Zeno's Schoolhouse.

today we study popper. namely the falsifiability principle. sit down future man.

popper states, for reasons that are beyond the scope of this lesson, that for any statement to be acceptable as a theory it must be falsifiable. that means one must be able to construct a possible result of an experiment that would prove said theory utterly, completely and totally wrong, and cause it to be abandoned forever and ever in disgrace.

example. we hold the theory that a horse will never engage in homosexual sex in a natural setting. we then declare that if any footage of two horses having homosexual sex can be presented, and convincingly shown to have been taken in natural settings, we will forever renounce our naive views on horses and what they do when they get horny.

billy t. horsemanic turns in with the next days mail five thousand pictures of a bit over fifty horses doing it happily for the past decade in the open ranges of his “billy’s open range for queery horses”. we obviously have to renounce our silliness now.

as homework, please state your so called “wealth capism” theory formally (which means use words that say precisely what you mean, nothing more, nothing less) and a falsifiability condition.

have fun now.

Oh good. A comedy (takes a seat in class)

have been sitting for a while!!

i dont see whats not completely simple about it. when you personally have $50 million in private bank account cash, or weekend houses or cars, tally it all up and if its $50 million, youre not allowed to buy more stuff. (yeah thatll be hard and complicated, but so are lots of things).

so when you start up your company, you are looking at possibly living the life of a $50millionaire. thats a fantastic goal, i would try any endeavor that i would try today. there is no difference in my happiness if im allowed to have $50 mil or 50 bil because i would never hoard that much anyway, it would be going to charity. the people who think that their happiness depends on having more money than that dont understand. they need therapy, without exception.

so when you get to that amount of cash, you are forced to give it to somebody else. first youll give it to your kids (i see no reason why youd give it to your wife, but for the sake of simple laws i guess youd have to be able to). then once all your kids are paid for forever, with their $50mil, then, without a doubt, you should not be hoarding more money. i would say with 90% certainty, while knowing nobody of whom i speak, that all men who are in this position and still hoarding, they are depressed because their mission in life is compete and they are working for no real reason.

if nobody had more than a couple hundred million hoarded in their family, think of all the spare cash. think of how much unfair mistreatment is inflicted upon these angels, and think about the actual good things that the money can be used for that it currently will never do.

so what would make this plan fail? plenty of things. mainly, who decides what to do with that money. i say, just make sure it goes to a charitable organization. not the govt, but straight into some domestic charity program, not even overseas yet. we need to fix this country first. there are tons of truly altruistic people who are trying to fix this country, but dont have enough cash. imagine seeing the caravan of tractor trailers with $100 mil of charity business rolling into your ghetto neighborhood. i know i would run outside and figure out what work is being done and id start helping.

the only potential problem with this theory is that people are still assholes. transfering money from one person to another isnt going to help unless the recipient is a better person than the robbed. i feel like if the 50millionaires see that their money really is being spent well, they wont be so reluctant to give it up. i know that no matter what they irrationally think, having infinite luxuries isnt how you get happy. its a known fact, money does not equal happiness, only financial security does. most people dont have the latter because a small number of retards thinks the former is the meaning of life.

is that what you wanted to see?

if aynone remembers the omnisoul, that too was annoyingly unfalsifiable. my reason for why its acceptable anyway is that god made it unfalsifiable on purpose. if humans could verify his presence, then everybody would be a good boy without exception. clearly this is not exactly what god wants from us or else he would have made the universe differently.

he wants us to struggle with the decision to act selflessly or not, because if we dont know we will be rewarded by him, then the action is truly selfless. if we do know that he is watching, the act is partly selfish. not only that, but soon the world would be acting in harmony and selfless actions would rarely be needed at all. god wants selflessness, therefore he must remain invisible and unproveable.

simply put future man, so even you have a chance at getting it

if its not falsifiable its [size=200] WRONG [/size]

ok, if god shows up and says im wrong, thats the falsifiability. do you understand what i was talking about? god must remain invisible or else the universe doesnt make sense. i didnt say its true, its just more feasible than your average unfalsifiable theory.

and is the wealth cap not falsified? i said if jerks get the money then it sucks. whats your deal, you refuse to accept that nobody needs more than $50mil of motivation, and you never say anything about it.

what did i do wrong? your simple terms only incite me to write more, and im sure you dont want that.

my theory: this thread was pre- planned to get a given reaction. which ultimately betters zeno, in his eyes. ways my theory could be wrong: none.

my theory in order for zeno to be right he actually need sto disprove futures theory!!

[contented edited by ILP]

I’m not sure the falsibility principle works with ethics and politics. What is the falsifiability of ethical claims?

As I understand it, Popper was more concerned with positivism than he was with ethics in this context.

What is a falsifiability condition of democracy? Not democracy? That’s easy enough. Couldn’t the same be done with “wealth capism?”

