They are useful for identifying the limits of instances of human consciousness, at least. With an adequate sample size, it can also be used to develop an algorithm for how the human mind will behave when it is put into certain situations, what forms of rhetoric and memes it will grasp for when it finds the ground it was standing on no longer (or doesn't actually) exists, etc.

>Yes I would consider the label objectively true assuming it fell within the bounds of some purity standard.

The purity standard is what was stated on the label: 100%.

>a) Rigged isn’t measured in percentages.

Is it measured in any units? And if it is not being measured, does that not leave only the imagination (in this particular scenario)?

>b) They can both be ignored because they missed the first point and started arguing.

Ignoring something is always an option, but it doesn't cause it to go away. It can certainly make it seem like it has gone away though, and you know what they say: Perception is Reality.

> a) False

Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?

> b) yes

If someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct, and successfully defend that demonstration from valid logical and epistemic critique?

--

And I will re-use this:

If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?

> Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up

Do you realize I covered this already, in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up (something that you may have "Expert" knowledge of, but not comprehensive Knowledge (JTB) of)?

>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this? > > > > Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.

Can you tell me why I am doing this?

> I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading.

In my case you would be correct on the "intentionally" part, but this may not be a safe bet with most people. Remember: everyone is doing their best.

> This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong

Disagree - technically, it "is" correct (well, depending one the particular implementation of isRigged() one is using, and whether the implementation changes per topic). It is not comprehensively correct though!

> Yeah I get what you're doing here....

To some degree ("get" is not a binary).

> ...but you're reducing the 'rigging' down to smaller active chunks that are not necessarily representative of the system.

Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?

> These chunks are far more dependent on personal corruption than systemic 'rigging'.

A reasonable speculation by common standards, although it is framed as (and perhaps even perceived as) a false dichotomy, so perhaps not likely to be necessarily correct.

> A 'rigged' system implies that the system is specifically set up in a way to produce erroneous results.

Very true! We could choose a different word if you'd like, but I will apply the same strict epistemology to that.

> A small team or department producing erroneous results for personal profit motives, is quite a bit different then systemic rigging - primarily because the system would want it try remove the offending people, because the system itself does not approve of 'rigging'.

Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating? "does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently slippery/subjective way to consider it.

> And we don't have to imagine a system either...

It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.

> ...there are lots of drug regulatory agencies, from the FDA to Heath Canada, to the EMA that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.

And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me (which is where imagination makes its appearance).

> I literally don't know what you mean by 'rigged' in this context.

That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words - not only do we not, people are generally severely opposed to them. I prefer them, so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.

> Do you know how complicated the data production and regulatory requirements are to pass something like FDA clearance? Because I do....

What definition are you using for "know" here?

> Just saying that 'the approval of drug X was rigged' is an incredibly vauge statement.

Correct - one among many vague/ambiguous/subjective statements involved in this conversation.

> There's a thousand different things that a company must produce and provide to a regulatory agency like the FDA to be verified prior to drug approval - there's many ways that companies can 'fudge' or 'massage' data to get it to say what the company wants prior to FDA submission.

Agree! This, and many other things.

>> the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.

> Sure it can. You have to be very clear of what is 'rigging' and what is not 'rigging' - you have to define your terms of they're to be 'correct' or applicable.

"Rigging" is largely subjective. In addition to this, you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem (like: unknown unknowns), and a consciousness problem.

> Edit: furthermore, 'rigging' implies intentionality behind the decision - which is an accustaion that requires evidence.

Should require evidence...and this applies to all the claims you made here today. Lucky for you, presenting (epistemically sound and logically conclusive) evidence for claims on the internet is not only not required, it is almost never done!

> Just becuase the FDA approves a drug that otherwise wouldn't/shouldn't have been approved is not evidence of rigging, it could be, for exmaple, a mistake, or there may be other confounding variables.

Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.

>>> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals - which does not represent the system.

>> Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?

> Of course not - I'm saying that there's a dramatic difference between Bob the quality control officer at the FDA allowing a drug to pass some quality parameter when company X fudged a data set error rate from 12% to 9%, passing the 10% error threshold set by the FDA, because Bob is friends with Tim, a designer at company X

But, if there are in fact corrupt individuals within the system, would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted? (Replace "corrupt" with "imperfect" if you prefer comprehensiveness as I do).

> And systemic rigging that specifically allows for certain companies or individuals to skate by regulatory constrains without question becuase the regulatory agency has some special interest in that company.

I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔

> Just becuase there are individual corrupt actors acting within a system does not mean that the system is systemically rigged...

Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()? I am interested to see the variables and logic (the general form, and if you are using binary or ternary) you are using.

> ...it's not designed to be rigged.

