Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

But that's dicta, and there's a good reason that resolutions of issues not addressed by the parties aren't binding on future decisions. The courts need to hear vigorous presentations of both sides of a dispute to be able to decide the issue properly. No doubt everything Scalia said came from some brief or another, rather than his own analysis of the specific statutory language involved.



Saying that you have to read a provision in the context of the entire statute doesn't mean the 4th Circuit opinion wins. The D.C. Circuit, itself, followed this rule:

The DC Circuit's full opinion has not been made. And when it is made, they'll rule in the law's favor. So...

 

[benjipwns]

Ugh . . . what a pile of garbage. I don't understand how people can follow some gobbledy-gook that rejects empiricism and scientific method. Might as well follow astrology, homeopathy, and VooDoo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

Praxeology and Austrian Economics don't reject empiricism. They just question the value of positivism in economics when the field rests on axioms of human action and then logical extrapolations. Even when creating a model. In other fields like physics you can't know the motivations behind gravity or whatever and you only know as much as the operational theories and models can explain facts we can observe.

You can create an Austrian model as well as any other, but they'd probably wonder why the heck you were bothering to spend time doing it since you're going to have to explain it and it's already explainable.

Personally, I'd consider economics to be a bit more of a science than political science. But more than zero doesn't mean much.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The DC Circuit's full opinion has not been made. And when it is made, they'll rule in the law's favor. So...

Until the D.C. Circuit en banc issues a contrary opinion, Halbig is the D.C. Circuit's opinion.

 

[Aaron Strife]

And anti-gay. And likely to deny climate science. And more concerned about cutting taxes than actually reducing the deficit.

Hey wait . . . they are just Republicans that are isolationists.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Until the D.C. Circuit en banc issues a contrary opinion, Halbig is the D.C. Circuit's opinion.

So when they do, and rule in the law's favor, I assume that means you won't be discussing the three judge panel's ruling anymore right?

 

[Black Mamba]

Right, but were they merely stating what they thought Congress was attempting to do, but stopped short of actually addressing the validity of their intent in that regard, as that ruling did not actually have anything to do with the subsidies?

Scalia stated what the law does, out right, as written. There is no ambiguity. He agrees the subsidies are meant for federal exchanges as it is written.

To change his mind would be about the most absurd thing any justice has ever done.

But that's dicta, and there's a good reason that resolutions of issues not addressed by the parties aren't binding on future decisions. The courts need to hear vigorous presentations of both sides of a dispute to be able to decide the issue properly. No doubt everything Scalia said came from some brief or another, rather than his own analysis of the specific statutory language involved.

It's irrelevant that it is dicta. I never argued that it was anything else. What matters is that Scalia is on record as stating how the law, as written, works, so for him to later agree with an argument that says the law, as written, works differently would be pure partisan hackery.

They can literally argue their case by quoting Scalia. It's a pretty damning argument. Scalia would have to be denying his own claims from 2 years ago to switch sides. He won't be doing that, I assure you.

Saying that you have to read a provision in the context of the entire statute doesn't mean the 4th Circuit opinion wins. The D.C. Circuit, itself, followed this rule

And then ignored it, essentially, because whythefucknot.

It says something that every other court has essentially mocked...not simply disagreed with, but laughingly mocked the argument put forth in halbig, including some conservative judges. These 2 are the ones partisan enough to ignore it.

It's a stupid fucking argument.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I remember getting some shit for saying Kansas Senate would turn into a tossup if the tea party beat Sen. Roberts in the primary, so

http://ksn.com/2014/07/24/ksn-news-poll-still-shows-davis-ahead-of-brownback-in-race-for-governor/

Gov:
Davis (D) 48, Brownback (R) 40, Libertarian 5

Senate:
Roberts (R) 35, Taylor (D) 28, Orman (I) 16, Libertarian 5
Taylor (D) 34, Wolf (R) 33, Orman (I) 14, Libertarian 5

shut up

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I remember getting some shit for saying Kansas Senate would turn into a tossup if the tea party beat Sen. Roberts in the primary, so

http://ksn.com/2014/07/24/ksn-news-poll-still-shows-davis-ahead-of-brownback-in-race-for-governor/


shut up

Its not a toss up.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Its not a toss up.

would be if pat roberts lost the primary

 

[Metaphoreus]

So when they do, and rule in the law's favor, I assume that means you won't be discussing the three judge panel's ruling anymore right?