I think the falsifiability condition is sorely out of place with ethics and politics.
Falsifiability deals with descriptive statements (no horse is gay, in your example), but to carry that condition to prescriptive statements (no horse should be gay) is entirely different. The gayness of one horse or many would not affect the claim horses should or should not be gay, it only deals with claims that horses are or are not gay.

A wealth cap is something that should be done, whether it is or not does not determine its validity as a prescriptive claim.

hey im just curious, what is the whole point of this whole topic?

Zenofeller meant it as a tongue-in-cheek, or maybe a sarcasm to FM. :wink:

i think the point of this thread was to make me look like the irrational, meaningless vomit spewer that all capitalists think i am. this effort culminated in an enlarged, colored “WRONG” and yet another hate post from somebody who accuses me of being a hate poster.

capitalismocracy at its finest

Future Man, you are not an irrational, meaningless vomit spewer, but rather a rational, meaningful vomit spewer-------it makes me wanna puke, too, with all these Enron, Worldcom, Bush family’s Argentina oil investments, third world money laundering of WB loans----- CRAP. Meow, meow, meow, crap, crap, meow, crap!!!

naber, what you say is correct, positivism is one thing, democracy is another, science is one, ethics is another.

you might have noticed however that future man never bothers with that distinction, and behaves as if his otherwise very naive ideea has something of the strength of positive scientific truth. as long as he accepts he simply states an oppinion, that has no truth value to it i will gladly drop the falsifiability condition. if he does not, i choose to protect truth from imposture.

on your own objections, please note that a deductive system of ethics is sorely out of place too, since we do not have a manifest superior instance we can deduce our morals from. we are thus stuck with inductive morality, a rather pathetic task, so foul to many that moral relativism is rampant.

at any rate, whether something has been done with any degree of success or failure in the past has a huge impact on prescriptive claims, which is something crazed revolutionaries are blisfully blind to. and morals and politics are the science of human experience, and live mostly in the margins of the interpretations of human experience. to try to divorce the two will leave any attempt at morals collapse into the ridicule it mostly deserves, to begin with.

Yes, neglecting what history offers us is very wrong. But it is key that we think beyond our current situation. It is key that we do not allow our social conditions to assume the status of “natural.” Marcuse, that crazed revolutionary, talks about this in One-Dimensional Man.

I completely agree with the role of interpretation.

i am not however refuting h marcusse. i am refuting future man.


  1. Do you have a solution to your question?

  2. When you talk, do you keep a theme in your mind or do you just spew out whatever unprocessed data that happens to be in your mind at that particular time.

I’ve noticed that you, like many others on this forum, never actually made a genuine attempt at philosophy. For example, in the post about John Rawls’ theory of justice. You made some silly remark, and did not rebuke what I said.

An insult is not a philosophical refutation. - PoR

hello again Arendt… yes I have returned. :smiley:

PoR, it is par for the course, on the internet, to resort to ad hominem attacks rather then explain why someone is wrong. Its quicker, gets more attention, and involves little risk for the person posing the attack to look foolish.

I don’t think that is what Zeno was doing here, however. If I were to guess, I think he probably wanted to see if Future would provide any actual data for his assertions, lay at least some kind of rudimentary groundwork for his plan.

Like if he could provide the figures that said It costs X amount for a person to live comfortably in Western society. He then might try to define living comfortably and give some examples of what that entails. Then he could do the research and say, The combined wealth of the richest 5% of the world’ population is enough to provide a comfortable life to every man woman and child on earth twelve times over… and still leave the equivalent of 50 million dollars each to said 5 % (yes I am pulling these figures out of thin air).
He could then offer a plan for a fair and equitable distribution for such wealth that would still allow that lovely technological innovation that Neo Liberals harp on as a benefit of market reforms, a plan for distribution that would provide meaningful jobs to a large portion of the world’s population, end world hunger, create world peace, and send a monkey to the moon!
Maybe he could suggest a complex scheme of income reinvestment as start up money to increase competition, as competition in a market would keep capitalists happy. He could suggest certain industries to begin with, so change would not be so total as to cause panic and wreck the world economy, and so forth.

This would probably involve years of study, whether workable or not, it sounds like it would make a decent doctoral thesis in Economics. Of course, with a PhD. Zeno’s point would be moot. To get hired to pay his college loans (as the President is asking Congress to lower spending on pell Grants) Future would be too busy looking for a job to post his research here. After he is hired one of the Bush twins will no doubt be elected as the first female President, having run on the Platform that Canada has WMD’s and should therefore be invaded, oh and that Pink is the prettiest color, Future will wake up one day, look in the mirror, realize that he has sold out, and will promptly slit his wrists.

Probably better for Future Man if he just posts his ideas here, rather than make a real attempt to see them implemented.

ha that was awesome. you are totally right gate. what i would like to see from zeno is what his equally nebulous ideas on the subject are. or maybe he could say how i failed to make the theory falsifiable, or respond to me in any kind of meaningful way at all, since he did claim to aim this thread mainly at me.