This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged (but it may have bearing on perceptions of it).

> Especially when, if the system was aware of the individual corruption, it would very likely act to expunge that corruption.

Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up - when in Rome, act like a Roman and all that).

>Wondering about my funding, implying that despite a decade of training to become a scientist, and all the experience after, I’m really just in it for the money and so am willing to push false narratives.

This is one possible interpretation, but there are many other possibilities.

Do they not cover the difference between subjective and objective reality in science and philosophy curriculum these days? Or how about psychology - did heuristics get covered at all in your studies?

> I can’t help you.

Whether you can help yourself seems like a more pressing issue.

>As far as whether I’m in the right place, I’m a career scientist with a bonus philosophy degree, I might have a clue.

This may provide some very valuable insight into the metaphysical nature of reality.

>> a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged." > > > > Its false, the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority.

If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True):

a) considering the "fact" that the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority?

b) considering that "the tiny minority does not define the overwhelming majority" may not actually be factual?

> Calm down

?

It might be, if the person was making an assertion rather than asking questions (which is what I'm doing), and then only if they asserted that the representation is an accurate representation rather than a hypothetical thought experiment, and also if they genuinely intended to mislead people.

But then, this assumes a flawlessly rational observer, which is perhaps not a safe assumption....so maybe you are (kind of) right after all!

Interestingly, it is very easy to mislead people while being genuinely sincere and acting "in good faith" - for example, might it be possible that your comment could be misleading?

> What does this even mean? How can a system be 0.01% rigged?

Imagine a system composed of X departments or modules - simply divide the number of rigged ones by the total and you have your ratio - of course, to do this correctly one would need a flawless algorithm for objectively identifying rigged-ness, but most people would balk at that so they use heuristics or subjective algorithms that are claimed/implied to be objective.

> Are you staying that 1 in every 10 thousand drugs is going to erroneously pass a clinical trial - because what? The system chose to rig it in that particular drugs favour?

No, I am simply saying that if it is in fact rigged, then it is rigged.

EDIT: actually, this is technically incorrect - in my previous comment, I made no assertions, but rather asked two questions about your "facts" (which you didn't answer, for some reason I imagine). EDIT 2: I was wrong again! You are not the original poster...it is /u/TheTrueLordHumungous who has yet to answer. (Man, this is a lot more complicated than it seems.)

> That doesn't make much sense.

Well, one way it could "make sense" is that if people with decision making power have financial or ~personal interests in decisions.

> It's much more likely that in this proposed scenario the drug would be erroneously approved due to the actions of a single, or a few corrupt individuals....

"likely" is a heuristic prediction with an unknown truth value - I prefer to think tautologically: the level of rigged-ness of a system is equal to the level to which the system is rigged - this is better because it cannot possibly be incorrect.

> ...which does not represent the system.

Is this to say that there are zero corrupt individuals in the system?

Question:

a) if .01% of a system is genuinely rigged, is this statement as a binary True or False: "The system is rigged."

b) if two people answer differently, is one of them correct and the other incorrect, objectively and necessarily?

> The assumption here is that most people will be comfortable and halfway knowledgeable of themes being treated.

True, but there are several other variables involved, one of which is how people respond to specific language/style that is used during conversation.

Not a big deal, just thought it was possibly interesting.

Agree (I think?)...but I'm thinking more along the lines of something like diplomacy...but not in terms of getting people to like you, or necessarily agree with / adopt your ideas, but rather from the perspective of getting people to even consider your ideas. (But of course, this can take away from the fun/ease aspect.)

I hope this makes some sense, some ideas are difficult to communicate.

> It's part of the package if you ask me.

Whether that is necessary or optimal is another matter. But then, there's something to be said for having fun as well!

>Morals can’t exist outside of freedom.

Non-voluntary income taxes would yield morality impossible then wouldn't it?

>This has to be the case.

What enforces this rule?

>Additionally, the sense of freedom we experience is undeniable.

I disagree.

> I think, over time, intellectuals in general became more critical of those power dynamics. Enlightenment thinkers were critical of religious dogma, liberal theorists were imagining an alternative to the monarchies of the day, socialists were critical of capitalist structures, and anarchists were critical of the emerging nation state.

I think of it as an onion that can be peeled, except when people peel off a layer or two (genuine or otherwise), they often find something (genuine or otherwise) so compelling that the possibility that there are more layers often slips their mind.

> The remaining intellectuals are fearful of speaking out too much, subverted to serve power unintentionally, suppressed entirely, or quietly sabotaged through language and information manipulation.

