Or, if someone has a political misapprehension and you change their mind with a good argument, how is that different from convincing them that "[Nearly pure] water freezes at [approximately] 32 degrees Fahrenheit [under conditions typical on the surface of the earth]" if they did not believe this was the case before?I've heard people say "I don't know" about political questions.
It's a good response. It is one of the few which is unlikely to be contradicted, even when it is false.Political positions are alterable by argument, or at gunpoint
You could get people to say that wealth inequality is okay by pointing a gun at them, but could you get them to believe it? A recent discussion questions whether a rational person actually decides what to believe, or is compelled toward inescapable conclusions.
I suppose that depends on how you convinced them. The difference, typically, is in how your interlocutor perceives the two assertions. Not only is the freezing water assertion testable, it's also a matter in which almost no one has an emotional stake. The difference between water freezing at 32 or 33 isn't going to alienate you from your family or friends. On either side of the political fence, beliefs will. We don't have narratives, or whole cultures, dependent on the freezing point of water. I have a vague sense I haven't really answered your question somehow. If I haven't, let me know. Thanks.
You will probably start with a thermometer. Okay, the most expensive thermometer for sale on Amazon costs over a thousand dollars and is accurate to only ±2°C. So we will have to be very specific about equipment. And even if we get better tools, there will still be a limit to the accuracy of our measurement. Next, you will want to specify a very precise environment. Air pressure plays a role and the container makes a difference. And of course, you will want to obtain the purest water possible, but even the highest standards allow some contamination. Suppose we have a laboratory kept as close to 32 degrees Fahrenheit as possible. Into this lab we introduce a block of ice which is also at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (or just a little colder), and a beaker of water which is at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (or just a little warmer). What will happen? I don't know! If the water doesn't freeze, doesn't that disprove the assertion? In the end, I think the best you can hope for is a highly qualified claim like "Nearly pure water, when cooled from 34 degrees Fahrenheit to 30 degrees Fahrenheit, freezes at approximately 32 degrees under typical conditions" which adds to our understanding of the world but is not an elegant and universal truth statement. That kind of statement does not sound so different to me than a claim like "In modern democratic capitalist societies, minimum wage laws as typically drafted and enforced generate more benefit than harm to low-skilled workers." I am not even sure which would be easier to test; it all depends on your criteria.I have a vague sense I haven't really answered your question somehow.
You have done something better; you have given me things to think about. Thanks!Not only is the freezing water assertion testable,
I am going to risk being a bit obtuse and pedantic here and ask if you are sure. That is, can you establish that the statement "Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit" is true or false? Suppose I ask you to prove it to me?it's also a matter in which almost no one has an emotional stake.
This is highly significant, but of course has nothing to do with the truth value of the assertion, and everything to do with the irrational kind of shortcuts that helped our ancestors make babies instead of wasting time worrying about nucleation sites.
I'm inclined to say that since the state change itself involves an energy transfer that nothing would happen -- but I'm not sure either. I am confident though (yes, I know that my confidence proves nothing) that if you did the identical experiment under the identical conditions in a hundred different laboratories you would get identical results. If you did get variations, you would look for (and probably find) variables you hadn’t eliminated, including (as you point out) imprecision in your instruments. You would not conclude that water has variable properties. Now consider your sample assertion: “In modern democratic capitalist societies, minimum wage laws as typically drafted and enforced generate more benefit than harm to low-skilled workers.” What do “modern,” “democratic,” “capitalist,” “typically,” “benefit,” “harm,” and “low-skilled” mean? All of these terms are subject to endless interpretation. I am not saying that we should throw our hands up and give up on public policy altogether, but I am saying when people discuss such matters they are rarely, if ever, on the same page.
I have read your article again and am substantially in agreement. The Voltaire quote is great, too. But I feel that saying political issues are more complex than scientific issues and therefore people disagree about politics is too ... simple. There are plenty of scientific issues of deep complexity. Typical people who are willing to argue about nationalized health insurance despite a lack of expertise will not argue about protein folding, regardless of the complexity. Huemer argues that people are subject to bias when discussing politics, and they sometimes have good, rational reasons for their bias. I think this is an important factor, and one that should be included as part of the dizzying complexity that makes political questions contentious.
I agree with all of that. I picked the freezing point of water to use as an example, and not quantum theory, for a reason! Much of science is extremely complex -- but ALL of economics is. That's why laws in economics become less reliable as economists try to make them more precise. Great discussion. I hope to hear from you again.