Institutions are Fauceirs

February 26, 2015

This actually is a comment on a Peter Turchin post on institutions.

First of all I want to mention the new look of his social evolution forum. Looks great though I miss a little bit the sobriety of a scientific publication. Looks rather like a glossy newspaper.

Anyway, remarkable is his scientific thoughts slowly approach Fauceir Theory. Institutions are mere fauceirs, and comparing them with software, another typical fauceir, is just abstracting those analogies that make a fauceir a fauceir. Fauceirs are essential to describe evolution scientifically.

While in the realm of biological evolution it is still possible to get the big picture of evolution without fauceir because
(1) there are only a few fauceirs and you can name them personally,
(2) clades, biotopes and environments are relative stable and comparable in their influences on evolution.
This, however, is no longer true in the realm of social evolution. The main actors, such as laws, education, institutions, economic enterprises, change rapidly and so does their impact on evolution. They do so as pieces of software—the analogy is striking—which grow into one or several new projects. That dynamic process requires these fauceirs to be frequently re-evaluated.

In the majority of scientific literature, those evaluations of actors are made from the perspective of the government. Peter Turchin’s blog is no exception, and this comes as no surprise because most scientists are paid by the government. They work in governmentally supported institutions after all, but that makes those scientists dependable and ideologically imprinted and their work tainted.

In my recent post I demonstrated that a government is but an other actor in social evolution, so evaluating and defining social fauceirs from a state’s perspective only can lead to inconsistencies and even dangerous ideological flaws as we’ve seen with the propagation of war, for instance.

Hope this post helps a little bit further to open eyes.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Democracy – What is that anyway?

February 25, 2015

I know, many people would be up in arms when reading this headline. For them democracy is so precious, even bears a state holiness, that they feel provoked, even personally offended, by simply question its usefulness. But those are people deeply imbued by governmental ideology. Any ideology hampers scientific analysis. (The most prominent example is the denial of the helocentric system by the catholic ideology for centuries.) Scientific endeavor has to free itself from any ideology—as far as possible—including its fervent proponents, so I don’t care.

For starters, a good collection of arguments why democracy fails can be obtained from this video:

It finally convincingly illustrates why a democratically elected government is constitutionally bound to increase the income gap. Despite all rhetoric to the contrary and despite of all the gullible people with good intentions who want to improve government to close the gap.

There is another misconception about democracy. Ideology states that democracy constitutes a collective decision and is therefore always the best one. (Condorcet developed a theorem that supports). Mato Nagel recently showed that this is not the case. On the contrary, given the Dunning-Kruger effect, the results of such a collective decision is rather mediocre at best. Now, he is confronted with a lot of hatred for his paper.

From an evolutionary point of view democracy is just camouflaged parasitism. Parasites use to evolve camouflage to evade a host’s defense system. That’s the same with a people (host) and the pack of thieves (parasites) who use government (camouflage/evading system) to protect themselves from the people’s defense.

virus_defense

Figure 1. The upper panel shows a flu virus that can invade an individual that has no antibodies neither against the blue nor the red antigen, shown in the lower part of this panel. The panel in the middle illustrated a body that effectively developed blue antibodies. That body can be infected by viruses coated with red antigens only. The lower panel shows the opposite case. In all cases the virus adapts to the immune system to improve its chances to cause an epidemic infection.

Even the mechanisms to break a host’s defense are similar to the flu virus. Every year a flu virus generates new strains and by invading the people the one that experiences the least counter attacks by the human bodies becomes epidemic. Every year an other strain. And after a couple of years, when the immune system’s memory has declined enough, an old strain can become epidemic again.

Figure 2. The adaptation of social parasites works similarly. Instead of coating antigens, they hide themselves by the shield of government from their hosts defense system. The upper panel shows a population that is not yet immune against any kind of social theft, so their defense systems symbolized by fists in the lower panel are not activated yet. The middle and the lower panel illustate how the shield changes according the accumulation of hatred in the population. Same as with flu viruses, the shield that shows the least counter attack is employed to cause the epidemic.

Figure 2. The adaptation of social parasites works similarly. Instead of coating antigens, they hide themselves by the shield of government from their hosts defense system. The upper panel shows a population that is not yet immune against any kind of social theft, so their defense systems symbolized by fists in the lower panel are not activated yet. The middle and the lower panel illustate how the shield changes according the accumulation of hatred in the population. Same as with flu viruses, the shield that shows the least counter attack is employed to cause the epidemic.

