I would argue that both assumptions are fundamentally false. Starting with the first assumption, many philosophers often argue that there is a difference between saying that an action is really good and saying that you have a duty to perform that action. — TheHedoMinimalist

I personally don't have much quandaries with your post or idea, but I just want to clarify that in this post, I'm just assuming that there is this distinction between Prescriptive properties and Evaluative properties (the thin/thick distinction), however after evaluating different philosophical camps and personal introspection, I don't necessarily hold onto this distinction as well, but in my case, opposite to you, I believe in only thin concepts such as Normative terms (terms that have the properties of being Objective Values/Good or Wrong) and Prescriptive terms (terms that have the properties of being Objective Duties/ Ought [to] or Ought [not to]), because Prescriptive Statements are a subset Normative Statements (which normative are technically a subset of evaluative) (which I agree with you that Normative statements are Evaluative, only in an opposite sense of instead only being thick, are only thin), because statements that just evaluate something, but don't tell you what to do, are normative but not prescriptive. However in terms of your first critique,you've seemed to bite the bullet and completely attempt to eliminate duty by adopting a new language (not necessarily grounding the truth of said belief ontologically) that fits with this teleonomical (only apparently purposeful) reality of atheism. You only critiqued Objective Moral Duties or Prescriptive Moral terms (Ought), but not necessarily Objective Moral Values (Value) or Normative Statements (the focus of teleonomical vs teleological relates to the is/ought, which in effect logically impacts fact/value as there not being any goal for nature or us means that there aren't duties for us, which the share biological natures that we share aren't values, but only facts, which would be disconnected with our moral experience which acknowledges values, and that they are objective and grounded in an approximately relationally source that is related to us, otherwise your assumptions don't seem self evident, but rather arbitrary although they are commendably consistent but I'd argue doesn't exist, but only seems to be theoritically true). Besides these points, as long as in the real world, as long as there has existed at least one single instance of a command from one personal agent to another, it seems to me that the reality of your view seems to crumble, and at best is an inapplicable theory to our reality.

What matters is that all decision dilemmas have better and worse solutions. — TheHedoMinimalist

About your second critique, I have already addressed it by stating that I personally believe that all thick statements are really thin, but are different from other thin propositions either because they are externally or indirectly related to what is instrinsic or a desired end, or there exists degrees of thiness or intrinsic value in a eudaimonic utilitarian/consequential sense (where deontological principles are non-exclusive to a maximal end as it is impossible for that end to be reached if the best principles aren't applied as only those will always lead to that maximal end), but this is all just speculative reasoning so far for me, and I'll have to figure out a proper way to parse this all out properly, but these are just my thoughts.

Btw, the term "solution" that you used seems to imply a goal rather than just an arbitrarily good option, I think that in your teleonomical world, the best that you can say about these ends that lead to a change that corrects a prior state, is instead good or bad options out of many with necessarily no need to choose in order for corrective purposes, as there aren't any ends that require a need to compel a corrective change in relation to another state of being that can be described as problematic, as the word "solution" implies a goal.

Not much disagreement with your analysis although let me clarify a few points.

Although I did use the term "propely basic", and that it is from this reformed epistemological context, specifically first coined by Alvin Plantinga, although I'm an Evidentialist, I have in recent years adopted many reformed epistemological principles and ideas and adopted some of them into my "proto" evidentialist paradigm, although I'm not sure whether I'm either of those two camps at this point. But nevertheless I should qualify that in what idea/belief that I consider to be axiomatc, as you've mentioned, I just label properly basic, which I intend to communicate to others that these ideas are no longer reducible, and are therefore just educated guesses / assumptions that may only change if new or different overriding experiential knowledge / beliefs / information such as perceptual data, or memories (like I remembered that I saw or experienced a specific phenomenon).

But yeah, in my most basically proper or axiomatically sense, I do experience the reality of objective moral value through my rational and empirical senses (although it makes sense to me that morality is an entirely rational reality in it's nature; that is to say through my moral experience that morality has a truth value quality [either right or wrong]). I'm not claiming however that morality is therefore objective at this point (which only comes to play once I ground it in an objective source, in other words God, a logos, the Good, a platonic form, an aspect of my biological nature, etc.). I do however believe that I experience the reality of objective moral values (which at this point, before I ground these values to an objective source, this is what I'll refer to as apparent experience of objective moral values), which I reasonably deduce that in principle all non-impared individuals will agree with me that all mankind experiences the reality of being endowed with moral worth and that it appears to be objective, where at the very least everyone can agree that child exploitation or the murder of innocent life for enjoyment will always appear to be wrong, no matter the context (which I don't mean in a deontological vs consequential sense, and realism, antiralism, nominalism, idealism, etc. are secondary discussions about the ontological nature of these values once they are grounded in a source)

In the sense that I didn't came up with it, but Dr. Craig did, and I'm jst giving him credit, but yeah it is an argumenrt that i'm using

oh! and concrete usually refers to ontological objects or entities, which may or may not be physical. Just out of curiosity, what philosophical/epistemological views do you hold concerning the nature of reality, what is truth and what exists?

That's not my argument, but a quote from William Lane Craig, and this isn't a debate about God's existence, or a physical/metaphysical conception of God's nature, but rather this quote is referring to if God possibly exists in this hypothetical argument, then Dr. Craig's argument for morality being consistently objective with God is a strong valid belief and argument.

Thank you for the response and clarification :smile:
I guess teleonomical isn't a word, but rather I meant to say was teleonomic, which is the quality of apparent purposefulness and goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning.

You can call me dumb, but I don't see his arguments in this paper to be referring to the data or trends from only 2012 specifically as far as it was published in that date, but he's referring to how there is a pattern of tax cuts and greater returns, although that isn't is main argument, as much to dispel the argument that those who label supply side as "trickle down" economics make, and look at several periods that follow this trend of a two fold growth in the economy, that includes more wealth generated back to the government, as well as more wealth to the citizens or those who are part of the demand side, essentially supply side is a two fold wealth generator, which even since the recession in 2007 was fixed partly because of the effectiveness of supply side, which isn't the only factor, but it has a successful and self evident track record which doesn't seem unreasonable from his end. But yeah his arguments go more than just 2012, all the way back throughout its history.

Just to make sure we're in the same page, let me define some terms properly. Essentially supply side economics is the idea that if producers are given back their money, they're going to produce new and better products (improve quality and drive down prices through competition, and new technology and innovation [like Iphones and small computer become affordable and which is why this is an essential factor in order for Moore's Law to keep the same trend]), and that supply will generate its own demand, thus the economy will keep rolling and the cash will be flowing, unlike the strawmans that its going to trickle down slowly into the entire economy where the economy and innovation are stagnating. This is different from a demand side economics which tries to focus the wealth to non producers who don't create new technology or innovation, meaning that funds stagnate because there isn't anything inherently innovative or incentive for funds and value to grow, I mean you can distribute the wealth to everyone but not everyone will multiply those funds, whereas entrepreneurs and producers will do more with those funds. This doesn't impoverish people as those investments to produces drives down prices of older products as more demand increases for new technology, products, and innovation as people are welling more to spend for those things thus the poor can afford these cheaper products as well, as well as efficiency goes up with the introduction of new technology and innovation, and many other factors which you agree that economics has a myriad of factors, but of course not all factors are as significant in impact which I feel you're not considering.

