In my opinion, "agile" is epistemically worthless. — alcontali

The motivation isn't. The reason agile became a thing is because often it's the case that during a software project the requirements change as the customer comes to realize what they really want which they were unable to specify at the outset. This is particularly true for web and app software.

I was just in a meeting today where with a deadline a couple weeks away where the customer once again is changing the requirements. And this customer is state funded.

That's part of the reason why programming isn't math. In a platonic software world, you would know the exact requirements before starting. But in the real world it's often the case that the process is one of discovery and negotiation. Agile is meant to address that reality. But whatever you call it, software engineering needs to take into account changing requirements when you can't nail them down before starting the project.

And sometimes you just have to ship it to meet a deadline, even if it's hacked together. The whole "real developers ship" is contrasted against having mathematically rigorous software specifications nailed down first where shipping less than perfect code is financially prudent.

Now it's a bit different if safety is the number one requirement, say for flying a plane or autonomous cars.

Logical positivists were dumb ? :smile: — Wittgenstein

No, merely human. They based their philosophy on a principle of empirical verification which itself can't be empirically verified. The counter to that is to relax the principle to be more of a guide than a rule. But then one can't just rule out metaphysics a priori. Instead a positivist needs to show why a metaphysical position needs empirical verification to be meaningful before they can rule it out as meaningless.

Otherwise, empirical verification is itself meaningless.

One problem with the view that metaphysics is meaningless is that a lot of people, including philosophers, have found it meaningful enough to discuss at length. So then it's up to the anti-metaphysicians to argue that the people who do find metaphysics meaningful are somehow mistaken. And the best the skeptics can do is to say how they don't find metaphysics meaningful because of A,B,C. But the people who do find it meaningful won't accept reasons A,B,C, so then what?

We end up with metaphysical topics being meaningful to some people and not others, depending upon one's philosophical perspective. Which doesn't resolve the matter for everyone. It just ends up being another metaphysical dispute lacking consensus, because people have different philosophical starting points. If one finds Wittgenstein or Carnap persuasive, then one is likely to be skeptical of metaphysical discussion in general. But if one doesn't, then one probably won't be ask skeptical.

I cannot think the question of responsibility alone, in isolation from the other. If I do, I have taken myself out of the mode of address (being addressed as well as addressing the other) in which the problem of responsibility first emerges” (Butler, Giving An Account of Oneself). For as Butler notes, responsibility is ultimately relational: it is only in relation to another that one is responsible, accountable, for what one has said and done. There would be no ‘problem of responsibility’ without the relation to the other. — StreetlightX

I can think of exceptions. Once I drove my car into high water and ruined the engine. It was under my control. I didn't have to drive the car when I knew there was going to be a downpour. I could have taken a different route on higher ground. I could have slowed down and not gone through the deeper water, or backed up and turned around. But nope, I was impatient and misjudged the situation.

There was nobody else to be responsible to, but I was still responsible for ruining my engine. I couldn't blame the weather. Nobody else could forgive me for what I had done, and no apologies were owed.

And you sound irrational.

So, the Senate is undemocratic therefore it's bad and thus should be abolished, irregardless of existing political realities. That's the argument being presented in this thread.

Because Hitler was bad?

This isn't even an argument! — Maw

If you think the US Senate shouldn't exist, then you have to deal with the reality of the states as well, since that's the reason for the Senate existing.

Ah, it only took four pages to mention Hitler.

You simply don't have a sound argument justifying it's modern day existence, because there is none. — Maw

The argument is that the states exist as a fundamental political unit of organization making up the US. You don't have to like it, but it is a reality. Also, it's not the only part of government which is not representative of the population. The US wasn't setup to be a democracy first and foremost. It is a republic where the representatives get voted in.

I don't trust foreigners, particularly if they're European.

And also maybe a requirement that the President has to win the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If they win one but not the other, then there's some sort of runoff or it goes to the House for a vote.

I also think reform to the election process needs to happen. Voter ranked choice would be nice. And money should be removed from elections. The candidates receive the same funding for that particular office.

The electoral college and gerrymandering practices where politicians pick their voters are also unrepresentative. — Noah Te Stroete

I agree with you on gerrymandering, but I'm on the fence about the Electoral College, because once it's done away with, the candidates will focus much more on the large population areas.

Maybe instead the States could split their electoral votes based on percentages instead of winner take all.

“Unrepresentative” is a better term and more in line with what I intended. — Noah Te Stroete

Right, the senators are elected by the people, but the Senate is not representative of the state populations. This is more of an issue today than near the founding of the country because the Federal government has become more powerful and the state governments less so.

“Mob mentality” and “angry mob” are terms that the uber wealthy use to denigrate ordinary people like us. — Noah Te Stroete

So why not just get rid of representatives and go with straight democracy using the internet? We vote on everything. Majority rules.

So then saying the Senate is anti-democratic isn't saying much by itself. The argument would need to be that the Senate is anti-democratic in a way that's bad for governing, unlike the other anti-democratic parts of US government.

Or the argument is that being anti-democratic is bad full stop, so we need to try a more pure form of democracy, which doesn't stop with abolishing the Senate. But the mob rule would need to be addressed.

We can also ask how democratic is a two party system? You have two parties representing the wishes of several hundred million people. If we really want to get down to it, how democratic is the US? Federal Judges are appointed and serve for life. The President is almost above the law. The CIA and some other elements of government act almost outside the law. The military answers to the President as their commander in chief, not the people.

And the of course there is the influence of corporations and special interests. Successful elections require money.

free people aren’t truly free if the government isn’t accountable to them. I don’t believe that the Senate is accountable to the majority of the US population. — Noah Te Stroete

It doesn't seem like the current president is either. He can get voted out next election, but so can senators.

The question of the OP is in the title. Seems like we both agree the answer is in the affirmative. — StreetlightX

Then it's not much of a philosophical discussion.

This was supposed to be a political philosophy thread. — Noah Te Stroete

So what would be the ideal setup of the US government? Abolish the Senate and the House takes over both roles. Abolish the Electoral College. Get rid of the states ratifying amendments.

Would that work?

Then next would be updating the Judicial Branch. Federal judges run for election and have to be approved by the House when nominated for SCOTUS?

but it has nothing to do with the OP. It’s a distraction. — Noah Te Stroete

So the OP seems to be arguing that undemocratic political institutions are bad. That would be more appropriate for a philosophical discussion than arguing over history or politics.

That’s exactly the reason for the Senate and the electoral college. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not what I recall. I guess we can google some historical analysis or use the Founders words to settle this.

Weather or not the US is or is not a union of states says nothing to whether the current set-up of state representation is democratically representative. — StreetlightX

Fine, it's not democratically representative of the population. That's the House. Next question is whether all political institutions should be democratically representative, since the implicit tone of the OP is that the Senate being undemocratic is bad.

So it's sheer existence justifies itself? Are you even trying? — StreetlightX

No, there are reasons for it to exist which have to do with the US being a union of states. Maybe the need for state governments will change someday.

That was the purported argument. The reality is that it protected slave plantation owners from the more populated cities of the North. — Noah Te Stroete

So you're saying if there wasn't an institution of slavery, there would have been no senate? That the founders created the senate solely on behalf of the slave holders?

The way I look at it is that if the EU formed a similar union of state countries, then a Senate would be a way for smaller European countries to offset the major influence of countries like Germany, otherwise, Germany and France are dominating policy.

Saying that 'well it's representative because it represents the states' is just tautological bullshit that justifies nothing. — StreetlightX

It justifies the state as a fundamental unit of government in addition to the Federal government. That's the whole point of the United States of America. Maybe someday the citizens of enough states will want to remove that unit and then the Senate becomes unnecessary.

Even if we all agree that the Senate is bad because being undemocratic is inherently immoral or something, then what? You do realize the states have to ratify the Constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, assuming a majority of senators from either party would ratify that, removing their political influence.

I’m talking about the CURRENT Republican Party. They have benefited greatly from oppressive policies, whether current or from the history of right wing judges. — Noah Te Stroete

Okay, but what does that have to do with the Senate as an institution? Control of the Senate will swing back to the Democratic party in time.

Lol, you think the job of a representative democracy is to represent governments. — StreetlightX

The Senate represents the states, so yes in that case. Are you talking about in theory?

History of oppression is what favors the Republicans. — Noah Te Stroete

And what does that have to do with how the US government is structured? Republicans didn't exist at the foundation, and if you go back far enough, they were the party wanting to abolish slavery.

They currently have a majority in the Senate and occupy the presidency, but that can change over a couple elections. It's always going back and forth between the two parties that matter.

Are we playing the jack off to the founding fathers game? — Maw

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power?

e whole point is that the senate is unrepresentative, and fails even by those standards. — StreetlightX

Its representative of state governments, which is its purpose. If the US wants to be more democratic, then changing the nature of states so that a senate is no longer needed would be the step to take. Remember that states vote to ratify amendments after they're ratified by the House and Senate.

States are an important unit of government in the US since it's foundation. That's why it's a union of states.

n the US, each state gets two Senators no matter how many people reside in that state. California with tens of millions more people than Alaska gets two Senators and Alaska gets two Senators. How exactly is that democratic?! How is the Senate ever going to reflect the will of the people?! — Noah Te Stroete

The House represents the people, the Senate represents the states. That's because America is a union of states.

The Senate is an extremely undemocratic system and we should get rid of it — Maw

The US government was never meant to be entirely democratic. It's a representative republic with a Constitution and an unelected Judicial Branch.

If one is positing that one has a body and is perceiving things via one's senses, etc., then one is already assuming realism, by the way. — Terrapin Station

Right, but this can be rephrased to one has an experience of a body perceiving things with senses, which provides us an experience of a world that we bodily inhabit.

In this phrasing, it's experience all the way down, which leaves up the question of whether there is something behind the experience, like a vat, demon or material world.

Isn't that more than sufficient for our needs? If not, what does it lack? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Right, except that in philosophical discussions the lack of clarity leads to much semantic wrangling. However I wonder if that isn't more to win the debate than it is really seeking clarity. And I'm as guilty of semantic wrangling as anyone else.

My favorite is, "I can't make sense of X." Yeah you can. You just don't want to because of the philosophical lens you're viewing it through.

What's to stop anyone from effectively arbitrarily saying that something is or isn't an explanation in that case? — Terrapin Station

An argument explaining why the purported explanation fails to explain the phenomenon in question.

If you say that consciousness is identical to brain states, as identity theorists do, then I can ask what is it about those brain states which makes them identical and not all the brain states which are unconscious?

And all the other related questions that go with that. What I'm wanting from an identity explanation is what makes the identity an identity. Just saying it is an identity doesn't work because there are brain states which aren't identical, and it leaves us in the dark about robots and animals with different brain states.

"Perspective" as in from some reference point or other. I'm not alluding to perception in that. As I said, "Our perception is just another perspective." — Terrapin Station

Then that sounds sort of like object oriented ontology where all objects are in relation to one another which isn't exhaustive, so no object has complete access to another. That would include humans.

There's an error of thinking that an object is some way from a "perspectiveless perspective." There is no such thing. — Terrapin Station

Sounds like youwere saying the object only exists from some perspective.

On a realist account, the object exists whether anyone is perceiving it.