But it would be very hard to argue, for you I mean, that there is a problem with more laws. — Coben

I'm not sure what you're thinking here. People will have preferences for approaches to government. You can prefer fewer laws.

Sure. So far you are wonderfully consistent. most people like to be able to say their way is better, not as a preference. I almost ended by previous post by saying 'unless you say ''I like it that way, like I like chocolate and beach front property'' and I do not make the claim it is better.'

So far you are wonderfully consistent. most people like to be able to say their way is better, not as a preference. — Coben

Well, "better" is a statement of preference on my view.

I think it's better. Someone else might not.

And to know this, we need to be able to show that it's a cause.

You're on a philosophy board. You're familiar with epistemology, right? — Terrapin Station

Yes, and as I think I have even seen you write before, knowledge is not a matter of proof.

We are able to show that it is a cause to the satisfaction of almost every expert in the field.

We cannot prove beyond all doubt that it is a cause, we do not have a full understanding of how the causal links work, nor do we fully understand the effect of other factors. But all knowledge is like this. If we constrain ourselves to taking action only on those matters about which we are absolutely certain, we would never act.

We are able to show that it is a cause to the satisfaction of almost every expert in the field. — Isaac

I'm not about to hinge it on the mere fact that people are socially recognized as "experts in the field" (what field would we be talking about here, anyway?)

A field can have something wrong, so that all--or at least most--people recognized as experts are believing/forwarding wonky crap.

I'm not at all talking about proof. That we can't prove empiricals doesn't mean that we're off the hook re presenting evidence. No amount of evidence can be proof. So that's a red herring. But if we don't present any evidence, we have no good reason to believe something.

"What field would we be talking about here, anyway?"

That's not just rhetorical, by the way. What field do you think is pertinent, and from where are we getting the notion that most experts in the field in question think that speech is causal to subsequent actions?

Is the field called Manchurian Candidatology?

But how can we get something wrong in a system if it is act according to it and there is no objective criterion for deciding which system is better ? :smile: — Wittgenstein

I think that question carries its own answer. "There is no objective criterion for deciding which system is better". :smile:

I'm not about to hinge it on the mere fact that people are socially recognized as "experts in the field" — Terrapin Station

But this is what I mean re burden of proof. You're suggesting that the 'so called' experts are not to be trusted, that it would be best not to make hate speech illegal, but you've not offered a shred of evidence to support your position. You've simply assumed it as the default and required that we offer evidence sufficient to convince you of a causal link.

I'm asking, and have been from the start, why you feel the burden of proof falls on those claiming a causal link when it comes to legislation, and not on those claiming that the observed correlation is not causal.

You're suggesting that the 'so called' experts are not to be trusted, — Isaac

To trust something merely because they're experts is the argument from authority fallacy.

It depends on what we're talking about. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and you'd never buy something ONLY because experts agree.

Evidence to support my position? What factual claim do you think I'm making?

I don't buy "burden of proof" nonsense. But I'm not about to believe something without evidence of it, without good reasons to believe it.

Again, what field are you even talking about here, by the way?

[ Replying to @Terrapin Station ]

You've simply assumed it as the default and required that we offer evidence sufficient to convince you of a causal link. — Isaac

The causal link can be observed empirically, but it's vague. We need to apply sociology and statistics to clarify that hate speech often leads to violence. But if we do, the result is clear: hate speech leads to violence often enough to legislate against it.

I'm asking, and have been from the start, why you feel the burden of proof falls on those claiming a causal link when it comes to legislation, and not on those claiming that the observed correlation is not causal. — Isaac

[Rant]
Any sentence containing the phrase "burden of proof" is BS, and should be ignored. It's a way of saying that someone else has to do the work, because you can't be bothered.
[/Rant]

So, terrapin's trivial misunderstanding is that if something is not a sufficient cause, it's not a cause at all.
— Baden

That pretty much nails it.

Despite...

"Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is efficacy, by which one process or state, a cause, contributes to the production of another process or state, an effect,[2] where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes,[3] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past."

From Terrapin's favourite source of authority Wikipedia, on Causality. — Isaac

Case closed.

We need to apply sociology and statistics to clarify that hate speech often leads to violence. But if we do, the result is clear: hate speech leads to violence often enough to legislate against it. — Pattern-chaser

You'd be making a correlation, but correlation doesn't imply causation.

Even at that, though, what would be evidence that "hate speech" is often correlated with violence? Just what are we sampling, and how are we ensuring that it's effectively random? Can you give a couple examples of what you're sampling for a claim like that?

Do you see smoking as causal in lung cancer? — Coben

No. I just smoke, and then a decision is made on whether or not I have cancer. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

( :wink: )

What field do you think is pertinent, and from where are we getting the notion that most experts in the field in question think that speech is causal to subsequent actions? — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure what I can do to answer this more fully than I already have. Psychology deals with observed causes and effects and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of consistency. Neuroscience deals with cause and effect with observed brain activity and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of co-incident behaviours.

Both are flawed, but no less so than just about every other science in one way or another.

As to the evidence that most experts agree on the matter, short of collecting every paper I can access, I can't see how I can prove it to you on a forum like this. Just open a standard textbook on the subject. I guarantee you it will assume a causal link between environmental variables (such as the speech of others) and behaviour.

To trust something merely because they're experts is the argument from authority fallacy. — Terrapin Station

I never suggested trusting them merely because they are experts. But to automatically doubt them without due cause is no less fallacious.

What factual claim do you think I'm making? — Terrapin Station

That actions are taken free from causal influence from the environment. This claim is not only central to your position, but requires you to invent some magical force which causes human action. I'd say that at least carries some requirement for evidence.

Psychology deals with observed causes and effects and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of consistency. Neuroscience deals with cause and effect with observed brain activity and fits them to hypotheses on the basis of co-incident behaviours. — Isaac

Okay, so you're saying that psychology and neuroscience are the relevant fields.

What are a couple examples you have in mind of psychologists and/or neuroscientists claiming that speech is causal to subsequent actions in other people?

Just open a standard textbook on the subject. I guarantee you it will assume a causal link between environmental variables (such as the speech of others) and behaviour. — Isaac

You're making the claim. Hopefully you're not just making it up, betting on not being wrong. So just give a couple examples.

That actions are taken free from causal influence from the environment. — Isaac

I said nothing like that. Not the least reason for which is the odd conjunction of "causal" and "influence."

Can you give a couple examples of what you're sampling for a claim like that? — Terrapin Station

No, I can't be bothered. You know as as I well how such inquiries are carried out. I will not carry on clarifying my clarifications beyond the point where even my autistic judgement can see that you're taking the piss. That point has been reached and passed.

No, I can't be bothered. You know as as I well how such inquiries are carried out. — Pattern-chaser

Okay . . but without some examples, I don't at all believe that there's any example of looking at this where it would turn out that most people exposed to an utterance reacted violently.

And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently.

I don't at all believe that there's any example of looking at this where it would turn out that most people exposed to an utterance reacted violently. — Terrapin Station

[Straw-man alert]

"And that would rather amount to there being a negative correlation between the utterance and the action in question. Most people exposed to the utterance did not act violently. "

The point being that the argument that there's even a positive correlation would be false.

What are a couple examples you have in mind of psychologists and/or neuroscientists claiming that speech is causal to subsequent actions in other people? — Terrapin Station

I'm not about to waste my time linking papers by authorities you fully intend to reject. I've been here before and spent half the day looking up links to suitable papers only to have them rejected out of hand, it's not worth the effort. If you have so little experience of psychology that you don't already know the consensus opinion on the matter, then I can't see the point of this line of argument.

If you really want something to go on, then I can just pick the names of psychology professors I know of. I can guarantee they will be of the opinion that environmental influences are causal. In fact I'm struggling to think of any psychologists who do not think that.

I'm not about to waste my time linking papers by authorities you fully intend to reject. — Isaac

Okay. I can't say I'm at all surprised.

How about if I paypal you, say, $100 if you can find a psychologist or neuroscientist clearly saying that speech is causal to others' subsequent behavior?

They have to use the word "causal" (or say something like "It's a cause"), where it's at least suggested that the others, those being caused to act, didn't have a choice in how they acted.

It has to be someone whose credentials are verifiable, and we need to be able to confirm that they wrote this prior to today (to prevent you from simply having someone you know write it for this purpose).

No debate about it--just find anyone saying something like that and I'll paypal you the money.

I said nothing like that. Not the least reason for which is the odd conjunction of "causal" and "influence." — Terrapin Station

You most certainly said something like that. What is odd about causal and influence being conjoined?

Okay. I can't say I'm at all surprised. — Terrapin Station

Why, do you think that most experts would not agree?

What is odd about causal and influence being conjoined? — Isaac

Influences are not the same thing as causes.

Why, do you think that most experts would not agree? — Isaac

I can't recall ever seeing any psychologist claiming that speech is causal to others' subsequent actions, where the others did not have any choice in the matter. That would be positing something like the Manchurian Candidate, hence the joke about that earlier.

As for neuroscientists, I can't recall ever seeing anything even approaching what would be a discussion about this.

where it's at least suggested that the others, those being caused to act, didn't have a choice in how they acted — Terrapin Station

... And this is why I didn't bother wasting my time.

Who said anything about "didn't have a choice in how they acted", who ever mentioned hat the cause must be sufficient. In fact I seem to remember quite a long exchange about how causes do not have to be sufficient. So why would my evidence need to show that they were unable to act otherwise?

Who said anything about "didn't have a choice in how they acted", — Isaac

If they had a choice, then the speech wasn't the cause. Their decision was.

I made this clear from the very start.

Better for people in general? and/or 'is having less laws better in the sense that more laws cause a net gain in worse effects?'