|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 14:39:17 [Permalink]
|
Posted by Dave W.
Nononono. That's just one of the starting axioms. That other people exist who are pretty much just like you is a conclusion which logically follows after a bunch of steps, and when you discover that happy people are more productive (useful), the Golden Rule is a natural consequence. |
I'm willing to take it at face value (not knowing the deductive persuasion involved in demonstrating it) that "other people exist that are pretty much just like you", but how that optimistic premise logically leads to a conclusion that happy people are more useful or productive escapes me.
An article in Wiki suggests that there may be little correlation between happiness and productivity in specific countries:| The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an index of human well-being and environmental impact that was introduced by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) in July 2006. The index is designed to challenge well-established indices of countries’ development, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the Human Development Index (HDI), which are seen as not taking sustainability into account. In particular, GDP is seen as inappropriate, as the usual ultimate aim of most people is not to be rich, but to be happy and healthy.[1] Furthermore, it is believed that the notion of sustainable development requires a measure of the environmental costs of pursuing those goals |
 Map showing countries shaded by their position in the Happy Planet Index (2006). The highest-ranked countries are bright green; the lowest are brown
If, in fact, this study has statistical validity; IMHO, it is at least odd that the presumably happiest countries (Venezuela, Colombia, Central America, Cuba, Indonesia, Polynesia) are not generally seen to be particularly productive, whereas the United States is portrayed as very unhappy, but must be considered highly productive. Alaska, much of Africa and Mongolia are are pretty damn useless and pretty damn unhappy, but Russia is unhappy but surely productive. Certainly a mixed bag! Our new-found friends in China are apparently quite happy and extremely productive and useful! Understandably!
Cherry-picking the countries of the world, one could demonstrate either happy = useful or happy = nonproductive opinions, or the converse statements, depending which countries you chose.
As might be suspected, there are many criticisms of the New Economics Foundation's work, and I am in no way presenting it as a final word on anything.
I think it simply highlights that a possible correlation between happiness, and productivity/usefulness is problematical! There have been many highly productive scientists, artists, and innovators who had perfectly miserable personal lives! Alan Turing, Tchaikovsky, and Oscar Wilde come to mind. There have been innumerable others, almost to the point of there appearing to be an association between misery and productivity. Naturally, the exceptions do not prove the rule, but they certainly try it! |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2010 : 18:22:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
If your "cheating" as an individual is not recognized and penalized by society as a violation of formalized rules of behavior (laws) and if you do not share the common ethics or morality that decries "cheating" as "wrong", thereby troubling your conscience; then it may be better for you to cheat whenever you can.
Do unto others only as it may benefit you, otherwise to hell with anybody besides you. It works for lots of folks!
However, if your behavior (getting away with cheating) encourages others to cheat, eventually the ethical constraints of civilized society begin to crumble, and the bad consequences will eventually affect you personally. |
I basically agree with what you are saying. Apart from, perhaps, my cheating eventually catching up with me. This would, in a lot of circumstances, only happen long after I'm dead anyway. As you said, it works for a lot of folks. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2010 : 18:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Nononono. That's just one of the starting axioms. That other people exist who are pretty much just like you is a conclusion which logically follows after a bunch of steps, and when you discover that happy people are more productive (useful), the Golden Rule is a natural consequence.
|
I realise that I'm asking for a lot right now, but ... care to show me? |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2010 : 00:11:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
I realise that I'm asking for a lot right now, but ... care to show me? |
Actually, thanks for asking. Thinking about it made me realize I'd left out a bunch of really important stuff, like all the axioms of set theory and propositional logic (and let's not forget inference) required for actual science to be done. Axioms which I'd stupidly taken for granted.
So, it's back to the drawing board for my hypotheses... dammit. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 21:00:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by bngbuck
There are many proofs of "negatives" (proofs of impossibility) in mathematics. You cannot square the circle (cannot construct a circle that has the same exact area as a given square} because pi has been proven to be a transcendental number. For that matter, you cannot write out the full number that completely describes pi. These statements have been rigorously mathematically proved. There are many other examples in mathematics. |
Sir Andrew Wiles proved Fermat's Last Theorem -- A squared + B squared = C squared. It took him something like seven years and in the process, he invented a new field of geometry. And yet, Fermat's own proofs eluded him. That's mathematical rocket science that no one but another mathematical rocket scientist would understand. |
I really don't like the mathematical analogy here. Math consciously makes all sorts of presuppositions -- all statements are true or false by virtue of the way we define our mathematical constructs and the axioms we choose to assume -- most commonly the 8 ZF set axioms + the axiom of choice in addition to whatever objects we define as we choose (e.g. integers, exponents, fields, circles, constructability, etc.)
I think Fermat's Last Theorem is that no 3 natural numbers a, b, c, satisfy a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than 2 (not important..) I don't understand Wiles' proof, but I am confident it stays within the bounds of some assumed set of axioms. Otherwise, how is he to know what a^n + b^n = c^n even means?
Godel's incompleteness theorem may come a bit closer to being a good analogy, since a bit of it shows that there can be no formal system that characterizes the natural numbers based on a finite or infinite number of axioms that does not have expressible statements in its language that are both true and unprovable. But here, too, I think is some presupposition on what a "formal system" is and what the "natural numbers" are. In any case, I think math/logic are not quite analogous to anything here. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 02/27/2010 21:05:10 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2010 : 16:58:05 [Permalink]
|
Pseudo-scholarship indeed, Mooner.
Filthy, thanks for finding such things so I don't have to worry about getting AiG kooties looking around their site too long. 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is 'Presuppositional' apologetics?
