• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noam on stuff

Walter Wayne said:
I am not assuming anything. I am asking in those situations where it is the case, is it a better option.

You do recognize that not every situation will be the same?
Click to expand...
You're claiming that in some cases there is a better choice. That doesn't contradict my statement that the USA can and will be criticized either way.
 
EGarrett said:
In your example, you're painting "do something" and "not do something" as the only two possibilities. Not "do something one way" or "do something another way."
Click to expand...
... and everything in between. There is no qualitative difference between do something and not do something in this discussion. They're all decisions that presumably have consequences.
 
EGarrett said:
You're claiming that in some cases there is a better choice. That doesn't contradict my statement that the USA can and will be criticized either way.
Click to expand...
Pretty much every country will get criticized for whatever it does by its own citizen. Every country gets criticized for whatever it does by others in proportion to its international exposure.

Suck it up.
 
Walter Wayne said:
Pretty much every country will get criticized for whatever it does by its own citizen. Every country gets criticized for whatever it does by others in proportion to its international exposure.

Suck it up.
Click to expand...
The problem is that people try to gauge the USA's actions by the way it's viewed by the international community. Chomsky does this at times.
 
hgc said:
Not to me it doesn't. Even if B has criticized every action so far does not mean that B criticizes every action.
Click to expand...
The way the logic was phrased, it implies exactly that. It makes no distinction between the type of action.
 
EGarrett said:
The way the logic was phrased, it implies exactly that. It makes no distinction between the type of action.
Click to expand...
You've made a reply to my statement that had nothing to do with the type of action. I have said already that the type of action is irrelevant, in previous posts. I was talking about the Black Swan Problem. Perhaps the wiki on Falsifiability will help you along.
 
EGarrett said:
The problem is that people try to gauge the USA's actions by the way it's viewed by the international community. Chomsky does this at times.
Click to expand...

Do you have any examples? I don't think Chomsky is criticizing the U.S. for actions simply because the int'l community doesn't like them. The int'l community might share some of the same criticisms as Chomsky, but I'm pretty sure Chosmky's arguments go beyond saying the actions are bad simply because the rest of the world doesn't like them.
 
hgc said:
You've made a reply to my statement that had nothing to do with the type of action. I have said already that the type of action is irrelevant, in previous posts. I was talking about the Black Swan Problem. Perhaps the wiki on Falsifiability will help you along.
Click to expand...
If I misread you, I apologize. But I stand by my own analysis of the logic problem. There was no past tense in the problem. It says B criticizes. It also does not propose any alternatives to the two choices of acting and not acting.
 
jimtron said:
Do you have any examples?
Click to expand...
Sure, but I'd have to go through Chomsky's videos. And he has far too many to re-check at the moment.

I don't think Chomsky is criticizing the U.S. for actions simply because the int'l community doesn't like them. The int'l community might share some of the same criticisms as Chomsky, but I'm pretty sure Chosmky's arguments go beyond saying the actions are bad simply because the rest of the world doesn't like them.
Click to expand...
He doesn't exclusively use the international community point, but it's something he points out as a sign that the United States is either brazen or foolish.
 
EGarrett said:
If I misread you, I apologize. But I stand by my own analysis of the logic problem. There was no past tense in the problem. It says B criticizes. It also does not propose any alternatives to the two choices of acting and not acting.
Click to expand...

I think you are making some unnecessary assumptions about A. The logic problem includes no information about what choices A has, or even what A is doing. Just that B complains every time A acts or fails to act.

One possibility that logically exists is that A always acts in ways worthy of criticism. To know whether this was the case we would have to actually examine what A does and whether A deserves criticism for it. Not merely leap to the unproven conclusion that B is irrational, hypocritical or "a complainer".
 
jimtron said:
Might he be right about that?
Click to expand...
If he said the moon was green cheese, he MIGHT be right about that. But is it likely he's right? I don't think so...because if the United States was concerned about getting criticized by the international community, they'd never do anything. (and they'd still get chided for that)

Kevin_Lowe said:
I think you are making some unnecessary assumptions about A. The logic problem includes no information about what choices A has, or even what A is doing. Just that B complains every time A acts or fails to act.
Click to expand...
What options CAN exist for someone that would fall outside the categories of "acting" or "not acting?" By dividing it into those two broad categories you encompass anything possible that might happen.