Tell you what I can do for you, PD. If the D.C. Circuit sitting en banc reverses the panel in Halbig, I'll thereafter refer to the panel opinion as "Halbig v. Burwell, No. 14-5018, 2014 WL 3579745 (D.C. Cir. July 22, 2014), rev'd en banc, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. 20__)" (or as otherwise required by standard rules of legal citation). Would that make you feel better?

 

[PhoenixDark]

would be if pat roberts lost the primary

No it won't be considering third party candidate wouldn't get nearly that much of the vote. It doesn't matter which republican wins in the Kansas senate, they'll win.

BTW how's Iowa looking.

 

[Aaron Strife]

No it won't be considering third party candidate wouldn't get nearly that much of the vote. It doesn't matter which republican wins in the Kansas senate, they'll win.

BTW how's Iowa looking.

Yes it would

BTW it's looking about as good as North Carolina and Arkansas. I can't wait to pick out your new avatar

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yes it would

BTW it's looking about as good as North Carolina and Arkansas. I can't wait to pick out your new avatar

No it wouldn't. You really think third parties are going to pick that much up?

Do you really think they'll vote for that if they fear a democrat picking up.

 

[Aaron Strife]

No it wouldn't. You really think third parties are going to pick that much up?

Sure! Granted i don't know who Oman is but if he has a brand he could get some support

Do you really think they'll vote for that if they fear a democrat picking up.

Third party candidates spoil elections all the time.

 

[benjipwns]

The last time a Libertarian cracked 2% in a Kansas election was when no Democrat ran against Roberts in 2002.

Orman briefly ran for the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2008: http://www.marketwired.com/press-re...s-senate-launches-campaign-website-810726.htm

EDIT: The Libertarian candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor are father and son, heh.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sure! Granted i don't know who Oman is but if he has a brand he could get some support


Third party candidates spoil elections all the time.

Your living in a different world. Yes third parties have spoil elections but your extrapolations the thoughts of someone trying to get their liked conclusion

 

[Mort]

Praxeology and Austrian Economics don't reject empiricism.

If you don't realize that praxeology is an overt rejection of empiricism and science, then you don't know what any of those things are.

 

[benjipwns]

Well, I mean, sure, it's a social science but I'm meeting people halfway.

Human Action doesn't reject empiricism so much as question its usage.

 

[Oblivion]

Scalia stated what the law does, out right, as written. There is no ambiguity. He agrees the subsidies are meant for federal exchanges as it is written.

To change his mind would be about the most absurd thing any justice has ever done.



It's irrelevant that it is dicta. I never argued that it was anything else. What matters is that Scalia is on record as stating how the law, as written, works, so for him to later agree with an argument that says the law, as written, works differently would be pure partisan hackery.

They can literally argue their case by quoting Scalia. It's a pretty damning argument. Scalia would have to be denying his own claims from 2 years ago to switch sides. He won't be doing that, I assure you.

But didn't Scalia go against his own ruling in the EPA case a few weeks ago?

 

[eBay Huckster]

I'm gonna go ahead and say KS-Senate ain't a race any of us should be focusing on, and that it's basically a foregone conclusion that the DC Circuit is not finding for the plaintiffs of Halbig en banc.

 

[Metaphoreus]

It's irrelevant that it is dicta. . . . Scalia would have to be denying his own claims from 2 years ago to switch sides. He won't be doing that, I assure you.