Supply side as Sowell points out generated success after the JFK tax cuts, after the Reagan tax cuts in 81, or the Bush tax cuts in 2001, there was sustained economic growth (which is often forgotten because of the crash that happened in 2007-2008 which the causation correlation fallacy was discussed in refernce to supposed bubbles and supply side economics). Even Obama maintained low rates in 2010 and 2013. Supply side even works in europe which is why Denmark has been cutting its taxes too, and other european countries that realize that taxes aren't benefitial and that the government is ineffecient with funds and is not a successful wealth generator.

I have traveled around (there's beauty everywhere, but that's besides the point), you're insistent on the point that you think I'm not informed, that my thoughts aren't cogent and that I have to be wrong, that America isn't the greatest (because people like Jeff Daniels say so), which I think I provided a comprehensive answer that I believe responds to common objections and is framed to what I think is most reasonably the most significant/fundamental factors which your analysis and argument lacked (which I want to clarify that the US is not perfect, in areas like education which jon dewey sort of ruined it). All I can say is think about it more, I mean I'm not anal about the point and all, (although I am patriotic, specifically because I have a fair mind, which if America ever ceases to be good then I won't think its good, and if it ever becomes a lost cause then I wont be patriotic and I'll go look for another country if change is unavailable, and if it earns my patriotism then I'll give it) I mean people can have different tastes, but there is a big difference between good old coca cola and road tar, I mean I would rather be poor having made that choice in the US than to be prosperous but complacent in that area for the rest of my life in any other country, since in the US I am free to move up or down any time and even surpass that prosperous level or limits in any other country. Whatever you enjoy is not really an important issue for me, although I do hope for your happiness and prosperity none-the-less (for you to have good health and that nothing bad happens to you)

From where my family is from, I can at least attest to the fact that many would love to live in the US. I admit about using the word “garbage” when comparing other countries sounds off putting, but there is a reason for my indignant remark (which isn’t towards the people of those countries mind you, only the governmental structure of those countries, which many of those citizens would agree with that, which I believe to be a fair criticism), and no me and my family don’t believe so uninformed. We as human beings have natural rights, no government can create or grant us the rights to some of them, government when it does its job properly, is suppose to only recognize them, and protect them, that’s it. I can’t say from where my family is from because that information is sensitive because it’s one of many examples of political asylum which even happens in countries like the UK, France, Germany, etc. An important pillar, even before economic freedoms, that is properly basic and logically fundamental to a prosperous country is free speech (which comes right after freedom to life), and I’ll explain how this fundamental right is being abused and misused (which makes the US unique).

I mean that, I can go and list the innovations of the US, market freedom that benefits consumers and entrepreneurs (where the US is the largest exporter of important goods, like medical, technology, industrial goods that other industrial nations depend on, as well as media and entertainment which in most other countries is pretty bland, and don't forget that the US' economic surpluses allows it to be more involved in humanitarian aid/as well as general economic aid and military aid such as spending on NATO that provides free national security to the rest of the industrial world, which if left up to them their expenses and security would drastically take a hit as well as their standards of living, which because other countries don't spend as the US, this is a big handicap that the US has compared to the rest of the Nations), people having more significant political freedom over the country and over their own rights (which relates more to what I'm about to list), access to cheap and affordable products as well as places to live, private property laws in the US being unrivaled by all other countries (protection and liberty of your property or assets which the government can't take away easily) etc, etc, which are more important than the figures that the OECD(which are at odds with similar studies from the Fraser Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and the OECD better life index doesn't even consider free speech, freedoms, private property laws, or equates ) believes to be more important, which those along with the American values of prioritizing to life, liberty and property depend on the more fundamental right of free speech. Btw, poverty is relative to many factors and in nature, such as in the US, poverty is a choice while in other places (including OECD nations), it really isn't, the poor in the US live significantly better in terms of well being vs those poor or middle class everywhere else, which these, private property rights and other significant economic factors that tie into well being are included in a "absolute level of economic well-being" metric, but let's focus on the most important factors which is free speech.

It's because (when one does a survey on the laws of other countries) there isn't the same kind of freedom (which is qualitatively better) in other countries as it is in the United States, where those who may have similar ones, they aren’t guaranteed (not enshrined in their constitution, or written in legal documents that aren't authoritative and overridden on a regular basis) and they are lacking. Canada doesn't have absolute free speech, because the government can regulate speech that it deems to be offensive like the ambiguous term “hate speech” (one of many laws include Motion 103), while in America hate speech is still protected speech because the price to live in a free society is accepting the risk of being offended. What about the UK? They passed the Communications Act 2003/Section 127, where anyone could be arrested for sending a message to someone where it may be perceived to be obscene, grossly offensive or menacing in character, with up to 6 months for it, or perceived to be seen as annoying to someone (like if someone is trolling, or someone that sends repeated messages), which is absurd because who get to decide what is deemed to be offensive, grossly offensive, annoying or what is persistent? Certain press reporters like Tommy Robinson are being arrested for completely following the rules (which the kings or rulers of Britain have a notorious track record of doing what they want, violating the laws that should be in theory like United States).

At least 3,400 people have been arrested in one year for making these types of online comments with this arbitrary law, that’s not freedom, that’s Orwellian. Sure, the US isn’t perfect, it’s not as free as it used to be but relative to the rest of the world US citizens own a lot of guns who can fix that issue if and when they do decide which the far left doesn’t understand. The fact that anyone could walk into a coffee shop and order their latte with an AR-15 slung across their chest is epic. There are two schools of thought in play in these debates. The left says, “I can’t believe that you can do that in this country! (angry)” while the right is like “I can’t believe that you can do that in this country! It’s epic!”. It’s a privilege to live in such society, which many Americans take for granted. I’m focusing on personal freedom, but we’ll also look at economic freedom as well. Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hinderance or restraint.

This definition describes either the power or right to, which are two different things. I have the power to murder somebody, but I don’t have the right to do it. This difference is extremely important because in other countries you may have the power to speak, you may have the power to exercise the freedom of religion, or to petition the government, but that power isn’t absolute because it can be taken away from you by those governments, which isn’t the case with a right. In the US you have a right to these freedoms and if the government tries to fringe upon those rights, the Americans have their kill switch (which is the second amendment). If that right wasn’t cemented in the US constitution, America would be perpetually ignorantly optimistic, crossing its fingers and hoping that nothing ever bad happens (which historically speaking, something bad always happens, corrupt leaders and dictators).

