Theme: Science

(interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

• a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
• b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
• c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
• d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
• e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

(For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

(interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

• a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
• b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
• c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
• d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
• e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

(For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.