Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

I'm not familiar with that work, but the usage and examples you provide look entirely reasonable.  I'll add that the word 'meme' has been thrown about recently, is not entirely unrelated, and might also be used from time to time.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Exercising my personal value of respecting both sides of a dispute, I would say both paradigms have value and anyone honestly seeking a working understanding of economics would respect both, as I do.  I have even linked them to the recent cycles somewhat.

If one's scientific world view and values are stronger than one's political world views and values things are as you say.  Such folk will look at the numbers and history to determine the weight of merit of the two paradigms.  If one's way of looking at the world is more political than scientific, things are not as you say.  Folks will look back to a financial crisis of their youth or remember a few quotes from a famous politician to determine which paradigm they will politically cling to.  

Thus, whether these paradigms are driven by values or not is determined by one's values.

Throwing in another example, could Darwin's principle of evolution be considered a paradigm?  Is it a specific rule, pattern or understanding regarding a scientific theory?  If so, consider the individual with a Christian Fundamentalist paradigm.  According to his understanding that holy works are unquestionably, absolutely and literally true, it follows that evolution is incorrect.  Someone with a heavily scientific world view and values would disagree vehemently, and would be apt to insist that scientific evidence alone should determine if the paradigm has value.

In a similar way, the world views and values of red and blue folk in the United States does effect their perception of the worth of your two economic paradigms.  You and I have fairly strong scientific world views.  I would happily agree with you that the above economic examples ought to be resolved using something similar to the scientific method.  It's just that political partisans often include these economic paradigms within the realm of their world views, and thus are apt to be no more objective and rational in evaluating them than the fundamentalist contemplating evolution.  Thus the weight with which these not really conflicting economic paradigms bear influence on the world has everything to do with emotion, self interest, politics, voting and stubborn clinging to political dogma dictating how one believes things to be.

I would like to live in the world you describe, where scientific paradigms are always examined independently of political world view and values.  I don't see myself living in that world.  If you could give me a URL, I might consider buying a ticket to such a world, but for the moment I seem to be stuck in reality.

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

This is far more true than I'd like.  During the awakening, in the aftermath of the Woolworth's lunch counter, the courts set things up so if you are providing goods and service to the public, you cannot discriminate.  However, there were clear specific exemptions for private homes, private clubs and churches.  I can understand the church exemption.  Churches are supposed to be places of refuge for people sharing a certain set of beliefs.

As usual, I am of divided mind.  If many so call Christians are practicing overt discrimination, I'm not pleased.

You are all too correct in that many values issues are resolved by force, either political or physical.  You failed to mention courtesy and tolerance.  These too are part of a culture's world view and values system.  If one encounters something one doesn't like, is it really necessary to call a lawyer or to throw a rock?  Can smiling, wishing the other guy well and walking away be a possibility that should at least be considered?  If a church is a place of gathering for people sharing a set of beliefs, and one doesn't share those beliefs, do you really have to crash that party?

There might be one effective logical, rational and scientific question to ask.  What would Jesus do?  

Learning to tolerate or perhaps even mean each other well might be the emotional complement of giving serious scientific consideration to conflicting paradigms.  We are becoming a hostile confrontational culture.  Differences between people are always resolved through legal action or violence?  Really?  We never were a nation totally open and welcoming of immigrants and other minorities.  There is a myth of the melting pot where diversity is a strength and everybody gets a bit teary eyed reading that plaque on the base of the Statue of Liberty.  In reality, no Irish need apply.  Chinese males can be allowed to come over and build the railroads, but if you let the women come over too they will start to breed.  Can't have that.

The culture of confrontation and intolerance is part of the problem.  It has always been a problem.  Sometimes it is prominent, sometimes it fades.  This seems to be another peak period.  I see the partisan clash of ideas as being bundled up with the hatred and intolerance.  It's not just an abstract conflict of ideas, it is "You're evil!" vs "You're stupid!"  Emotion, hate, blindness and intolerance thrive with the unwillingness or inability to listen to one another.

Have I an easy solution?  Sure!  What we need is a stampede of pearl white unicorns with rainbow manes and tails.  That will do it!  I'll start wishing for unicorns really really hard.  

In my spare time I might try to get Eric and Cynic sincerely listening to one another.  The odds of that happening might be slightly better than the unicorn stampede.