The US is only 1 of 3 countries in the world that protects the right of its citizens to bear arms in its constitution (which is interesting to note that a truly free society creates the most powerful nation that has the greatest influence In the world, sort of like a natural law, or natural selection mechanism, where a country that recognizes human nature and the necessity to respect their natural rights flourishes and influences the rest of the world as a result). Not that it should, but ought to, not that it would be nice, no, it has to be that way. The US ranks #1 for freedom of speech

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/americans-more-tolerant-of-offensive-speech-than-others-in-the-world/ft_16-10-15_freedom-of-expression/

and also gun ownership,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gun-ownership-country-us-legal-firearm-citizens-statistics-a8406941.html

I don’t believe that this is a coincidence. I believe that there are only 20 countries where one can have free speech, but its not really free speech. Brazil has free speech except for racism or hate-speech, Mexico has free speech except that they are notorious for censorship (which the political system that is entrenched with organized crime will have you killed if you challenge that system), the filipins also has free speech, except you can’t say anything that goes against how the law of that country defines good customs, public order, or morality (like you can’t publish books with pornographic elements). Sort of amazing that those like the far left who decry bigotry and claim how the US is chauvinistic, belittle the US by their own standards while throwing away those standards when it comes to these other countries like defending Sharia Law adherent countries and not condemning when they pass laws like a recent one with Brunei passing a law where homosexuals can be stoned to death.

The far left and Islam’s unholy alliance, I’m an ally with few muslims like Imam Mohamad Tawhidi, but unfortunately he is seen as heretical by all muslims schools, like if he were an occultists, but this is going to another debate on Islam, Sharia Law, and muslim countries, but it’s an important note to point out. I can keep on going, on how all the other countries don’t have free speech, but its all the same. I may appear to be triggered for silly reasons, like being indignant because other countries don’t want to protect my right to say hateful things.

You can frame me like that, but when you examine my points consistently and with an honest perspective, I just like freedom, I don’t like it when people say hateful things, or when they watch porn (and I could cite dozens upon dozens on the destructive nature of pornography in society from mental health, stable families, sex trafficking issues, slavery etc.), but the difference between what you can do and what you ought to do, I don’t want the government deciding what I ought to do when it comes to my personal freedom, so as long it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others (the left is notorious for banning freedoms in order to get “free stuff” and what they call free speech, and the right for behavior they see as detrimental to social cohesion, which isn’t the case all the time as there are some in both camps that do all of these things).

And when talking about the countries that have free expression, without gun ownership, good luck! The rankings that are similar to the one you posted, they usually publish reports like the US ranking 28thh when it comes to personal freedom, but when you look at their methodology, like when they examine the US having a high murder rate, they knock down its score, or when there are instances of discrimination in the US, they knock down more points, or a media that’s heavily influenced by politics, they knock down more and more, so the data is corrupted with irrelevant factors (or equating or not properly valuing different factors appropriately) which means that these studies should be taken with a grain of salt.

Thanks for wishing me luck, but just because there is a single line, says nothing about the effectiveness of said ideas (I mean the general theory of relativity has no more than 3 characters). I've demonstrated many instances which shows why a government vs individual paradigm is really the only factor that matters when it comes to policy (which may come in many different forms, but still wouldn't change the main idea). I would wish you the same, and let's just keep on examining whether or not these ideas which are practiced mainly in the United States as opposed to other countries continues to prove this point (That the founding fathers had originally conceived of).

On the other hand, it is dangerous for a company to actually be a monopoly because it puts them a severe risk should there be a change in demand, an act of God, etc.. If several large companies produce the same type of good, and there is a sudden decrease in demand for that good, then they all bear the burden, and it would be easier to lower prices to remain competitive against the other firms, thereby mitigating loss.

although this may be a concern, when you compare the benefits with the possible risks and costs as to being the only competition that usually results from Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment (which I explain in a bit why most fortune 500 companies donate to the hard left), it's no comparison, there will be costs like these, but they wont break the monopolies

in this Forbes Article,
https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-biggest-political-donors-on-the-fortune-500


when it comes where they donate, it's pretty obvious that most of them tend to vote and finance for the left. Not by a small amout but by a substantial amount, $54.9708 Billion as opposed to those who donated about $38.3338 Billion for the right. This does not account for Factors such as how platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google (as well as traditional new media) controlling the flow of information to a left leaning bias, and these corporations as well as Apple and Microsoft employ lobbyists to pass laws and regulations that favor them and influences the population to vote left, which are factors that are significant, but difficult to quantify.


Most business owners are more likely to lean right,
https://www.infogroup.com/todays-key-voter-profile


but most of these business tend to be small to mid-size. (According to the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs, there are approx. 5.6 million firms in the US and 99.7% of them have less than 500 workers
.

start with Rob Larson's Capitalism vs. Freedom and then move on to Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom to rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap.

Never heard of Rob Larson, and Sen I believe is a liberal that's socialist leaning, which if I'm wrong please correct me, but I totally disagree with socialists positions, which I'll look at their work when I have time, but I don't believe it'll really change my perspective, although I'm not a hard libertarian, I usually go between libertarianism, conservatism, and liberalism perspectives since all those have strengths and weaknesses.(which were close to the positions of the Founding Fathers originally)

rid yourself of the silly liberty vs. Government crap

I was just thinking of mentioning how incredibly anemic this kind of libertarian political ontology is: the only actors that exist are 'free individuals' and 'governments'. That it. It's such a pale caricature of society. It'd be laughed off in any other setting except apparently, the actual world we live in.

That's explains why the United States is the most and has been the most prosperous nation in all history, which american exceptionalism is almost an objective fact by almost all standards (that really matter). I mean I'm a first generation american (who was a socialist leaning liberal at first), and me and my parents agree that the rest of the countries are garbage, which is why everyone wants to come over here, which I mean no offense to people of other countries, but when you examine the political frame works of other countries comparatively, it's no contest. No need to over complicate things, and the Founding Fathers were right about making liberty vs government distinction, which was unique compared to all other countries in history (where true liberty and freedom is virtually non-existent).

Capitalism creates oligopolies — Maw

Show me one example where this is the case? Quite the contrary, whenever government get involved and passes laws that supposedly regulates competitions, it usually favors bigger businesses as they are far more better with coping with those regulations. for the most part government does not need to intervene in a free market as the self correcting mechanisms in the free market will allow consumers to make businesses conduct their business in such a more effective way that governments cannot, which will pass policies with loophole, which suffers the death a million stipulations/qualifications.

Creating more government regulations only favors a few companies and creates monopolies. So in my view, I'm not an anarchist as my view is a minimal as possible government rather than no government which is effective in only those areas that our founding fathers recognized as important to safegaurd (which is why they emphasized the checks and balances system).

Now as for how more government and regulations creates monopolies, it is important that I explain these issues; trickle down objection, predatory pricing, Antitrust law, and Regulatory Capture

The main premise of the trickle-down objection is that wealth would be stored and hoarded by the rich, and that it won’t circulate in the economy, so the government needs to pass policies so that wealth will be redistributed into the economy. The issue with this claim is that redistribution of wealth is not the key factor to economic growth, but rather what spurs the economy is the creation of new products and services. Expendable capital is key which allows resources to be used to generate products and services that create demand.

Banks for example store the income of the wealthy or anyone else, and they in turn use those funds to invest and loan that money to projects that will allow that investment to grow, so wealth that is stored in banks is not lost or does it ever stop circulating. About the “predatory pricing objection”, this assumes that Supply Side economics (as well as Free Market Capitalism) creates monopolies and then those monopolies in turn create predatory pricing that would destroy the competition and allow a monopoly to issue customers any price they want since customers will no longer have any other business options.

