That's why we do not want judges who are personally involved in a case sentencing defendants.

eodnhoj7: No, not all arguments are the same. In fact, it's completely false that we are even addressing an issue that can be decided by an axiom. There is a reason why the issue of whether numbers exist is not resolved by mathematicians themselves --- it's a philosophical question and not a mathematical one. Mathematicians can agree on the existence of a mathematical object by coming up with a definition for the object; however, the issue of whether such a defined object really exists or not is a matter of philosophy, which falls outside of mathematics. That's why it's completely irrelevant to discuss such things as how one can go about determining the sum of interior angles for planar objects by completing a circle of 360 degrees, and knowing a line is at a 180 degree angle. That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether numbers exist.

I hate Trump so much, I wish I could have voted twice.

Is pain always bad? Would you undergo a painful surgery to save your life? Is happiness always good? If it made you happy not to study hard for a test, would that be good? Doesn't context matter?

I think there are a number of valid points being made by people above regarding freedom of speech. It is definitely true that in order to preserve free speech, people need to be permitted to say all sorts of nasty things. However, it's also true that if someone walks up to a person on the street and shouts, "fuck you, nigger," that this may actually be a crime, not protected by freedom of speech. After all, we aren't really talking about preserving the marketplace of ideas, but would instead be condoning a verbal assault and behavior likely to cause a fight. My love for free speech does not support personal attacks against people walking down a street. I support freedom of speech primarily to protect minority viewpoints from oppression by majorities, by allowing everyone the freedom to question ideas whether they be scientific, artistic, or historical, etc. While freedom of speech protects the content of speech, it does not protect all methods for carrying it out. Shouting out a political speech at your neighbors with a bullhorn at 2:00 a.m., would be unlawful, not because of the content of the speech, but in making a loud noise waking people up at 2:00 a.m.


I also think that while political correctness, on both the right and left, has gotten way out of hand these days, hat the original idea, of having people be more adult and not needlessly hurt the feelings of others, is a good idea, in fact, an excellent one. If only it didn't get so far out of control.

Frank: Yes, I am sure that is a logical inference. Sure, there is the problem with the circularity of inductive reasoning, but, this is what science heavily relies upon. Would it really make sense that if B follows A, we should then no longer try doing A to bring about B? If we had a tire low on air pressure and we raised the pressure by blowing air into it, then should we try sucking air out to raise the pressure next time?

When you asked how dysfunctional the group would be, I think they would be extremely dysfunctional. Think about it. We go home, and turn on the light switch, to turn the lights on. Why? Because there is a logical inference that since it has worked in the past, we may as well give it a try. In other words, our most basic assumptions regarding causation are based on logic, so if their logic was all wrong, then they could not even figure out how to repeat a successful process, and they would likely go extinct rather fast. They would definitely be likely to win the Darwin prize.

Innate How the Wiring of Our Brains Shapes Who We Are, by Kevin J. Mitchell, Princeton and Oxford, 2018.

eodnhoj7: You again keep relying on the same argument, and it gets you no where. You even made the mistake of equating an operation of addition with number itself. The mere application of an abstract concept, like a number, does not in any way demonstrate a number actually exists. Numbers are pure abstractions. The number one can refer to one electron, one planet, one galaxy, or one universe. Does that ability to use an abstract concept like a number make it more or less likely that it exists in reality? It does neither. It simply shows the value of abstract reasoning, and every mathematical object, from numbers to sets to fields are all made-up abstract objects. Whether they are in some sense real, cannot be answered merely by showing that abstract objects have wide applications.