The fact that it's dicta is far from irrelevant. The courts take what's given to them in deciding cases. Scalia was never confronted with the question of whether the law provides for subsidies on exchanges established by the federal government, and was never presented with arguments going one way or the other. Even your source admits that, at most, Scalia "assumed" that subsidies would be available on federal exchanges. But, in reality, he did even less than that. Consider the quotations from Scalia one at a time:

1. "Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State."

Nobody disputes this, and it says nothing about the availability of subsidies on the exchanges established by the federal government.

2. "In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur­ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated."

Again, this says nothing about the availability of subsidies on a federally established exchange. It merely expresses an expectation concerning the consequences of a lack of subsidies on an exchange.

3. "By 2019, 20 million of the 24 million people who will obtain insurance through an exchange are expected to receive an average federal subsidy of $6,460 per person."

At this point, you're being misled. While Scalia did write the above, he cited as authority for the statement pages 18-19 of a CBO report released in March 2011. So, Gluck's argument is as follows: (1) Scalia cited figures from a CBO report. (2) To arrive at those figures, the CBO report assumed that subsidies would be available on 51 exchanges. (3) Therefore, Scalia stated that subsidies are available on federal exchanges. But to bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion, she sneaks in a fact unbeknownst to everyone in March 2011 (and August 2011, when the IRS rule was proposed; and June 2012, when NFIB v. Sebelius was decided): only 16 states have established their own exchange. You should only buy Gluck's argument if you believe Scalia's a time traveler.

Spoiler

Which I don't.

And then ignored it, essentially, because whythefucknot.

Which provision do you believe they should have addressed, but didn't?

 

[Diablos]

Scalia was never confronted with the question of whether the law provides for subsidies on exchanges established by the federal government, and was never presented with arguments going one way or the other. Even your source admits that, at most, Scalia "assumed" that subsidies would be available on federal exchanges. But, in reality, he did even less than that. Consider the quotations from Scalia one at a time

This really is the heart of the matter of what we're fighting about here, imo. Scalia merely assuming what the law/Congress intends to do is irrelevant because NFIB v. Sebelius had absolutely nothing to do with the subsidies. There were no arguments made for and against what the ACA really means in regards to how and when subsidies are to be available.

And yeah, note the EPA case. Scalia is a shitstain, ruling against himself -- either that or he is senile and should promptly retire (wishful thinking)...

 

[Aaron Strife]

Your living in a different world. Yes third parties have spoil elections but your extrapolations the thoughts of someone trying to get their liked conclusion

We shall see

FWIW I've always attached the (big) caveat that I don't think Roberts is in any real danger.

 

[Black Mamba]

The fact that it's dicta is far from irrelevant. The courts take what's given to them in deciding cases. Scalia was never confronted with the question of whether the law provides for subsidies on exchanges established by the federal government, and was never presented with arguments going one way or the other. Even your source admits that, at most, Scalia "assumed" that subsidies would be available on federal exchanges.

Once again, completely irrelevant. Can you find one instance of a SCOTUS judge assuming that the law works one way and then in a follow-up case arguing that it works in a completely different way? My guess is a resounding "no."

The fact that Scalia assumed that subsidies would be available on federal exchanges irrefutably demonstrates that this is his interpretation of the law. If it wasn't his interpretation, then he should never had stated it. If his interpretation of how the law works is dictated to him by the federal government, CBO, Congress, or whomever, is once again, irrelevant. The very moment he puts pen to paper that assumes how the law works he is on official record describing his interpretation of how the law works.

And since he interprets the plain meaning of the law to work with subsidies on the federal exchange, to go against his original reading would be nothing short of partisan hackery (aside from a ridiculous conclusion).

But, in reality, he did even less than that. Consider the quotations from Scalia one at a time:

1. "Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State."

Nobody disputes this, and it says nothing about the availability of subsidies on the exchanges established by the federal government.