In a Supply Side economics approach, if all five innovations (Entrepreneurship, The Rule of Law, Property Rights, Free Trade, and Globalization) are intact, then consumer choice is the main aspect of a Supply Side economic model that would minimize almost completely or if not completely any cartels or monopolies from forming. Historically, the term monopoly is derived from the 16th and 17th century era of a Mercantilistic society where Dukes and Kings would accept bribes from business partners that would in turn allow them to be grant with exclusive rights to sell goods in certain areas.

Although the socio-political land scape has changed, a Mercantilistic economic system would be incompatible with our society today. Although monopolies may form in a Supply Side system like a new exclusive technology is introduced into the market, or a new medicine that is patented and is legally bound for some duration of time by brand named pharmaceutical company, they are almost never left unchallenged for too long because many aftermarket companies or other competition will begin to try to offer the same or a similar service at a discount.

What if the company engages in predatory pricing, and causes the competition to be outcompeted through this practice? In a Supply Side system many things can occur that may back fire on that firm. First, if that firm is able to do predatory pricing every time there is competition, that competition will come back once they are able to compete at competitive pricing, which that firm will be losing revenue by selling its products cheaply.

Some companies that have done predatory pricing in the free market had their competition buy out their products at a discount, where they would resell their products for a profit, which the firms doing predatory pricing will eventually give up due to the inefficiency of such practices.
Another possibility in a Supply Side system is that the shareholders who become aware of such practices can decide to discontinue their business with said firm and pull out their stocks causing the stock value of that firm to plummet, until new stockholders take control of that firm and change it.

Also, the customer is an important factor in the Supply Side system, where customers who experience predatory pricing through a business will be left unsatisfied, which will cause those customers to discontinue their business relationship with that firm since under this system, customers have freedom to do consensual business.

The only other times when monopolies and predator pricing occur is almost always traced back to when a government gets involved in a market and introduces a policy that sometimes leads to those consequences. For example, in a Keynesian system, a government may want to stop monopolies by passing an Antitrust law or policy, but inadvertently bigger businesses benefit from many of these penalties and policies compared to their competition since they can afford those heavy regulations that usually smaller competition can’t compete with.

Lobbyists from the larger firms also help manipulate those rules in their favor. Taylor, J. B. (2011) in his paper “Regulatory Capture and Reckless Endangerment” goes more in depth and shows the possible consequences that inadequate policies which are difficult to avoid from a Keynesian approach, and how that may negatively impact an economy by creating unwanted monopolies.

Since reducing taxes helps people have more disposable income, the private market will have more wealth flowing through it, and more innovation can take place that drives demand and incentives competitive pricing. Although I appreciate government assisted programs, I find that the competitive nature of the market without interference from the government will help drive prices down more efficiently since those who are able to provide services to more people are more likely to succeed.

With more people with more income they may have more disposable income to be able to afford these services. As Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010) points out "Efforts to redistribute wealth may undercut the incentives that people have to engage in productive economic activity, thereby lessening the sum total of wealth in a community", meaning that this system encourages everyone to be productive unless someone isn’t physically able to like a physical disability or similar complications.

Refernce
Swain, J. W., & Reed, B. J. (2010). Budgeting for public managers. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe,
(pp. 59-74, 90-91, 199, 210)

The deregulation of the banking sector in 2000 was the Republican Congress’s legislation that Clinton signed into law. Clinton was all about triangulation, something I disagree with.

I agree that the Republican Congress missed up by signing that bill that led to that recession, but I don't see how that really changes the main point, about supply side economics (when taken and practiced consistently) would not be beneficial when compared to all the other policies.

This is unverifiable, and you cannot compare the collapse of 08-09 to 91-92 or 2001.

One can make the case of the different nuances, of the different cases, but this is from the National Bureau of Economic Research and they don't publish just any papers, it is worth examining as to the reasoning why they believe it to be the case. But I guess the main point about how the keynesian approach or any other approach that raises taxes actually stagnates growth, I mean almost all economic policies create debt, but some have returns, while other prologue the debt or recessions even further, which may be why those recession were similar (although may be not entirely, although I reading this article right now to see what their reasoning is)

Keynesian economics worked to pull us out of a recession in 2009, and you’re probably not old enough to remember the 90s. The economy was doing great for almost everyone.

Here's this article that goes more in depth and explains why those keynesian approaches actually prevented the recession to end quicker than it actually did since it contributed to its prolonged effects.(which was the same with the Great New Deal in the 30's from that recession)

With an estimated New Keynesian model, this paper compares the "Great Recession" of 2007-09 to its two immediate predecessors in 1990-91 and 2001. The model attributes all three downturns to a similar mix of aggregate demand and supply disturbances. The most recent series of adverse shocks lasted longer and became more severe, however, prolonging and deepening the Great Recession. In addition, the zero lower bound on the nominal interest rate prevented monetary policy from stabilizing the US economy as it had previously; counterfactual simulations suggest that without this constraint, output would have recovered sooner and more quickly in 2009.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w16420

Bill Clinton missed things up, I mean the dotcom bubble, and the later 2006 recession were a result of the policies that went back to Bill Clinton (which george w bush did a poor job as well). I mean Bill Clinton inherited a good economy when he started office and he didn't really need to do much to keep it that way, but increasing taxes and passing bad policies (which I have other reasons to dislike them, besides economics such as his policies that led to the high incarceration of the black community and over policing, but that's besides the point). But of course, the left magazines aren't necessarily going to post an article like that, it really doesn't matter what article posts what information, as long as the information has merit and is able to be tested and verified, which really is all that matters (which of course, it's important to note possible biases as they may be indicators of where more frequent bad information will be, but not always which depends on examining all those points and disproving them)

Anyway, automation and AI are going to remove millions of jobs in the next ten years. Then big government in the form of handouts will sound pretty good for most.

The economic environment is like the wildlife environment, when something major happens, or a drastic change occurs (think of the meteor that essentially killed off the dinosaurs) the environment will change, and all factors that are conducive to life will change a long with it (whether it's natural selection, or whatever adaptive tool is most effective, perhaps the creative minds of individuals collaborating together to reason through it?), the different circumstances will present new opportunities, and we'll find new ways to encourage innovation and economic growth/work, like people will have more free time to become philosophers and economic value will find ways to incentive that, like in that past, most people were farmers, but since the economy grew from innovation and technology from some smart thinkers, it allowed most people to have office jobs which to farmers doesn't seem productive, but in a way they are impacting the real world and their work and innovation is creating new opportunities from which the economy grow. Btw, don't forget to remember what money is, which is just the value we ascribe to certain things, which depending on how much of it there is and how others value your things and how you value their things, both come to a mutual agreement on the agreed end value, and this value is essentially the value of how much someone likes, wants or desires those things, which can be transmitted and be applied to different economic structures or environments.(A sort of universal bare basic of what economics and value are)

relative to hardline supply siders like Ronald Reagan, they had and operated with keynesian elements in their administration, well more specifically Clinton, but in the sense that he didn't take a laissez-faire approach but rather his administration attempted to adopt a lot of keynesian approaches in order to stimulate the economy such as tax increases, welfare reform similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt, which he actually undid a lot of the things that Reagan built up, although technically his administration was not a keynesian administration. For a deeper examination of this point, I'll refer you to this article that outlines this pretty well,
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2000/11/how-bill-clinton-rode-the-reagan-supply-side-boom/

Taxing corporations isn't quite incentive to entrepreneurs, although in my opinion as long as taxes never go over 30%, a government may be effective, but in my opinion a flat rate tax for everyone (except those who invest) would be the approach I would take, although exact percentages aren't my area of expertise, from knowing how technology, innovation grow, stimulating them as well as incentives for profit and more growth (as well as utilizing anti-trust acts effectively to prevent monopolies) will guarantee growth and a prosperous nation, I mean capitalism has been the most effective tool in liberating most of the world population from hunger (as well as the most important factor, which is the morality of the people that drive this economy)

I apologize, I just realized that I have been getting into a side tangent and debating specifics when my main point is more general. But I'll continue this discussion out of interest. You're taking a very narrow view rather than a holistic approach, which the Keynesian approach led to same results with Clinton, which although he balanced his sheets, balancing them doesn't necessarily mean that the economy is and will do good, or the people. On the other hand besides looking at many important factors and variables (such as less taxes stimulates economic growth as private spending is more effective by the population rather than government spending for them and artificially controlling demand, which slows down innovation and and incentive for entrepreneurship), my main point was that the revenues collected from federal income taxes during every year of the Reagan administration were higher than the revenues collected from federal income taxes during any year of any previous administration, and it didn't come from as a result of working against the free market, but rather working with it, which is like a double bladed sword since it brings benefits more than one side and is dynamically effective because of that.

As far as I can tell, a small limited government is most effective in that it doesn't eliminate government completely, but reduces it to a bare minimum which the different groups and trade-offs are listed above in the graph, but in my opinion, in order to have the smallest government possible (in order to protect from outside invaders) is to have a population that is moral, where there wouldn't be a need to have a government pass laws and regulations such as creating a drug war, or passing other laws that will eventually lead it to grow big enough where it becomes a threat to the population. Take this however you want from the quotes of the founding fathers, but in my opinion I agree with them that if it's not for morality and education (that will help the population parse between propaganda and true information), then a small government structure that is near anarchy could not be possible, as John Adams said

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

although I like to respond personally whenever I can, just to keep the post short, and because I'm not as eloquent as some scholars, I'll refer you to this video where both Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman explains why forced egalitarianism fails.

it sort of depends on the administration too, which the trump administration isn't effective in some aspects like in international trade for example which contributes to that debt, more hardline consistent administrations that follow a supply side would be Ronald Reagan who's administration was more effective in economics overall, and debt is not necessarily a bad thing, when one considers what type of current debt was incurred and what sort of returns will result from these debts, such as spending on infrastructure, or deals and contracts that will generate more jobs and capital that will eventually go back to the government (which time is also a factor). [which I should add that more revenue for the government may or may not be a good thing, depends on the who you ask and how that revenue was generated]. Some have argued that low taxes increases debt, but having done some research and reading comprehensive work on that, I have come to realize that reducing taxes for everyone helps boost the economy, as well as increase revenues collected from federal income taxes. During the George W. Bush administration, when tax revenues had increased from tax rate cuts, Sowell, T. (2012) points out that the New York Times had reported: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year”. He further adds from this report “However surprising the increases in tax revenues may have been to the New York Times, they are exactly what proponents of reducing high tax rates have been expecting, not only from these particular tax rate cuts, but from similar reductions in high tax rates at various times going back more than three-quarters of a century”. He mentions that these previous administrations where these tax cuts led to more federal income included the Reagan administration, as well as Coolidge, and Kennedy as shown in the Economic Report of the President during those administrations. As far as objections like the trickle down fallacy are concerned, they are really flawed objections, and I can explain why if you wanted to go down that route.

Sowell, T. (2012). Trickle-down theory and tax cuts for the rich. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution\
Press, Stanford University, (pp. 13).

depends, do you define egalitarianism as equal rights to opportunity or equal rights to outcome? Btw, pure socialism in my opinion is disasterous, one may have some big government without it, because socialism likes to control economics such as using keynesian economics or expansionary monetary policies or contractionary monetary policies, because as far as I can see in studies, government just isn't effective when it comes to dealing with economics, it is usually not as fast as the free market and usually implements the wrong policy (no human body group or agent is omniscient).

Well in the abortion debate, one needs to consider the right to life of the baby/fetus (which the real debate centers on whether the baby is human life and at what point is that human baby/fetus not a living human being, which is ambiguous and hard to tell if not in inception which, no matter what form a human life is, as long as it is a human life deserves their lives to be protected and guaranteed, and should be considered when examining in a case by case basis on the mother's situation and her choice, like if she's dying and wants to keep the baby alive then the baby (if it is what many call viability) then the government should choose the life of the baby over the mother, but if both their lives are in danger and the mother doesn't to choose the baby and it is not viable, then the government should prefer the life of the mother, this whole thing about government intervention which would favor a big government depends on why the government is being involved such as the if it has to deal with the bare minimum areas where government is responsible for like protecting the right of life of individuals or whatever else "natural rights" people are entitled to that the government doesn't create but only recognizes and respects by protecting (many would argue that free speech is a natural right, or the right to bare arms, or the right to have free health care, which are all up for debate)

About the gun thing, I would agree, and I guess some interpret guns to be the means that the people have means to fight off the government and force change it or prevent a totalitarian government from completely taking them over, which sounds like a conspiracy theory, especially in the West, but with the recent social unrest that has been dominating much of europe, and that the normal trends of world government is that governments usually become corrupt and take over the lives of people, in the grand scheme of things this seems like a reasonable position to take, sort of like a token that symbolizes a mutual (or in this case a mutual destruction) respect a government should have with its population in order to show that both intend to keep their end of the deal and not try to abuse one over the other, so that both can co-exist, well that's how I interpret the whole gun rights debate, but I could be wrong.

True, experience and data helps one better formulate their theories about structures of government more, and what works best in the real world. In terms of this dichotomy of more government or less government, one needs to know about the limits and effectivness of governments and the limits and effectiveness of no government and the limits and effectiveness of a different combination of those two factors and find what works best. Implement those ideas and see how sociologically they are effective, collect data from results of these structures and improve where one possibly can.

That's a pretty charged question with a lot of factors and assumptions. Yes, questions about how free speech affects the stability of a nation which affects the right to life for many of its citizens should be an important topic for debate, and something the government and its citizens should consider, whether the government would be effective to be involved in any way, or is there a deeper issue that government cannot change, but only gain more power and erode the rights of its citizens more. I'm not debating any specific position, other than to point out that these are important to this thread as far as they prove the necessity to consider this in the greater dichotomy of political debate about bigger or smaller government.

About the internet though, and the private companies that are involved, it really depends if they become a publisher or a platform, and depending on what those internet companies and government agree on, then I think a fruitful discussion could go on about what government should do that would be most effective on resolving anything that it can through it's powers (rather than creating a cure that's worse than the disease or issue that it is trying to solve, like if it will create a slippery slope where because a certain action was taken, it would create more serious issues as a result). People who vote need to prioritize their values, what they consider most important between liberty and safety and protection for their lives and find the best trade-offs that'll suit their needs.