One possibility that logically exists is that A always acts in ways worthy of criticism. To know whether this was the case we would have to actually examine what A does and whether A deserves criticism for it. Not merely leap to the unproven conclusion that B is irrational, hypocritical or "a complainer".
Click to expand...
That makes some sense.
 
EGarrett said:
What options CAN exist for someone that would fall outside the categories of "acting" or "not acting?" By dividing it into those two broad categories you encompass anything possible that might happen.
Click to expand...

It's logically posible, given the scenario, that that there are things A could do which B would not complain about but that A never does such things.

That makes some sense.
Click to expand...

That's why saying "X criticises the US government whatever it does, therefore we may ignore them" makes no sense. It might be they are irrational or hypocritical, or it might be that they are critiquing aspects of the US government's behaviour that are relatively consistent but which should change. We need to actually look at what they are claiming to tell.
 
If out of the choices of acting and not acting one is right and one is wrong (from the point of view of B) and A always chooses the one that is wrong out of the two options then surely B would be right to always criticise what A does.

For example, B thinks that military involvement in a dispute is only justified for humanitarian reasons and where it is unlikely to result in heavy civilian casualties. B thinks that military involvement is never justified for self-interested reasons or where it is likely to lead to heavy civilian casualties. But regardless of the likely casualties A engages in military intervention where its own interests are at stake and refuses to intervene when the reasons are purely humanitarian. Then it would be perfectly appropriate for B to always criticise A when A engages in military intervention and to always criticise A when A doesn't engage in military intervention.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It's logically posible, given the scenario, that that there are things A could do which B would not complain about but that A never does such things.
Click to expand...
Not unless those things count as "doing something." Which logically, they do.

The problem does not say "Whenever A has done something the past, B has criticized." It says "Whenever A does something, B criticizes." The logical statements in the form they're given cover much more ground. All of it, in fact. Now, in the past, and whatever may happen in the future.

That's why saying "X criticises the US government whatever it does, therefore we may ignore them" makes no sense.
Click to expand...
That's not an accurate representation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is..."If any action or non-action will draw criticism (or cause a thing we'll label C to happen), then criticism (or whatever is C) should not be a factor in your decision-making. Nor should it be valid to criticise the person or group by pointing out that their actions (or inaction) caused C to occur."
 
Last edited:
EGarrett said:
Not unless those things count as "doing something." Which logically, they do.

The problem does not say "Whenever A has done something the past, B has criticized." It says "Whenever A does something, B criticizes." The logical statements in the form they're given cover much more ground. All of it, in fact. Now, in the past, and whatever may happen in the future.
Click to expand...

I didn't really mean it to be taken that way, but if you prefer to do so then my response just gets rephrased as "it's possible A is just the kind of person that will always do things that B will criticise, but some other person in A's position might do something else that B would not criticise".

That's not an accurate representation of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is..."If any action or non-action will draw criticism (or cause a thing we'll label C to happen), then criticism (or whatever is C) should not be a factor in your decision-making. Nor should it be valid to criticise the person or group by pointing out that their actions (or inaction) caused C to occur."
Click to expand...

I understand what you were trying to say. My point is that assuming that whatever the US government will do will attract criticism regardless of what it is it does, can just be a way of plugging your ears to criticism that is in fact justified.

I also think that it's such an extreme position it's trivially falsifiable. Unless Noam Chomsky criticised the US government for helping people in Oceania after the recent tsunami, for example, then it's just not true Noam Chomsky always criticises the US government for whatever it does no matter what.

If so you would have to reformulate your claim into something like "Chomsky always criticises the US government when it starts a war" or something like that.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
I also think that it's such an extreme position it's trivially falsifiable. Unless Noam Chomsky criticised the US government for helping people in Oceania after the recent tsunami, for example, then it's just not true Noam Chomsky always criticises the US government for whatever it does no matter what.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that, and I know you were just tossing out an example, but....

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20050119.htm

How much aid did Noam's palestinian overlords send I wonder?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom