Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!think!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Logic, fact, preference, and social
Message-ID: <28200115@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 18:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200115
Posted: Tue Sep 24 18:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:47:23 EDT
References: <234@umich.UUCP>
Lines: 66
Nf-ID: #R:umich:-23400:inmet:28200115:000:3164
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Sep 24 18:07:00 1985


[Nat Howard]
> >...  I know of no postulates, anywhere, that have any basis in logic or fact.


> >As you say, and as I said, "logic" cannot be the basis for what you 
> >prefer.  I'm real curious to see if Paul Torek can come up with any
> >social order that has a basis in "logic or fact".

[Paul Torek]
> Logic can't be the basis for what you prefer, but fact can.

*Both* logic and fact can. Either can *falsify* one choice, and by
so doing, dictate another.

Consider two persons, Alpha and Beta. Alpha favors social order
(a), based on (irrationally chosen) criterion A. Beta favors so-
cial order (b), based on criterion B. Now suppose Beta has been
able to show Alpha an unknown fact F, or an unexpected logical
connection L between known facts, that proves, to Alpha's satisfac-
tion, that A is better served by (b) than by (a). Alpha is now a
convert; his new preferred social order is (b), and the basis
for his preference is *both A and L, or both A and F*.  

 E.g., a creationist is shown that evolution is really in the Bible.

 Now you might say: Alpha and Beta have become allies, but that is
superficial.  Their basic postulates are still A and B, respec-
tively: *they* can't be changed by logic or fact.

 In a way, effectively, they can: by *reduction*.  Suppose I max-
imize health, while you maximize wealth.  Now suppose you show me
that the more wealth, the more health.  Then I  can effectively
substitute your criterion for mine everywhere: I can *forget* all
about health and concentrate on making money.

 Consider a less implausible example: our biblical creationist is
persuaded to make science his criterion of truth.  The argument
runs thus: according to the Bible (his original criterion), God
made all of nature directly, while for the Bible  human
co-authors were used. Nature is therefore his (OK, His, to be con-
sistent) great book, greater than the Bible.  (Galileo, I recol-
lect, said something to this effect).  Whatever you read in this
book - by observation, experiment and other scientific methods  -
is true. Now our ex-creationist is more than a casual ally of the
evolutionist - not for one occasion only. They go hand in hand
indefinitely, except for such disagreements as arise between
scientists. The basic postulate is effectively changed.

 The same scheme can be followed in a libertarian-statist argument.
If the statist demonstrates that individual freedom (in the li-
bertarian sense)  is maximized by meeting so-called  "social
goals", *and* that these can only be achieved by a strong government;
while a weak government inevitably leads to a stronger and more
tyrannical one - he meets the libertarian on his own  ground  and
wins. "Liberty  through  taxes" becomes the libertarian battle-cry.
 Conversely, if the libertarian proves, by facts or  logic,  that
"social goals"  can best be obtained  by  individuals  free  from
government  coercion  -  he  wins, by converting his opponent. At
least he should.

(I've just noticed that I keep using 'he' as a generic pronoun.
Please don't be distracted by it. I'm a feminist in many ways,
but newspeak doubleplus ungood).

                Jan Wasilewsky