The Frankfurt School is a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the Institute for Social Research, at Goethe University Frankfurt

Btw, how do you define socialism? It seems that you define things in a certain ways (maybe you're from europe and I'm from america?). Socialism by definition is a government structure that allows the government to have a lot of power over the means of production or other aspects of the economy (artificial control). Besides the historical fact that many hard socialist countries eventually became communists (not all, although some like Venezuela sure were sympathizers of it), logically when you take seriously and consider mankind's tendency to be proned to corruption, you eventually get government taking away rights and more power away from the people until they eventually become a totalitarian state. I could nuance this further if you want, just point out some specific parts where you disagree and explain why.

lol just thought of posting this image which sort of describes what you're sentiment is :lol:


But by no means am I a Democrat or Republican, more like a Libertarian that's center leaning. Big Government essentially means a government structure that allows the government to have more power or control over a nation rather than a limited or small government structure, where a government has little to no restraint on what it can do, which could be nuanced further of course, but this would be a bare minimum definition. There are different types of governments in a limited government structure, such as one that is composed of checks and balances, or a federalist structure which has local, state governments and federal governments and each of those have their independent checks and balances, as long as not one group has dominant control, which was a genius idea that the founding fathers structured US politics to revolve around this dichotomy of one group that believes that government should have a little more power and the other that the government should have the least power, and the citizens vote between that range and they both sort of correct themselves. But that's just my understanding on the subject.

He was a disillusioned socialist by my understanding (I haven't done an exhaustive study on his life and biography, so take what I say with a grain of salt). He didn't believe that any political view was realistically possible, except socialism (which if he were to read the works of Alexis de Tocqueville about american exceptionalism, he would have probably changed his mind), he was ardently against totalitarianism, which is why he wrote 1984 and animal farm. Aldous Huxley was more afraid of a totalitarian state coming to power through inducing the entire population with soma (which are vices and other stuff that creates an addicted population, but that's a different discussion) if you read his book "Brave New World", but many authors at this time were afraid of this thing, which is why the first world wars occurred, which ties back to the Frankfurt School that produced much of these ideologies of "Big Government" and communism through socialism. I just believe that George Orwell was just ignorant of what socialism is, but he did not believe that it was a perfect system, but the most realistic reliable one that would combat communism because communism was a totalitarian ideology that was expansionist (because Marxism is a expansionist ideology, which is why you see it trying to take over europe with the bolshevik revolution in russia, france, spain, even in asia and south america, etc.

George Orwell worked with Anarchists because the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least a friend until that common enemy is gone.

I haven't read much of the work from Bob Black, but I'd imagine him using semantic tricks and defining anarchy as leftism, which I would imagine that he defines left as "do whatever you want", which is different from the more traditional and historical definitions. But if you could provide me statements from him on how he defines it, I will examine them, but to add all possible groups (which I also didn't mention neocons) would be too much for a simple graph, which my initial goal was just to communicate the main idea about this dichotomy or dualism of the debate being centered on small or big government, but then again everyone is free to define things however they want, just that in debates they are required to nuance those definitions so that there isn't this talking past each other thing. But I did add some groups that didn't fit this scale, like the Independents, who are outside, out there in the ether.

Libertarian Left is an oxymoron by what this graph means left (more government) or right (less government) which is not the same as how many like to define left or right, some like to define left as progressiveness or liberalism rather than "Big Government", so I'd like to know how you define "Left", so that we don't talk past each other.

I somewhat agree and disagree. I agree that this chart presents influences of big government, or characteristics or ways in which big government may act, but that's just the top labels on the graph, on the bottom however, those are the actual structures and theories on the structures of government that determines the size, so the top is sort of influence/characteristics, and the bottom is the actual formulation of certain groups that move them more left or more right based on how much, structurally they formatted the government, which allows the government to have more or less power. This quote from John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton sort of accurately portrays this tendency of big governments eventually using their power to gain more power and reduce the liberty of their citizens,

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely

which historical trends have proven this very close congruency to virtually always be the case (although I wished human nature wasn't corrupted, and that there could be righteous leaders who can over power and outsmart corrupt ones, that can create a longstanding peaceful civilization, which is why the founding fathers went for a smaller government route rather than a big structured one, which made the United States the most prosperous nation by objective standards). Which this challenge that's often made and thrown around by a lot of conservatives seems to be to make sense, which is to find at least one successful pure socialist country in history that's prosperous, or one that is mixed socialism and would not be better without it (which many of the nordic countries seem to have been better when they were more capitalistic or free market than when they started to adopt more socialist elements in the mid 20th century)

I never stated that either more government or no government were bad or good, just asked if centerists or proponents of small governments both agreed with the scale, that in terms of political debate if the most important factor really boils down to government size or not. Btw, there are other factors to such as the morality of the population, as well as external circumstances, such as are they living in a harsh low resource environment, are they surrounded by hostile groups, or are we talking about the middle ages or present day? Important factors, but all in context of today for this discussion.



Hahaha, alright I'll change my title and question then to reflect that .

I wanted to just add this video on this recent movement that's been happening within science, that's looking to add and create new maths in order to better describe quantum mechanics and solve a lot of issues that have stagnated science (which I would include philosophy as not not just another factor to add, but the most important one as far as I can tell, since one would need to think between new and different mathematical models and approaches which may be informed by both epistemic and analytic inferences). Its provides interesting insights to the main subject of this thread esspecially since a lot of scientists today would call all these new mathematics and different metaphysical assumptions as too philosophical and off-putting,



And this presentation from Sir Roger Penrose on the limitations of science in computations, current arithmetic and mathematic induction (and the relationship between mathematics, logic and philosophy and how advancements in those provides a proper metaphysical framework and tools through which new progress could be made in science, which current scientists are dogmatic about their current metaphysics)
(particularly between 16:27-25:55 but the entire video is worth a watch)


Btw I'm not saying that they are completely correct, but rather these are interesting insights that point out some of the issues of progress in science (since they are metaphysical in nature) and plausible solutions that may be true to some degree.

Hi brian, I believe another category you should add to your initial question are principles, which several analogies are used to describe it like teaching a man how to fish for life rather than fishing for him, which laws, and dictation fall under legalism (sort of like a catechism or rule book that suffers from the death of a million qualifications)

This sounds, at least to me, like an "us versus them" argument. I think it may be time to step back and realize what team we're on. — TogetherTurtle

Hi TogetherTurtle,

I think at this point of the discussion you seem to insinuate a belief that there aren't major issues with science, in that the philosophy community needs to do a better job at contributing to mankind, which philosophy hasn't been doing a good job in recent year which is why it has garnered a sort of status as a trivial discipline that is dead for the most part, which either philosophy has to be more like science in that it makes contributions that are equivalent to it (the sort contributions that science makes) or something else (which I'm trying to guess from your perspective at this point). Is this sort of accurate to your view? If not please correct me, and I do apologize if I am inaccurately portraying/strawmanning your position.

