[Unknown Target]

We didn't have a system in the woods. Didn't need one. All it takes is the old chimp wiring.

If you knew that the woods might teach you long term lessons that may help you in the future, you might have taken it more seriously. From the sounds of it, considering it turned out so terribly, you did need a system and you (especially you) were unwilling to provide one. It was easier just to build tunnels and rule from your ice throne.

There's even an argument for spontaneous governance, now that I'm on the subject. The idea is that in the absence of governance, humans will immediately try to craft or experiment with the best form of governance they can think of.

This will involve installing a strongman to run the tribe, rule by force, and raids on the neighbors. Left to their own devices, uneducated humans will go back to where they began.

That's what you choose to believe, yes.

Basically, once you stop making assumptions about people, then people stop making assumptions about you - and it's assumptions that create systemic problems, IMO.

There's nothing to assume; it's all neurally determined,

That is an assumption.

One of those things is this reliance on "getting into college" as the sum total of a "good childhood" these days. Not that extreme, but college is not the end-all-be-all of a kid's early life. That is something that needs to be fixed, IMO.

A good job is just as beneficial as college. What's important is economic mobility. College is a good lever for that.

Many people looked at college as a sure-fire way to get a job. I know that's how my parents looked at it when I went off to university, I know that many people are afraid of leaving college because they're afraid of not getting a job without some fancy piece of paper.

[General Battuta]

If you knew that the woods might teach you long term lessons that may help you in the future, you might have taken it more seriously. From the sounds of it, considering it turned out so terribly, you did need a system and you (especially you) were unwilling to provide one. It was easier just to build tunnels and rule from your ice throne.

That's an assumption, and not a very charitable one - in fact I'd call it an example of fundamental attribution error.

That's what you choose to believe, yes.

That's what the evidence says.

That is an assumption.

That's what the evidence says.

[Unknown Target]

Can you reach an incorrect conclusion from presented evidence?

Can that incorrect conclusion create a situation that may prevent you from finding further evidence with which to change the previous conclusion?

[General Battuta]

Arguing that science doesn't work while typing on a computer in a house with electricity is just about a QED for this debate, my friend.

[Unknown Target]

Why is that what I'm arguing?

I'm arguing that science can be wrong, which is what you seem to be disagreeing with.

I'm curious to know, though - what is your answer to these two questions?

Can you reach an incorrect conclusion from presented evidence?

Can that incorrect conclusion create a situation that may prevent you from finding further evidence with which to change the previous conclusion?

[General Battuta]

The scientific method demands evidence to counter evidence. One cannot argue a scientific point without the empirical. An incorrect conclusion must be demonstrated incorrect.

Your argument so far, if I've grasped it, is a return to a mythical, pastoral, anarchic state in which human needs are satisfied by the generosity of other humans. I think it's a noble idea. I encourage you to try to implement it.

[Unknown Target]

The scientific method demands evidence to counter evidence. One cannot argue a scientific point without the empirical. An incorrect conclusion must be demonstrated incorrect.

Who defines what "empirical" evidence is?

Your argument so far, if I've grasped it, is a return to a mythical, pastoral, anarchic state in which human needs are satisfied by the generosity of other humans. I think it's a noble idea. I encourage you to try to implement it.

That is not my argument.  Have you made an assumption?

[General Battuta]

Then convey your argument better.

[Unknown Target]

What if the point of my argument is not to prove anyone wrong or right, but to encourage you to do something?

[General Battuta]

The great thing about empiricism as a worldview is that its fundamental tenet is self-examination and self-questioning. Science is, in the long run, always self-correcting, and scientific discourse and debate is one of the best ways to achieve that correction. But to contribute to that discourse, you need to be fluent in the language.

[Unknown Target]

Science is, in the long run, always self-correcting

Are you questioning this?

[General Battuta]

Always. Work on file drawer effect, publication bias, experimenter effect and subconscious cuing all represent efforts to improve scientific methodology.

[Unknown Target]

If you question it then why do you assume it to be true in all of your equations?

What would happen if "Science" was not always self correcting?

[General Battuta]

Then empirical predictions would stop matching empirical data, and theories would be revised.

Two and two is always four. If you stumble into a theory that gives you 'five', you know you've done something wrong.

Voila! Self-correction.

[Luis Dias]

Way to derail a good conversation there, UT...

[Mongoose]

I think it was derailed when Battuta constructed some strange blend of Lord of the Flies and the cartoon "Recess," personally.

[General Battuta]

I think it was derailed when Battuta constructed some strange blend of Lord of the Flies and the cartoon "Recess," personally.

Recalled, please.

[Dilmah G]

Well it was interesting at least to see that someone else had a similar elementary-school career to mine. Except my primary school had same-sex tribes the whole way through.

[Black Wolf]

I honestly don't understand this whole idea or tribalism and cliques and whatnot at schools. All the way from primary school to high school (four schools in my case, though the first one was only until half way through year 2) stuff like that just never happened for me. I mean, yes, there were groups of friends who hung out together, but there was no strong antagonism between the groups, and they were very fluid - you could move between groups more or less at will, without getting shunned or whatever.

[Mustang19]

The worst part of living in a preindustrial society would really be the boredom. Imagine living like you are now, in a mud hut or whatever, just without a computer.

One time I watched a documentary on family life in the 19th century. You had to gather up like a ****ton of wood every time you wanted a warm shower. The entire family seemed bored out of their skulls the whole time. The highlight of the father's day was shaving. What do you think people did before internet and TV?