Diego T: I live in America, and can definitely state that you have a very, very, distorted view of what is going on in the USA. Also, basic mathematics can help you see the error in what you've alleged, as I have the feeling you've gotten most of your information from social media "memes" being tossed about in echo chambers. Here are the facts:

1. White supremacy is a definite problem in the USA, and is not merely confined to fringe groups. The fringe groups want to rid all non-whites, including very white-looking Jews, from the nation, but even the non-fringe elements on the right often engage in racism and have used racism for years to manipulate public policy. Why does the USA have the fewest social safety nets for the poor among all industrialized nations? Because poor white people support reducing social benefits when they believe that it hurts minorities more than it does white people. This has been going on for decades and decades in the USA. Trumpism is simply the latest version of this. Ronald Reagan, for example, talked about a "welfare queen" who bought food with food stamps and then drove away in her brand new Cadillac. He never once mentioned her skin color, but everyone knew he was speaking of a black woman. When the GOP has stated for years that they want "small government," that was simply code for we want to reduce welfare benefits for black people. After all, the GOP typically increased the size of government when it came to military and prisons. So, white supremacy has had a huge impact on national poiitics in the USA for a long, long time.

2. Black lives matter is only a terrorist group in the eyes of racists who live on social media. Sure, there are some hateful elements in BLM, but, it is not the majority view, or what the movement is about, and, unlike David Duke, the alt-right, the KKK, neo-Nazis, they do not condone violence.

3. Even if we assumed that blacks were as racist as whites, this would still mean white racism was the more serious problem, based solely on math. Since whites are the majority, a black person is far more likely to be the victim of a white racist than a white person is likely to be a victim of a black racist, even if both groups are equally racist. Ask any mathematician.

I've read a lot of economics books, and would definitely not classify economics as being no more valuable than astrology. One should also keep in mind, when judging the work of economists, is that there is no such thing as a universally valid economic model. Universal models exist in physics, chemistry, engineering, but not in economics. An economist will use a model that seems to describe the important aspects of a given situation, and an economist can chose from among hundreds of different economic models. A brief example illustrates this point. If the price of gas went up significantly and Congress held a hearing on rising gas prices, would it be wrong for Congress to establish a price ceiling for gas? Many people have a knee-jerk reaction saying yes, because a price ceiling will cut production and increase demand, as rising prices will no longer give producer an incentive to produce, and consumers an incentive to consume less. However, this is false. While it is true that ina competitive market a price ceiling is likely to have this impact, if the situation were one involving monopoly pricing, a price ceiling would actually encourage greater production in order for the monopolist to increase profits. So, even when it comes to something as simply as price ceilings, economists do not have a universally valid answer, for all situations.


To say that economists always avoid nature, is simply not true. Perhaps some models do, but only when the facts regarding nature are deemed insignificant for the issue being addressed. Where that is not the case, economics does address such things as harm from pollution, and limited natural resources.

I would also note that much work in biology uses economic models in describing even such things as how bacteria cells interact with one another in communities.

One of the main reasons why in modern systems of justice, only the state can lawfully dispense justice, is because we recognize that there is a difference between justice and revenge. Seeking just punishment, and/or just compensation for harm done, is not revenge. Revenge involves an added element of punishing the wrongdoer even more than what justice requires. By having the state, for example, punish a defendant by using a judge, a neutral third-party, we hope to avoid situations where revenge triumphs over justice. If we had the victims dispense justice, we would be likely to set off something like an ongoing feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Kippo: I was referencing a moral value judgment -- and just saying from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no way to tell that the left-leaning values are better than the right-leaning ones.

I also don't think biology determines morality or all of our beliefs. I think it gives us a framework and for some people, a preference for accepting certain ideas as opposed to others, but that is not the same thing as determining them.

It looks like Trump is living a life of pure fantasy and delusion. After losing the House last night, he claims a major victory for the GOP and his policies. About two months ago, Trump was claiming he was not going to lose the House. In numbers very similar to George W Bush's mid-term election loss, where Bush called the numbers a "real whuppin," Trump clings to some delusion about having a great victory. And it seems like he really believes this falsehood, as he is today, stoking up the flames. He forced Sessions to resign, presumably to get an attorney general to terminate the investigations against him. When a reporter asked him if he felt he emboldened white nationalists by calling himself a nationalist, he called the question "racist." He's continuing to refer to media outlets that are critical of him as being the "enemy of the people," slogans used by both Hitler and Stalin.

Apparently, Trump knows so little about the operations of the federal government, that he doesn't realize that the House can investigate him, and prevent him from passing any legislation. He lost an enormous amount of power last night, but is too dumb to realize it.

Can the American president and his followers get any more comical?

Kippo: The left-wing values are just as consistent with our evolutionary past as our right-wing calues. It largely depends on the specific ecology our ancestors faced. In areas where it was difficult to survive outside the group? Greater inequality was accepted. In areas where people could more easily leave a group and survive? Less inequality was accepted. The idea that people on the left are somehow smarter, or have higher social values than those on the right, has no basis in reality. It's certainly not the case that one set of political beliefs is more evolved than others, or less evolved.

eodnhoj7: You gave a lengthy response, but you committed the same error you did previously: you are assuming an application of a number proves a number exists, while it most definitely doesn't. The use of any abstraction does not mean the abstraction exists.

If I shuffle a deck of 52 cards, and I want to know what the probability is of the 52 cards being arranged in a specific order, I can discuss that probability mathematically. It would be 1/52!, as there is only one way to have the successful outcome, and the total outcomes possible equal 52 factorial, as there are 52 possibilities for the first card, then for each of those possibilities, there are 51 possibilities for the second card, 50 for the third, etc. This is an aspect of physical reality, so what prevents us from talking about it? Insurance companies certainly exist because of such probabilities being available to us. Now, what actually happens after I shuffle the cards is an end result that also only had a 1/52! chance of occurring. The actual existence of any order to the cards never changes what the probability was of achieving that result.

eodnhoj7: You never see a number anywhere you look in the universe. If you did, then the existence of numbers would not be a philosophical question. You are describing how one applies numbers to a physical situation, which is irrelevant to the issue of whether numbers actually exist. One can't point to the number five anywhere in the universe, or hold it in one's hand, it's simply not there. Even the symbols we use in math to describe numbers --- the numerals -- are not the actual numbers.

eodnhoj7: How are numbers "directed movements"? Vectors have direction as part of their characteristics, but not scalars. And even a vector is not necessarily linked to any movement, like a velocity vector.

Well, since the truth of a proposition does not depend on the number of people believing it, I'm not sure how such a situation would undermine logic. In fact, my guess is that the community would be quite dysfunctional, and not get along as well as a community that did adhere to logic.

Kippo: Just think how many times you actually agreed with me on how the left and right are divided?

"1. Tribalism: The left likes foreigners and minorities, while people on the right, don't."

Isn't it more of a case that the left accept others for what they are - or indeed reject them for what they are..? (should be anyhow)"


Isn't that an admission that the left accepts foreigners and is less xenophobic than the right, exactly what I stated?

"2. Inequality. People on the right are unconcerned about inequality, while people on the left are greatly concerned about it."

Ordinary not well off right wingers turn a blind eye to billionaires' wealth but are angry that salaried middle class earn twice as much as them (reflecting an envy bias towards people who are in the same ball park)."

Leftwing people make lots of statements about redistributing wealth and yet ....
Here are the facts: people on the right, support inequality, even the poor do. People on the left support equality, even wealthy people on the left, like Warren Buffet, for example. How many Trumpers are poor yet fully support tax cuts for the wealthy and a reduction in social insurance policies for the poor? Almost all of them. In fact, economists and political scientists have puzzled for years over why people seldom vote according to their class economic status. It's because political affiliation is more about psychological personality traits than it is about maximizing utility in any economic sense.

You can also get on almost any social media site and just read the comments between the people on the right and left, and you'll see, over and over again, how each group breaks into the patterns I mentioned.

Now, I'm an independent. For example, I believe that a poor or rich person had some personal responsibility for their failure or success, but also that institutional factors were involved as well. I am okay with inequality that is generated by what a person lawfully earned and achieved, but am against inequality driven by such underserved things like inheritance. I am okay with foreigners, but don't want so many of them in my country that it alters our liberal democracy. So, you may find people like me who don't fall within the right and left divide, but my point was that those who do adhere to the right, largely think in the way I described, and likewise for those who identify with the left.