2. "In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insur­ance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. … That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated."

Again, this says nothing about the availability of subsidies on a federally established exchange. It merely expresses an expectation concerning the consequences of a lack of subsidies on an exchange.

It implicitly acknowledges that the federal exchanges can only work if the subsidies are given through the federal exchange.

How fucking stupid would Scalia have to assume Congress is to write the law any other way. You're making this your argument and maybe when you see it out in the open so plainly you'll see how stupid it fucking reads.

1. The insurance marketplaces will rely on subsidies from the federal gov't. Without these subsidies, the whole system collapses.

2. The states have the authority to make these marketplaces with the subsidies provided.

3. Should a state decide not to operate its own marketplace, the federal gov't will serve to create a back-up marketplace, which will not have subsidies and will therefore collapse.

See how stupid it is? To accept the argument that Scalia didn't acknowledge the federally run exchange have subsidies is to accept that he understand that without the subsidies the exchange will fail and yet Congress opted to create such an exchange as a proverbial "back-up."

It's so nonsensical. Scalia may be a bastard but he is very logical (in a formal way) in his reasoning. So unless your argument is Scalia lost all sense of formal logic (since it is very clearly to anyone with the brain of a paraquat that the federal exchanges were intended to have subsidies based on the fact that they're useless without them), your argument has no leg to stand on.

I'm not going to assume Scalia is a moron like you seem to be willing to leave to open debate. (bastard, asshole, wrong, yes...moronic, no).

edit: I just realized one way to address this. It would be like reading a book and the protagonist while in confrontation with someone says "and Mamba pulled out his gun inside his coat pocket. Death. Metaphoreus body lay still, bleeding from the head."

Now you're arguing we don't know for sure it was the gun that killed him because it wasn't literally told to you. And you're arguing Scalia may be too dumb to realize it even though 2 years ago he wrote an essay about the theme of the book and acknowledged Mamba killed Metaphoreus with his gun.

Which provision do you believe they should have addressed, but didn't?

All of them. Their reading of the law is nonsensical. HAI GUISE WE WROTE IN A BACKUP PLAN THAT WE KNOW CANNOT WORK JUST BECAUSE OF LULZ!



On a side note to this, I have no idea why you're entertaining these arguments. Look, I get that you're generally the more conservative poster here and you try to give conservatives some kind of a voice, which is great and all, but that doesn't mean you have to jump into everything no matter how awful just because. It's like the Akin rape stuff you marched right into without looking through it (which you later admitted to being wrong). It's okay not to defend everything. You don't see liberals here defender the plagiarizing Democrat, do you? I generally don't think of you as a partisan but sometimes I don't get why you are willing to defend ridiculous positions.

Do you truly and honestly believe the ACA intended for the federal exchanges not to have subsidies? Do you think reading the entire law lends one to this conclusion or to the conclusion that they do give out the subsidies?

Because, to me and most sensible people, that would be one of the most ridiculous conclusions in the history of conclusions.


I still don't think this will make it up to the SCOTUS because en banc will overrule it..but it if did, I would put my account on the line that it would be 9-0 in favor of subsidies for federal exchanges. Any other decision would be so absurd that I'm not being hyperbolic when I say it would be the worst decision since Plessy v Ferguson.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Once again, completely irrelevant. Can you find one instance of a SCOTUS judge assuming that the law works one way and then in a follow-up case arguing that it works in a completely different way? My guess is a resounding "no."

Judges assume resolutions to issues without deciding them all the time. And when they do so, they are free to ignore those assumptions when they are finally confronted squarely with the issue. (For instance, in Hobby Lobby, Alito assumed that the government had a compelling interest in enforcing the contraceptive mandate. But this doesn't mean he would be a hypocrite for addressing just that question at some point in the future.) Scalia was not confronted with the question you believe he answered. He was addressing another question: If the Medicaid expansion, the individual mandate, and the insurance regulations in the ACA were all to be invalidated by the Court, could the rest of the law still stand? His answer assumed that the law worked the way he was told it worked, and he was not required to look into it further.