...~hypnotized

> Along with this deepening skepticism for the traditional structures of society came backlash. History could have probably gone one way or the other, but the way it went was a victory for the power structures against intellectual analysis. Today, I think, we're living in an era (a kind of Dark Age in a sense) where unjustified power structures have asserted themselves (mostly through violence, their primary tool) and seem invincible (and even inevitable).

I think the primary tool is propaganda - propaganda is an interesting word, because the unique way that each mind conceptualizes it (both in general but especially with respect to certain scenarios) is a function of propaganda itself. (Note: my usage of the word "propaganda" includes both deliberately nefarious kinds, as well as just plain old misinformation, regardless of motive).

> As far as social media, I think many experts in their field have little to gain and just don't engage.

Agree...but I am speaking of those that do, and among those there seems to be little diversity when it comes to behavior regarding beliefs/truth - many things come in a normal distribution, some of them are easy for the mind to accept (height), some are not (cognitive behavior).

> In person, I find that intellectuals are more than happy to engage in conversation. Excited even, given how few and far between it is to find someone willing or enthusiastic towards stimulating conversation.

Until one touches certain sensitive topics!

> We're trained by corporate propaganda (which we call advertising instead) to act based on our feelings ...

Agree...but I am proposing that there is a subset of ideas that ~no one can escape, that seem to be so intolerable to the mind, it melts down into logical and emotional chaos - we've all seen videos of batshit insane Trump supporters, I believe that ~all people can be brought to a similar state of mind (if perhaps to a lesser magnitude of accompanying bizarre behaviors).

> I've seen this sometimes, and I wonder if it's a form of learned helplessness.

Learned via propaganda is my intuition - my theory is: if someone starts talking about your plan but in a way that you haven't encountered before, or in a way that proposes opposing/modifying The System, fight or flight type heuristics kick in, and the conscious mind is helpless against that.

It's a wild and wacky world out there!!

> but nonetheless society produced intellectuals, which it is doing less and less today

And of the ones we do produce, do you think it is possible that they are "of a different kind", perhaps in ways we are not able to discern?

> Personally, I think it comes down to dogma and taboo. Intellectualism isn't allowed to flourish as it once was.

Agree....and I (perceive myself to) notice this in many different forms....for example, on plausibly "intellectual" subreddits, people (including genuinely intelligent ones) refusing to engage in intellectual discussion. Do you think my read is off here? ("For many intellectuals, their expertise is a point of shame or brings out reactionary violence" suggests not?)

> I think this trend really started in the 19th century with the backlash against most of the great intellectuals like Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, etc. who challenged the dogma of the time. Today, the most cited scholar in human history (Noam Chomsky) was blacklisted by the media.

Agree!! And, it's a shame, bordering on surreal (at least in modern internet times) imho.

> Also, since seeking utopia has been demonized so heavily...

In my experiencing floating the idea in different venues (online and in person, across a decently wide variety of cultures) the mere mention of it tends to invoke laughter, and if that is challenged then....other weird stuff starts to happen. I've yet to encounter someone who can push beyond their innate reaction, although to be fair I haven't done too many experiments.

> The climate today paints ideas like socialism or communism as a naive utopia...

Maybe not the same thing, but I have noticed a pattern where if someone is in favour of a general idea, and if you go like "Ya, yes let's do that then....", people suddenly switch tack and are like "Whoa whoa whoa, <and then various reasons why actually pursuing the very goal they proposed is a bad idea, or their interest level in their own idea simply drops 90%>". It's very strange and may seem impossible, but I see it over and over.

> it means perfect knowledge is never perfect, always seek more knowledge, perfection is impossible.

Are you describing The Tao, or something else?

> Utopia cannot exist because perfection is an imaginary human concept that will never occur in reality, man made or naturally.

utopia.equals(perfection) == true?

> Its like the concept of free will, no such thing. lol

It is not actually known whether humans have free will though.

> It's simply an idea

Certain simple ideas seem to cause the mind to retract, as if it has some innate fear or something.

> The alternative is having no direction, no guide post.

Well, there's also ~authoritarianism, or basically rule by people who are not so lazy.

Modern humans seem to have some sort of an innate aversion to engaging in intellectual activities that past people engaged in enthusiastically...I wonder if the world is becoming so complex and filled with propaganda and bad news that there is some sort of a mass psychological effect in play, like individual minds are individually shutting down certain processes, perhaps in a self-defensive stance of some sort?

Have you noticed any of this or am I maybe talking out of my arse?

edit: ping /u/Meta_Digital based on your comments.

> The hypothetical is in fundamental conflict with reality, so any takeaway from it is meaningless.

Can you explain what you mean here? Just because a hypothesis doesn't perfectly align with "reality" (whatever that is, opinions vary widely), how would this make it impossible for meaning to co-exist?