That sound quite similar to democratic elections, and the US American elections in particular. In primaries the most sympathetic candidate is forged and finally chosen to become epidemic for 4-8 years. After that period the people become resistant to that strain (party) and usually elect the other strain (party).

Against flu, vaccination is effective. There does not exist vaccination against government. Most people aren’t even aware of its role. It can be depressing to realize that we all live in a state of chronic social disease, and many people don’t even have an idea how it feels to be free and uncompromised.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Misconceptions in Social Evolution Theory

February 20, 2015

This is actually a reply to a post on the Social Evolution Forum website which regrettably is closed.

The author reports an incident at Newark airport’s terminal that he terribly felt an insufficiency and that he asks for social evolution to improve and wonders why it never happens.

It is a typical mistake made by many when studying evolution. I did it myself when I was a boy. I tried a mouse to evolve gills by adapting it to underwater living. After I drowned a bunch of them, I finally realized that it is impossible. Actually I was more successful with insects. They survived significantly longer, but also died eventually.

At that time, I found myself in good, even academic, company. Only a few decades before a Russian academic claimed to evolve temperature resistant corn by simply exposing it to the cold. He also failed eventually.

Well, what I learned from that is embodied in Fauceir Theory. The rule simply states that a fauceir doesn’t evolve by itself but in a context of a master fauceir, a container that embraces it. Applying that rule one can easily conclude that Newark Airport will never evolve by itself. It is just an individual of the species airport.

Thus improvement can be expected by (1) natural selection in the population of airports and (2) horizontal gene (information) transfer.

Interestingly enough in the comments both these ways are illustrated.

  1. (ad 1) The monopoly prevents natural selection at the moment. That’s unfortunately how states often act on social evolution.
  2. (ad 2) Still improvement is possible by an other technology. An app, in particular, is mentioned that circumvents failure in the airport’s departure display.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Imagination

December 15, 2014

Which is unknown is used to be replaced by which is believed.

– anonymous –


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Why ad hominem attacks in science are so successful

November 9, 2014

Reading this blog post I wonder if personal information are required in scientific publications for a single reason: to allow ad hominem attacks afterwards ;-)

More seriously now:

I wonder if relevant scientific articles shouldn’t have been better published anonymously. For two reasons

  1. to avoid ad hominem attacks, as in the above mentioned example, and
  2. to prevent toadies in case of “big” names

In other words, it would allow to evaluate research on its scientific merits instead of celebrity. I can’t help but thinking that this was one the primary intentions of that very article in question.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Social Problem: Feminism

November 6, 2014

“Females are poised to repress men. If unattractive, repellent, or simply unsocial they become feminists to execute their zest for suppression with men in general.”

- Anonymus -

If we want to stop slavery on this planet we have to keep females from enslaving men in the first place.

 


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

The misconception about the role of the government.

October 18, 2014

In his online article Peter A. Corning explains his position about social justice. His argument is fallacious, though logical in some parts, for just one thing: his basic misconception about the role of governments so common that only a few people are aware of it.

He lists examples how courts ruled against private and for public interests which he calls “public trust doctrine [that] was used in a total of 284 judicial decisions, including 34 federal cases and 250 in the states.” He interprets this observation as proof that governments care for public interests, but he did not realize that such an interpretation contradicts his own arguments. A few paragraphs before he quotes Locke: “Locke insisted, governments exist to protect these [property] rights.”

So what? If the government is the one and only institution to protect property rights, in those rulings quoted above they simply refused protect the property rights.

If you see it from that angle, all his arguments turn upside down. Social inequality is no longer explicable by a government’s inaction to distribute but on the contrary by a government’s vigorous enforcement.

 


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Bought Truth Quotation

June 26, 2014

You cannot buy the truth, but you can buy fallacious arguments.

Anonymus


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

More Warmonger’s Fallacies Exposed

June 16, 2014

This post continues the previous post and the quotes are taken from this discussion.

stephenduplantier

„Peace is slow war, because conflict can occur in peacetime; and war is fast peace, because cooperation can occur during wartime.“

Fallacy: Abstract meaning fallacy
I ask myself if the author of this assertion is aware of his/her great predecessor. „War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery, and Ignorance Is Strength“ phrased Orwell already. This fallacy, maybe, is not so obvious to everyone. It has to do with redefining the meaning of words. Usually this is accomplished by making it more abstract, and the author of the above quote is just caught in the act. The author tries to convince us that there are similarities between peace and war and by that tries to blur in our minds the borderlines between them. This is just an intermediate step to what G. Orwell wrote sarcastically.