And, again, Scalia didn't assume that subsidies would be available on the federal exchange. He never even discussed that issue. But if he had, what makes you so sure he wasn't simply stating an observation? After all, by the time NFIB was decided, the IRS rule--stating that subsidies would be available regardless of whether insurance was obtained on an exchange established by a state or the federal government--had already been finalized (after being initially proposed almost a year earlier).

It implicitly acknowledges that the federal exchanges can only work if the subsidies are given through the federal exchange.

How fucking stupid would Scalia have to assume Congress is to write the law any other way.

Everyone thinks Congress is stupid. Ample evidence supports that position. But that doesn't mean Scalia believed Congress authorized subsidies on the federal exchange. It means he might be surprised to discover they hadn't. The statement "Law X can't work without Provision Z" is not equivalent to the statement "Law X enacts Provision Z." You (and Gluck) are making an unjustified leap.

edit: I just realized one way to address this. It would be like reading a book and the protagonist while in confrontation with someone says "and Mamba pulled out his gun inside his coat pocket. Death. Metaphoreus body lay still, bleeding from the head."

Now you're arguing we don't know for sure it was the gun that killed him because it wasn't literally told to you.

Not at all. I recognize the legitimacy of circumstantial evidence. I just don't think Scalia's statement signifies what you think it signifies. To borrow your example, I'd be well within my rights as a reader to disbelieve that Mamba killed Metaphoreus. Stories not infrequently include details meant to mislead the reader into reaching the wrong conclusion about what happened. And the fact that I wasn't literally told that Mamba killed Metaphoreus with the gun is circumstantial (though not conclusive) evidence that that's not what happened (because the author intentionally left out details)!

All of them. Their reading of the law is nonsensical. HAI GUISE WE WROTE IN A BACKUP PLAN THAT WE KNOW CANNOT WORK JUST BECAUSE OF LULZ!

"All of them" is an easy answer to give, but a hard one to defend. Name one.

And nobody believes Congress knew their plan wouldn't work. Those who accept the challengers' arguments believe that Congress thought their plan would work, by inducing the states to establish an exchange. It's just that, they also believe Congress was wrong in that belief.

Finally, I participate in these discussions to offer a viewpoint that it seems like some of you are not exposed to. In addition, by participating, I am exposed to viewpoints I otherwise would miss out on. So, to use your example, based on my travels through the Internet, I thought that some not insignificant part of the outrage at Akin's comment was the result of a particular misinterpretation. But, because I raised that point here, I was forced to confront my own mistaken belief, and discovered that, if that misinterpretation had been made at all, it certainly wasn't significant.

 

[Hitokage]

Praxeology and Austrian Economics don't reject empiricism. They just question the value of positivism in economics when the field rests on axioms of human action and then logical extrapolations. Even when creating a model. In other fields like physics you can't know the motivations behind gravity or whatever and you only know as much as the operational theories and models can explain facts we can observe.

You can create an Austrian model as well as any other, but they'd probably wonder why the heck you were bothering to spend time doing it since you're going to have to explain it and it's already explainable.

Personally, I'd consider economics to be a bit more of a science than political science. But more than zero doesn't mean much.

Absolute nonsense. The idea that human behavior should be defined by axiom rather than observation of actual humans is a fundamental rejection of empiricism, because it renders itself immune to falsification or refinement. Axioms just are, and there is only a small set of ideas that should be defined by axiom.