I voted early, because if I died before today, I wanted Trump and the Republicans to know that I was rejecting them after they turned the GOP into a racist, conspiracy-theory driven political party.

There is some Jewish saying, although I can't think of the exact words, but it basically involves the following idea: If one argues for the purpose of discovering the truth, then the argument is legitimate. On the other hand, if one argues with the purpose in mind of simply being disruptive, then the argument is considered immoral. To me, that makes sense, and I have found myself at times making arguments solely to get back at someone, and I try to stop myself from engaging in such conduct.

In any event, I would say the motive of the person does matter, and a person who is asking what seems to be an offensive question, if they are truly interested in learning the truth, then that person should definitely be allowed to ask those questions and should not be shunned in any way. It's the person who knowingly lies, and distorts facts, to promote a biased position, that people need to expose as morally corrupt people.

Wayfarer: I always think of behavioral economics as psychology. I'm not sure what the difference is between that and psychology. Even with behavioral economics, look how many times the explanation for some observed behavior relies upon the "scientist" using introspection? And I don't see how we can get around that, and I think you and I are in agreement on that. I think what psychologists and economists do is beneficial, and I'm not knocking these fields in anyway. I'm just having trouble seeing them as sciences. They seem to me to be humanities more than sciences. So, in a way, I'm also saying something positive about humanities --- that they are at least as relevant as the social sciences are.

Tim Wood: As I recall from law school there is no First Amendment protection for speech that may insight imminent harm --- meaning an immediate assault. Now, whether or not such speech is criminal will depend upon the specific state or municipal ordinances involved, but, the First Amendment no longer bans any law making such speech criminal. I can say, in general, that we should murder all gays, and that's protected, but the moment I say anything calling for the immediate act of violence against gays, no longer has any First Amendment protection. Actually, in speaking of state laws, it is the First and Fourteenth Amendments that protect speech, as the First Amendment is only applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

Arkady: It's pure propaganda. The GOP claims that it needs Indians to have ID with their street addresses named, in order to protect people's right to vote. Yet, the whole purpose of the law is to have the opposite effect --- to suppress the right to vote. When one uses an idea to achieve its opposite, and when this is done repeatedly by a major political party in the USA, we have to start worrying about the integrity of our institutions in this country. It's Orwellian.

Wayfarer: Those are valid points, and I would emphasize the point you brought up that when we are studying ourselves in the social sciences, it makes it difficult to be objective, in the same way we can be objective in studying electrons, or even biochemistry. Jonathan Marks, a biological anthropologist, mentions this in his textbook, titled something like an alternative introduction to biological anthropology. Marks himself has studied graduate level genetics and much of his work would seem to be scientific, but, he readily admits that when it comes to looking at people as a whole that it's doubtful what he is doing is science in the same sense that physics, chemistry and molecular biology can be considered to be sciences.

ssu: I agree that we could extend the post to cover the issue of whether social sciences are sciences. That's certainly consistent with the question I asked regarding economics. My position is the same for economics. I think the social sciences are valuable disciplines and do add some insights, but, I do not see how they are sciences. The first thing about a science is that it has to have an objective way to conduct measurements, and I'm not sure how one can do that in the field of political science, sociology, economics, psychology. Probably the closest any social science comes to a science is psychology, as it somewhat overlaps with neuroscience, and it's easier to do controlled experiments in that field than with sociology or political science.

Now, I may simply be biased on this issue, as my undergraduate major was in physics. However, even as an undergraduate I did take upper division classes in economics, psychology and sociology, so I am not against people studying these subjects. It's just that they do not seem even remotely scientific in the same sense that physics is a science.

