re: important point 1. It is easier for me to see/say that it is
to improve their lot. Reduce the segment to one deprived human being
that you pass in the street. There are may variables in the encounter:
and the urge to extend a helping hand. Where does that come from if not
ethically justified but to point out that labels e.g. one being
"libertarian", were not clear cut definitions. One can hold x political
that x and y were incompatible. There may be no ethical dilemma for one
Your 'reasonable' solution might suit a callous person. We have to
law. Neither needs justifying. I'm probably missing the point or not
re: Q2) Can particular variables (e.g. hunger) be factored completely
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> You bring up two very important points:
>
> 1) a strong hypo-thesis (somewhat but not completely justified) that it
> _is_ ethical to attempt to reduce "deprived" segments and
>
> 2) ethical justification for various labels (democrat, monarchist, etc.).
>
> You also brought up the point that the techniques of complexity studies
> are, yet, too immature to really bring them to bear on the problem. I
> don't regard this as an important point because tools must be _used_ to
> become mature. So, it doesn't matter how immature the techniques are,
> they must be used on the problems we have at hand. And the corollary
> point about them not separating out cause/effect and re: prediction are
> premature conclusions in my opinion. So, I'll leave these points alone
> for now.
>
> A solution to my dilemma might involve _rejecting_ the ethical premise
> that the deprived segments should not be so deprived. E.g. some
> children _must_ starve in order for life to effectively do whatever it's
> doing. That is a completely reasonable solution (and one taken by many
> of us lucky ones whose selves, friends, family, tribe, etc. have their
> basic needs taken care of).
>
> Because that is a completely reasonable solution, we have to not only
> question _how_ alternative solutions (maintain the ethical premise)
> obtain; but we also have to question the entire process of
> _justification_. Can the ethical premise be more completely justified?
>
> This same question comes into your second important point. When I call
> myself a "monarchist" and that "theorem" is somehow justified via some
> form of rhetoric, we not only have to question the conclusions derived
> from the premise. We also have to question the rhetorical justification
> of the premise, itself. Am I really a "monarchist", regardless of what
> I call myself? Does the rhetoric: "because I don't want to disband the
> Royal Family" deductively lead to the label "monarchist"? Etc.
>
> This relates fundamentally to the question of whether things like
> inverse power laws between particular measures can be effectively
> applied to social and/or ethical problems. It relates because of the
> following.
>
> The results of complexity studies are telling us (in my opinion)
> _nothing_ about actual (ontological) reality. These results merely tell
> us how we as ignorant individuals _learn_ about actuality. They are at
> their core a psychological bridge between reductionism and holism.
>
> The dilemma, as I formulated it, relates two unjustified measures: the
> extent of a control structure and the number of objectives any control
> structure can competently achieve. I believe the epistemological
> results of complexity theory can help either:
>
> a) justify the two measures, or
> b) demonstrate how one or both of the measures are unjustified.
>
> It's also possible that either measure is justified but falsified
> (a.k.a. valid but unsound in logic-speak or verified but invalid in
> M&S-speak). We can't currently falsify the measures and their
> relationship because we haven't done the science (though I believe it's
> relatively easy to formulate a falsifiable hypothesis). And whether or
> not the science is _worth_ pursuing depends on the justification.
>
> So, the questions become:
>
> Q1) Do non-local control structures exist that regulate many variables?
>
> Q2) Can particular variables (e.g. hunger) be factored completely out of
> the system so that no animal/plant experiences extreme changes in those
> variables?
>
> These are _justification_ questions, not falsification questions.
> Hence, they are perfectly suited for the toy-world models currently
> being built by social scientists and mathematicians. Once the
> justification is well-stated; falsification questions can be competently
> posed.
>
> Robert Cordingley wrote:
>
>> It seems the world has had for a long time, and still has, oppression,
>> poverty and poor education of segments of its population. Perhaps we
>> can say that the developed world has managed to lower their own deprived
>> segment size while the un(der)developed hasn't made so much progress.
>> (Do you remember the TADtalk visualization on poverty?) It is
>> considered by many, including you and me, that having deprived segments
>> of the world's population is unethical because of the ethical standards
>> we hold, have learned (and have been indoctrinated in, if you will).
>>
>> It remains ethical to work towards the reduction and elimination of
>> these deprived segments - it's a big job. The argument is over how. I
>> don't believe complexity science or studies and simulations of Complex
>> Adaptive Systems (CAS) are yet sufficiently mature to help very far in
>> this endeavor, but I'm not an expert in the field. It just seems that
>> way from the perspective of an observer.
>>
>> That complexity studies indicate emergent behavior that is otherwise
>> hard to predict and matches small systems (ie < 10^6 agents) behavior is
>> *very* interesting and justifies further work. I don't think it
>> separates cause and effect which is the primary reason for not using
>> such studies for predictive purposes. And there is no evidence yet of
>> successful studies or simulations that model social change, e.g. the
>> French or Russian Revolutions. (Please correct me if this is wrong).
>> So it seems that the problems of society (including trying to figure out
>> what is the 'best' form of government) are not yet subject to relief
>> from CAS studies. Many would not want one small class of experts to be
>> responsible for this task anyway.
>>
>> Going back to your original ethical dilemma, if one agrees with what is
>> ethical and one's political position doesn't then one will
>> change/adjust/modify one's political position to maintain one's internal
>> integrity. Labels and technicalities in definitions may be part of the
>> problem:
>>
>> I am a democrat because I believe everyone should have a say in government,
>> I am an environmentalist because we should take care of our biosphere so
>> it remains habitable for us,
>> I am a monarchist because I don't want to disband the Royal Family,
>> I am libertarian because I don't want a Big Brother government,
>> I am conservative because I think we shouldn't waste our resources,
>> I am a republican in the sense I don't want to dismantle the US federal
>> system and its three branches of government,
>> I am a capitalist because I believe in free-markets,
>> I am socialist because I believe everyone deserves basic health care,
>> education, justice,
>> I am a moderate because I believe we deserve a system of justice that
>> can reign in man's excesses.
>> etc
>>
>> If complexity science turns out to be a powerful technology it may take
>> it's place along side fire, nuclear power and genetic engineering. All
>> are amoral. It's how we use them for our benefit that will exercise our
>> morals (ethics).
>>
>
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know
> what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be
> president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org>
> iD8DBQFG3amOZeB+vOTnLkoRAgEUAKDK7Mjc3EpNgOjqjmIiyyLJ6ppxygCg0n0J
> 1bFC1hz8fvBJr8cypjkfUGE=
> =5ozy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>
>
>