 

[Black Mamba]

Judges assume resolutions to issues without deciding them all the time. And when they do so, they are free to ignore those assumptions when they are finally confronted squarely with the issue. (For instance, in Hobby Lobby, Alito assumed that the government had a compelling interest in enforcing the contraceptive mandate. But this doesn't mean he would be a hypocrite for addressing just that question at some point in the future.) Scalia was not confronted with the question you believe he answered. He was addressing another question: If the Medicaid expansion, the individual mandate, and the insurance regulations in the ACA were all to be invalidated by the Court, could the rest of the law still stand? His answer assumed that the law worked the way he was told it worked, and he was not required to look into it further.

Once again, context matters. You are conflating two different types of "assuming." One is, "Let's assume, for the sake of argument," which is what Alito does and is completely different. Scalia's assuming is "I am of the understanding that the law intends to do X."

And, again, Scalia didn't assume that subsidies would be available on the federal exchange. He never even discussed that issue. But if he had, what makes you so sure he wasn't simply stating an observation? After all, by the time NFIB was decided, the IRS rule--stating that subsidies would be available regardless of whether insurance was obtained on an exchange established by a state or the federal government--had already been finalized (after being initially proposed almost a year earlier).

Yes, he did assume they would be available. Anyone reading what I posted earlier would understand that unless they're intentionally trying to be obtuse (which yes, I am accusing you of being because I don't believe for a second you buy into the argument but are trying to be contrarian for contrarian's sake).

Logical reasoning dictates this. What you're claiming is nonsensical. Scalia wouldn't describe how the law works in those sentences in that way unless he believed the federal exchanges included subsidies because it wouldn't make sense to write that, otherwise.

Everyone thinks Congress is stupid. Ample evidence supports that position. But that doesn't mean Scalia believed Congress authorized subsidies on the federal exchange. It means he might be surprised to discover they hadn't. The statement "Law X can't work without Provision Z" is not equivalent to the statement "Law X enacts Provision Z." You (and Gluck) are making an unjustified leap.

Congress is stupid. But that's irrelevant because the intent of the law matters more than Congress making a stupid error. And regardless, everyone thinks Congress is stupid because of their intentions, not their legal wordings.

No, it is a 100% justified leap. Not making that leap is fucking stupid.

Not at all. I recognize the legitimacy of circumstantial evidence. I just don't think Scalia's statement signifies what you think it signifies. To borrow your example, I'd be well within my rights as a reader to disbelieve that Mamba killed Metaphoreus. Stories not infrequently include details meant to mislead the reader into reaching the wrong conclusion about what happened. And the fact that I wasn't literally told that Mamba killed Metaphoreus with the gun is circumstantial (though not conclusive) evidence that that's not what happened (because the author intentionally left out details)!

Oh. My. God. You are going to an extreme with your contrarian stuff right now. I'm not going to write the whole novel for this example, but you clearly understand my point there and now I wonder if you're trolling.

You are not a stupid person; in fact, you're quite far from that. Stop this ridiculousness.

"All of them" is an easy answer to give, but a hard one to defend. Name one.

No. Because naming one is an obfuscation. The problem is that the argument doesn't work in context with ALL OF THEM together. You can't separate any single one out because they are all interconnected. When determining intent in this case, to take one provision out would be a disservice. You have to look at it in the context of all the provisions and the entire law. And the Court ignored that, completely.

And nobody believes Congress knew their plan wouldn't work. Those who accept the challengers' arguments believe that Congress thought their plan would work, by inducing the states to establish an exchange. It's just that, they also believe Congress was wrong in that belief.

Why would Congress set up federal exchanges without subsidies IF ONE OF THE MAIN CRUXES OF THE PLAN WAS GIVING OUT SUBSIDIES!?!?

It. makes. no. fucking. sense.

It would be like saying in football that if you don't think you can score a TD worth 7 points, you can go for a field goal instead, but it's worth 0 points.

Finally, I participate in these discussions to offer a viewpoint that it seems like some of you are not exposed to. In addition, by participating, I am exposed to viewpoints I otherwise would miss out on. So, to use your example, based on my travels through the Internet, I thought that some not insignificant part of the outrage at Akin's comment was the result of a particular misinterpretation. But, because I raised that point here, I was forced to confront my own mistaken belief, and discovered that, if that misinterpretation had been made at all, it certainly wasn't significant.