Ross David H

“The main thing that war provides, is the same thing that bankruptcy provides in a market economy, which is that if an organization (nation or company) drops … , then it is removed.”

Fallacy: False analogy (at least partially) which again leads to redefinition of war.
To put it simple, there are great differences (obvious to everyone) between war and bankruptcy, which is the reason why we use different words. One of the great advantages of bankruptcy is that it involves less collateral damage. So I suppose, we all may agree, if war were transformed into bankruptcy, humanity would enormously benefit. Thus, let us study the following questions: What blocks states from competing like companies, or what allows them to cause so much destruction in the wake of their competition? Why bankrupted states manage to merely change facade instead of being removed completely?

Richard

“You put a fallacy here yourself (appeal to common sense). In fact, it is not obvious to everyone why that is a false analogy.”
“Another fallacy (straw man; putting words in someone else’s mouth). Nowhere did I try to justify wars as engines of progress (you seem to lack the liberal arts skills of critical reasoning and close reading as well).”
“But how can you disagree with a conclusion before studying something first?”
Fallacy: Red Herring.
He is probably good at selling Red Herrings. The post is neither about fallacies nor about studying slavery. The post is about beneficial effects of war ‘in the long run’ (whatever that means). BTW “beneficial effects” in connection with war sounds equally wrong to me as “progress” connected with war, so there is no straw man in rephrasing a false claim. Sorry I won’t discuss the other allegations. Peace is more important though.


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.

Warmonger’s Fallacies Exposed

June 14, 2014

A book “War! What is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots” by Ian Morris.
caused many cons like here and here. I analyze a pro. Actually, what I discovered was not a single argument in favor of war, but a fertile source of logical fallacies.

Peter

„ … just returned from California, … “
„ … I started at Stanford, then went to Davis.“
„ … I gave talks at Irvine and Riverside.“
„ … I also met with Ian Morris, the author of the widely acclaimed … he gave an invited lecture at Yale … “
„ … workshop I organized at Stanford on … The main proponents … at the workshop were Peter Richerson, David Sloan Wilson, and I. “

Fallacy: Appeal to authority.
Obvious to everyone I guess :)

„ … Morris argues that ‘the main function of war in cultural evolution across the past 15,000 years—and particularly across the past 500 years—has been to integrate societies, increasing material wellbeing.’ … the argument here is ‘over the long run.’ It goes without saying that wars created, and continue to create an enormous amount of human misery. … Thus, wars have not only a destructive side, but also a creative one.“

Fallacy: Straw man.
Though Peter successfully knocked down the straw man that over the short run war causes misery, it doesn’t prove anything about beneficial effects of war over the long run.

„ … I was soundly berated by one irate member of the audience … “

Fallacy: poisoning the well.
Declaring an counter argument irrational doesn’t say anything about the argument itself.

“ … several reviews from reputable commentators that I’ve seen were cautiously positive.”

Fallacy: celebrating the well (the opposite of poisoning the well).
Who says that those commentators are reputable. Where does their reputation derive from.

“Most people who react negatively to Ian’s book have not read it. … he hadn’t read the book. He explained that he disliked the title, … “

Fallacy: Hasty Generalization.
He met just one.

Also

Fallacy: poisoning the well.
As this little anecdote is mentioned to discredit all critic.

Besides, the next paragraph contradicts:
“ … indicating lots of sales. … ”
People wouldn’t buy without reading, would they?

Richard

“You can be vegetarian, but it’s really hard to argue that humans would have evolved in to what they are if they had been herbivores.”

Fallacy: False analogy.
I think it is obvious to everyone.

“ … Would you not be interested in studying why slavery happens, why it still exists today, what could cause it to be more prevalent in the future, … ”

Fallacy: Red Herring.
What studying slavery has to do with justifying wars as engines of progress?

“But how can you disagree with a conclusion before studying something first?

You seem to have a closed mind where you find some conclusions objectionable before ever considering any evidence.”

Fallacy: Poisoning the well.
An accusation of the opponent being closely minded does not prove the initial argument

Besides this accusation was what the Red Herring was abused for.

“It seems that you are not very good with the liberal arts skills of critical reasoning and close reading.”

Fallacy: Personal Attack.
At this point eventually, the opponent realized that he was tricked and quitted the thread.

The Rest

What follows is several other rephrased Red Herrings, the main question being unanswered by anyone. Why war purportedly is more effective in promoting cooperation?


Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at www.fauceir.org.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers