> It has no basis in psychological discourse, politics is by nature illogical
The paper you cite is entirely unempirical. It’s using the same methods you criticize in the article.
The paper you cite is entirely unempirical. It’s using the same methods you criticize in the article.
Fair enough, in a formal manner it’s empirical.
As a work, it’s political philosophy. Not science. Which makes it odd as a counterpoint to arguing the article in question is too aloof.
(Also, conflating irrational and illogical is unfounded. Nature is irrational. Per Caplan, individual agents may find it advantageous to act illogically. It doesn’t follow that one can’t use logic or rational thought to characterize the system.)
By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical, which means politics has no basis in logic-derived axioms as propagated by Alexander.
Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument. Your replies are extremely irrelevant.
What would you call someone who waxes philosophy on politics?
> By nature, irrational things or behaviors are not logical
Lovely, so logic—by your construction—is useless given nature itself, lacking the ability to understand, is not rational.
(You’re mixing up sub-definitions of rationality. None of this is relevant, however, to the broader topic.)
> Please adhere to a scientific, or axiom-based argument
Was this written by AI?
Robust counterargument.
To conclude the thread, yes, you obviously can reason about politics in the same way one can reason about anything else that doesn't behave rationally, like fish, through to things which can't reason at all, whether they be oceans or planets. Moreover, one can logically characterise that which behaves illogically in the same way we can mathematically characterise and constrain the behaviour of fractals and fluids and other objects which are, fundamentally, impossible to precisely describe.
If engineers remain uneducated in this way, you'll become sycophants led as lemmings by cult figures like Alexander.
Of fractals and fluids? I think you misunderstood what they wrote.
Stating that it's a model is not the same thing as stating that it is useless. Nor that the relationships are wholly wrong. You said it yourself.
> all models are wrong yet some are helpful
Sure, nothing is knowable. Great if you’re trying to get social sciences funding. Not super useful for anything practical.
The math of orbital mechanics has no relation to the behaviour of objects in orbit?
Stick to politics, that's the thread, engineer.
Lol what? You just posted a cog-sci op ed whose first third rambles on being refused publication decades prior. (The second two thirds pretends behavioural neutoanatomy, where we stimulate brain structures to see what happens, doesn’t exist.)