That's fine, but your current viewpoint is "Congress was herpin' and a derpin'" and "Scalia is a herpin' and a derpin." so I don't see the point...


I mean, look at how you argued my short story. You're intentionally being obtuse there and it's really jarring.

BTW, you're entire argument really boils down to semantics. And semantics almost is never the right position.

 

[Black Mamba]

And you ignored these questions, which I find curious.

Do you truly and honestly believe the ACA intended for the federal exchanges not to have subsidies? Do you think reading the entire law lends one to this conclusion or to the conclusion that they do give out the subsidies?

 

[Hitokage]

I'm just waiting for Metaphoreus to make his Superkyro post and then all of this can be over.

 

[zero shift]

Ugh . . . what a pile of garbage. I don't understand how people can follow some gobbledy-gook that rejects empiricism and scientific method. Might as well follow astrology, homeopathy, and VooDoo.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

Even communism makes more sense.

 

[Diablos]

I'm just waiting for Metaphoreus to make his Superkyro post and then all of this can be over.

I generally don't think of you as a partisan but sometimes I don't get why you are willing to defend ridiculous positions.

I think he's a lawyer. The kind of partisan one politicans ring up all the time. At least that's what he is aspiring to be...

I want to side with you, but I just don't trust Scalia after his EPA shenanigans. Dude needs to step down.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Montana Senator Suggests PTSD Played Role in Master’s Thesis Plagiarism

"I don't want to blame my mistake on PTSD, but I do want to say it may have been a factor," the senator said. "My head was not in a place very conducive to a classroom and an academic environment."

 

[Fuchsdh]

Montana Senator Suggests PTSD Played Role in Master’s Thesis Plagiarism

Well he's got the being a politician role down well. Always spin.

 

[benjipwns]

Absolute nonsense. The idea that human behavior should be defined by axiom rather than observation of actual humans is a fundamental rejection of empiricism, because it renders itself immune to falsification or refinement. Axioms just are, and there is only a small set of ideas that should be defined by axiom.

All of the social sciences are based on axioms, no matter how much they attempt to copy other fields, it's just a veneer. (Actually, at it's core, what isn't based on them?)

For example there's no falsification in political science because there's no actual testing. There isn't a model that adds anything of triumphant value beyond the axiom underlying it.

And every variable you're choosing to include in your model or more importantly, not include, matters infinitely more than any result you get.

The idea that human behavior should be defined by axiom

That's not the idea. The idea is that things are driven by human action with individual motivations that we can't always know. So to collectivize individual behavior as a singular mass with a handful of motivations is faulty.

 

[Hitokage]

All of the social sciences are based on axioms, no matter how much they attempt to copy other fields, it's just a veneer.

For example there's no falsification in political science because there's no actual testing. There isn't a model that adds anything of triumphant value beyond the axiom underlying it.

And every variable you're choosing to include in your model or more importantly, not include, matters infinitely more than any result you get.

That's not the idea. The idea is that things are driven by human action with individual motivations that we can't always know. So to collectivize individual behavior as a singular mass with a handful of motivations is faulty.

In other words, "shit is complex, so let's just make it up"?

 

[PhoenixDark]

And you ignored these questions, which I find curious.

Can't on know but Gruber is on record saying the intent was for states that didn't set up exchanges to not get subsidies. And he helped write the law.

I agree with your position but Gruber's statement really took me aback.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That's not the idea. The idea is that things are driven by human action with individual motivations that we can't always know. So to collectivize individual behavior as a singular mass with a handful of motivations is faulty.

Why does this not apply to biology or other sciences? Why dont understanf gene expression so should we through out evolution being studied by looking at populations? We don't understand gravity so should we not 'collectivize individual behavior'?