If that is your position, I think there is a sort of "talking past each other" going on here. Let me explain. The main focus on this thread is the recognition of something lacking in the scientific community, which examples of problems plaguing this community like pseudoscience and deceptive practices infiltrating scientific journals where there is an irreproducibility crises affecting the community, much of which simple tools of philosophy would take care of,

(such as scientists being formally trained to recognized the distinctions between the ethos, pathos and logos of an argument, the distinction between ontology and epistemology, the differences between inductive, deductive, and abductive arguments, or a valid or sound deductive argument or a strong or cogent inductive argument [which is essential when examining causation/correlation] knowing what the limits are of the scientific method, and learning simple epistemological tools [which is examining the theory behind and the making of the scientific method] such as Analytic A Priori [logical], A Priori Synthetic, A Posteriori Analytic [hypothetical], and A Posteriori Synthetic [empirical], and simple epistemological positions like evidentialism, reliabilism, pragmatism, presuppositionalism, fideism, positivism)

[which, having started off as a science major myself, I had originally pursued physics thinking that it was the best tool that described the world, as well as describe ultimate truth and reality, which after I have taken a side course in philosophy [mainly because thought that it would have been a free B], I had come to realize that I was mistaken in my initial belief, that what I was truly aiming for was not necessarily in physics, but it was in philosophy, which I found to be the case with many who do science, which is why I believe a basic 101 course of philosophy is important to all of those who want to do science, mainly so that many can recognize these distinctions between science and philosophy as well as the limits of science, in what it says and what it doesn't say, like the difference between a scientific fact vs a fact vs a concrete ontic object, or the distinctions between what a theory, scientific theory, hypothesis and a philosophical belief are]

Now, what is see Leo is arguing about, is also another problem that has been plaguing the scientific community (which has also affected his ability to be effective in science) which a large portion of the scientific community dogmatically impose a sort of perspective onto others in order for one to be accepted in the community and to receive tenor and recognition. This sort of view that Leo has an issue with is this sort of (epistemological) scientism and ontological naturalism (realism) perspective on what science is [which science just is the search for natural causes or explanations of phenomena which what is natural and physical are realities that are verifiable empirically with real world effects], as well as the inability for anyone to question some mechanisms that have been instituted ever since the mid 20th century. The issue is that much of these instituted limits are metaphysical arguments or philosophical in nature, and there is this sort of allergic reaction to philosophy, most in part due to the ignorance of what philosophy and metaphysics are, as SophistiCat has mentioned.

That's not to deny that there have been many who have questioned it for the wrong reasons such as trying to make science accept or include many ideas such as astrology, or ideas that aren't grounded in either empirical verification as well as being logically consistent, which what comes to my mind is the Kosol's Metaphysics thing. So to summarize, the scientific community does not need to throw away the baby with the bathwater, in that the baby, which is philosophy is actually essential to the growth of science, and although certain knowledge or expertise does not seem to necessary at all levels of science, (such as associates or bachelors undergrads in engineering, or basic physics or astronomy [who may be focused more on areas that require measurements and calculations and knowing some theories that are general to the work they do] vs post grad systems engineering, information expert analysts, theoretical physicists, cosmologists, etc)

Philosophy has made progress and continues to do progress such as the old guard that used to champion some forms of positivism or the verificationist principle, have in recent years been dispelled with from the works of Paul Benacerraf (significantly in the area of philosophy of mathematics in philosophy and science) or Alvin Plantinga.

Here are some neat videos that go more in depth on the progress of philosophy and if you're a visual learner like I am, a neat presentation on the importance/defense of philosophy.







and a sort of general overview of philosophy and science

Hi god must be atheist!

All of us have different insights and some may have actual valid conclusions to many of these different points that 'seem' to lie beyond reality, but aren't and I have found deep insights from scholars of different disciplines that shed more light in certain areas that may entail a philosophical position over another, that may provide the proper metaphysical framework from which new advancements in science could be made (every discipline and publishing journals lock up their ideas in their own ivory towers and it's difficult for different insights to cross over shed more insight, as our academic circles have become so specialized and illiterate over basic aspects of other fields, where basic issues such as in science for example there's the irreproducibility crisis that's stagnating the scientific community as pseudoscience is garnering reputation and conflicts arise about building upon valid ideas through which a simple examination of other's frameworks, ethics, and political biases may be examined and filter those faulty papers that may be rhetorically framed through simple fallacies).

In my experience, starting out as someone who only wanted to do physics, I later took a side course on philosophy not knowing what it really was and believing that it was just pure speculative talk and nonsense that anyone could make up. To my surprise, I later found out that it's essentially a part of every discipline and most people utilize it without realizing it, which although someone may be a scholar in say cosmology, their philosophy may be weak where they may intentionally add a "fudge factor" to their model science their worldview entails them to believe dogmatically that the universe was past eternal, and eventual studies later verified the initial conclusions of the initial model. In short philosophy examines the underpinning metaphysical frameworks and axioms that underpins all ideas and affects how we conduct a discipline effectively

Now in science the methodological naturalistic principle has been successful in discovering many aspects of the natural world since it worked quite well with a clockwork universe conception rather than the superstitious animistic conception of the universe. But science Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced the Newtonian conception which involved basic maths and simple notions of comparing the universe to a giant clock, and ever since quantum mechanics replaced many aspects of the general theory of relativity, methodological naturalism would have denied many possibilities that pure empirical approach verified such as kotchen specker theorem, and quantum superposition (and spooky action at a distance), as well as the higgs bosom field, so a method such as that one needs to be nuanced further through its metaphysical underpinnings, like treating logical and mathematical truths as merely empirical truths, like “If p implies q, and p, then q” or “2 + 2 = 4” are to all appearances necessary truths, not merely empirical generalizations, and the principle of induction cannot be scientifically justified.

So if there is a thing beyond physics... what is it? Why is it "beyond" and not "outside", "under", "above" or "beside" physics?

I suppose that is a debate within philosophy, such as Idealism vs Realism vs alethic Realism vs Anti-Realism (like an Aristotelian version) vs Nominalism vs Fictionalism etc.

depending on the worldview of an individual, the distinction between metaphysical and physical may not really be a real one, as it seems that all reality is intertwined/connected and every time we discover new properties or discover new laws or phenomena, they will be categorized as "physical" by definition, but that's just my opinion [as this is a physicalist perspective which I think is sort of ad-hoc as it keeps updating the meaning of what is physical to fit new discoveries].

My opinion about all reality (metaphysical and physical combined together) really stems from my belief, about information, specifically I think that most people will agree that information is a metaphysical entity (which "metaphysical entity" depends on what position one takes about abstract objects, which I don't think this point changes much whether one is a realist, anti-realist, nominalist, etc.).

For example, the point about information in Physics seems to come from some theoretical physicists and philosophers of science discussing Maxwell's Demon and Active Information (a termed coined by john polkinghorne) which more information on that is on the citation below (which I think there maybe an interesting connection with the measurement problem and the kochen specker theorem in quantum mechanics since the human observer is involved in the measurement if we consider the nature of information, which may also relate to the findings and phenomena from Sir Roger Penrose's work on quantum consciousness and microtubules, although I'm not sure since these are just some thoughts I had)
Szilard, Leo (1929). "Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen (On the reduction of entropy in a thermodynamic system by the intervention of intelligent beings)". Zeitschrift für Physik. 53 (11–12): 840–856.