Frank: lol. My intentions? Well, I certainly wasn't trying to flirt with anyone.
I don't even consider races to be real, from a biological standpoint, so anyone trying to paint me as a racist is going to have a huge difficulty in doing so. I'm also middle aged, and not familiar with the latest in political correctness, and I really couldn't care less what words people find offensive, when the words themselves carry no such content and no such intent was meant. People are far too obsessed with mere trivia instead of sticking with the larger picture.

Arkady: Why should I say in three words what I can say in two? I'm economically efficient with my rhetoric. "People of color" sounds like a throwback to Che's era if anything is. And think about how easy it is to make comparisons, when using the words "colored people"? I can say colored people versus white people for example, whereas comparing "people of color" to "people of white" or whatever it would be seems awkward to me.

I'm still really puzzled over why anyone would think my use of the words "colored people" was improper. It's not like I personally give a damn about the color of someone's skin. I don't. That's one reason I am so disgusted with Trump and his supporters who definitely do think such things are important.

Rank Amateur: That's a good one. I never heard it before.

Rank Amateur: I'm not trying to insult all Catholics here, I know many great Catholics. I'm also sure that the Vatican does do some charity work that we can admire. I was just under the impression that the Vatican isn't exactly poor, and that not all of its money is used for charitable work.

I think I have more of a distrust against all forms of organized religion, per se, as opposed to individual believers. I think some of the morality gets lost in the hierarchy, and I'm not saying that the Vatican is solely guilty of this by any means.

frank: I can't say "Gosh"? It's right up there with "by-golly."

I think part of the problem is that in order to remove the electoral college, then we would have to admit that the people who founded our nation did not trust people with the right to vote directly for president, and that calls into question the myths we have erected on their behalf. I think it's entirely antiquated and offensive to the idea of a liberal democracy.

We certainly seem headed towards a tyranny. I'm shocked at how bad things have gotten over the past several years in the USA. I never thought I would be witnessing what I am seeing in my country.

Michael's last comment was well written, and I absolutely agree with it.

If you are an older student, one thing I did not mention is that it may be better just to try to get into a graduate level program as soon as possible. I think you can do graduate work in philosophy without having to have a philosophy undergraduate degree, just a certain number of credits will do the trick. This is true for other subjects as well throughout the humanities and social sciences, as well as sciences like biology. You may want to speak to an adviser to see if you can get into a graduate program without having to earn an undergraduate degree first. I imagine things get a lot more interesting at the graduate level.

Rank Amateur: An income statement just references income for a specific period, while a balance sheet tells us the actual wealth present.

I agree with MindForged, that just the effect of these laws having a disproportionate impact on minorities who typically vote Democrat is evidence of voter suppression. Requiring Indians who live on a reservation to have ID with a specific street address on it, when the people who passed that law knew damn well reservations where Indians live do not typically have street names? Like who would be surprised that such a law would prevent Indians from voting, and the facts are that they overwhelmingly voted Democrat during the past congressional election in North Dakota. That's un-American voter suppression, and it's disgusting as hell, and calls our entire system into question. Every American citizen's right to vote should be protected.

Relativist: The Democrats have basically imploded for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they nominated Hillary Clinton again for 2020, which would basically hand the election to Trump. I think they have some message on medical care --- basically preserving coverage for pre-existing conditions, but even on that issue, Republicans are pretending that they support coverage for pre-existing conditions, although Trump has a suit going right now trying to wipe out that protection. The Dems need a clear message and someone who isn't so timid that they cannot stand up to the far-right rhetoric of the current GOP candidates and Trump. They have a few people who look promising, but, they have been a very weak party for years. They basically handed the election to Trump in 2016 by rigging their primary in favor of Hillary, by handing her a bunch of superdelegates, which was basically a message to the members of the party not to bother running against her. I blame the Dems for Trump's victory as much as anything else.

I think Trump is going to want the option of running over Muslims before Christians, and Hispanics before white people, and people who didn't vote for him before running over people who did vote for him.

I don't even want to think about what default settings Pat Robertson and David Duke would prefer their cars to have.