You can find it cited and discussed in the Wikipedia article on Maxwell's demon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon.

So it seems that information is more fundamental, yet a part of physical reality with tangible effects as it were, while at the same time being a property of physical instances that may take different physical forms or manifestations like ink on paper [like textbooks], or carvings on stones, or electrical signals/meaningful arrangements of bits and data [like software codes or brain signals], but ultimately those things may not determine information, which information does not seem to be the electricity or ink, because information could manifest itself in almost any physical form, where different physical instances are just conduits/platforms for how information expresses itself, like say for example the number 32 on these substances, because numbers aren't physical in nature, but can take on physical forms which they are independent of (even if ink didn't exist, the number 32 will keep on existing).

So this would beg the question as to what sort of relationship information and the physical world have with each other (as it seems like information may be more fundamental in reality than space-time, matter-energy and the fundamental forces, as in our experience as far as we can tell the blueprints precedes the physical manifestations of things we think about), I believe this would be similar to the debate about the relationship between mind/soul and the brain, which would be the Cartesian-Substance Dualism, Dual Aspect Idealism, Epiphenomenalism, non-Reductive Physicalism or Neutral Monistim debate, but except with information rather than the soul/mind (which I would take a sort of monistic view, as I believe that all reality is interconnected with each other through more fundamental aspects and forces)

Another fruitful discussion would be the "uncanny effectiveness of mathematics" as it were (which maths are fundamental axioms in science, in order for science to work) where there is this objective discoverability of maths in physical reality (empirical verification) and even metaphysical (analytic proofs and validation), which like information, mathematical entities do depend on ones views of idealism, realism, anti-realism, nominalism, etc., but however one views them, this aspect of mathematics must be accounted for in a reasonable sense, like in the case of Meno's Slave, or how a mathematical theorist like Peter Higgs can sit down at his desk and, by pouring over mathematical equations, predict the existence of a fundamental particle which 30 years later (after investing millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, experimentalists are finally able to detect).

Wallows

Ask them if the wavefunction is metaphysical and see what they say.

Although not necessarily related to this discussion (as this is from a theological discussion), Philosopher of Science Bas van Frassen quite nicely explains many other physical phenomena as you do,

Do the concepts of the Trinity and the soul baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-time, event-horizons, EPR correlations, and bootstrap models

That is to say that if you were to ask an honest physicist what electrons were, or what is gravity, or energy, they can describe to you how they are like, but the scientific theories that describe them, do not describe them in a positive sense, as if they exist, like if one were to try to describe coldness, they can't sense that doesn't have a positive existence. But those things that Bas van Frassen mentioned are more counter-intuitive than most ideas that have ever been produced by the human mind.

So for you to draw a general statement of what scientists are like or what they think, is a bit unfair if you base it on responses on a so-called science forum.

I do realize that there are many different scientists, and I don't try to paint with a broad brush (especially since I'm a science major myself studying physics), but I have found this to be a common attitude in the several universities I've been to in Arizona (such as UofA, ASU, etc.) or in California ( Several Cal States, Caltech, Berkley) even among my peers who study physics and philosophy with me, who although are more physicists than they are philosophers tell me anecdotally that they rather spend time in the philosophy department talking with the faculty there rather than with their peers as they don't seem to have much fruitful discussion with them about reality, truth (philosophy) and science. But by no means am I saying this is the case everywhere since this is just my anecdotal experience from interacting with a science forum that is most likely made up of just science enthusiasts, and my university experience and those from my friends as well.

Hi, as someone who has been studying Christianity for over a year or two (was an atheist philosopher who had recently converted). Before I respond, I would like to recommend all the skeptics to examine the biblical narrative through it ANE background and the New Testament's Second Temple Jewish background, as well as some recent findings from the New Perspective of Paul which drastically alter many traditional medieval conceptions, interpretations and hermeneutics of the bible (like those from the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox churches that interpret scripture in light of either the reformation, the great schism and the byzantinization of the early church). I mean what's the point of criticizing something if you don't have a proper framework through which to interpret such things? As those who are serious in understanding the bible accurately through modern scholarship, I'd recommend essentially almost all of the works by Dr. Michael Heiser, although some Messianic Jewish scholarship have a first century understanding of the scriptures, such as understanding the meanings behind certain practices, idioms, and the general narrative of scripture.

As to why doesn't the biblical God lead by example? It is not at all obvious that God directly causes many of the events that are many times attributed to him as scripture does use anthropomorphic (and ancient jewish interpretation) language when describing God and his actions since he is "other wordly". Although I have my personal interpretations which sometimes seems to attribute direct causation to God when in reality he was indirectly responsible, such as Psalms 7:12-16 describing this quality, and also what soteriological interpretation one takes such as whether one is a calvinist, arminian, open theist, compatibalist, a traditionalist/provisionalism, or molinist, I'll bite the bullet and assume for the sake of argument that God did directly cause the flood and killed many people. For starters, God didn't capriciously flood the world in a random fit of anger, most people seem to ignore the context which was Genesis 6:1-4 (which correlates with the book of enoch and the epic of gilgamish, but through a different perspective with the watchers, the sons of God or the Anunnaki that gave mankind technology, and corrupted them through missing with their genetics, which was the second fall of mankind, the fall from the event of Mount Hermon, which the other two are the one in the Garden of Eden and the one in the Tower of Babel) and Genesis 6:5, as well as the universal moral code that God commands to all people (which aren't the 613 laws he gave to Israel through their covenant), which he judged Cain by and gave to Noah, which Paul also discusses this moral law that all creation will be judged by (in a retributive sense) which was the "light" given to them, and that those not given enough revelation will be judged by what light they have been given by the universal creator, and perish due to their ignorance through a works based salvation system which only brings condemnation (which goes to a different debate, but for the sake of argument, just focusing on this point about the moral law or the natural rights/laws of man [which western law and civilization essentially rests on]).

Because mankind was becoming corrupted and committing sins, God in order to save mankind, as well as being morally consistent with his own nature (which William Lane Craig does a fantastic job on dispelling the old euthyphro "dilemma" HERE) and utilizing a justified ritributivist's means in order to achieve a greater consequentialist end, he had judged righteously those who were destroying mankind, much like a doctor kills a cancerous cell in order to preserve a human life, which in this case is all of humanity being saved by God. And in your post, you equivocate killing with the command of Exodus 20:13 which is not condemning killing, but murder (taking a life justifiably isn't murder, God takes life as long as it is consistent with his nature, as though he was The Good personified dealing with free willed agents). And lastly he does lead by example, when you take the flood or the destruction of the Canaanites, along with his self sacrifice in the cross, the greatest conceivable being who is entitled to be self righteous and destroy anything imperfect, decides to empty himself and be mocked and ridiculed by self righteous indignant and ignorant individuals in order that mankind might be reconciled with him, which you wont find God reconciling and humbling himself with any other beings of creation in the bible, nor do you see this great humility and ultimate sacrifice, or a god paying the ultimate price/an impossible debt in any other religion or conception of God outside of Christ.