Why are humans different?

I think it has to do with the fact Austrian economics is bullshit and has to invent it's own science to justify its views which basically care about 1 thing, making sure the government can't take things away from rich people for the benefited of the non rich. Everything seems to boil down to that. All their opposition to taxes, regulation, etc comes back to the idea they don't want any aspect of their wealth taken away.

And you can falsify social science studies, its just very difficult because theirs a lot of information.

 

[Hitokage]

Here's the main issue. Axioms are for laying the foundation for how you even begin to think about something. They're pretty much the ground rules for everything that comes after. In philosophy, you're talking about how things can exist seperately from other things. In math, this is on a lower level than addition. In geometry, you're talking about what a "point" and "line" mean. In science, it includes the assumption that natural laws hold true over time and distance.

Even if you think human behavior is too mysterious to be accurately modeled, defining it by axiom and then extrapolating a model from that can lead to wildly inaccurate results that remain internally consistent. In other words, you have recommendations for austerity and then a total inability to handle the fact that it isn't fucking working. This is pretty much religious behavior, not scientific behavior.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can't on know but Gruber is on record saying the intent was for states that didn't set up exchanges to not get subsidies. And he helped write the law.

I agree with your position but Gruber's statement really took me aback.

Here's PD to insert the conservative narrative™ of the day.

He said that after the law was passed (2012) not be for and has also since said its a typo. He's a trusted person when it fits their narrative but rejected when he says the contrary.

 

[benjipwns]

Why does this not apply to biology or other sciences? Why dont understanf gene expression so should we through out evolution being studied by looking at populations? We don't understand gravity so should we not 'collectivize individual behavior'?

Why are humans different?

Humans have motivations. Gravity, evolution, thermodynamics don't.

I think it has to do with the fact Austrian economics is bullshit and has to invent it's own science to justify its views which basically care about 1 thing, making sure the government can't take things away from rich people for the benefited of the non rich. Everything seems to boil down to that. All their opposition to taxes, regulation, etc comes back to the idea they don't want any aspect of their wealth taken away.

Uhhh...no? Austrian Economics stems from Mises criticism of economics not accounting for human action.

And you can falsify social science studies, its just very difficult because theirs a lot of information.

You can't falsify it because you can't test it. Me changing the variables in a model automatically is not the same test whoever ran before.

Even if you think human behavior is too mysterious to be accurately modeled, defining it by axiom and then extrapolating a model from that can lead to wildly inaccurate results that remain internally consistent.

Yet, this is how all of the social sciences are done. Especially economics.

In other words, you have recommendations for austerity and then a total inability to handle the fact that it isn't fucking working.

How can you tell if it's working or not without testing it? I thought you wanted empiricism instead of praxeology?

To add an example. Republicans often credit the "Reagan Tax Cuts" for the 1990s economic boom. Democrats sometimes credit the "Clinton Tax Increases" for the same. You can't falsify either claim because you can't hold anything else constant, not even the tax rates! (Especially in Reagan's case when they changed just four years later in entirely different circumstances.)

 

[Hitokage]

Yet, this is how all of the social sciences are done. Especially economics.

Sorry, but no. Social sciences are limited in their ability to set controls both by practical and ethical concerns, but they can lean on test cases when possible.

How can you tell if it's working or not without testing it? I thought you wanted empiricism instead of praxeology?

What I don't want is sophistry.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Humans have motivations. Gravity, evolution, thermodynamics don't.

So were rejecting psychology now and saying 'humans are special' because it gets us to our chosen desires? And of course those things have 'motivations' the way your using a term. Inputs go in and certain predictable actions come out. It's the same thing as humans on a large scale. My point was we don't know the specifics of why gravity has predicable results be we've, through the collection of many disparate observations come to general rules. You've said that same practice is wrong for humans because somehow they are different?

and you're completely wrong about the social sciences.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Here's PD to insert the conservative narrative™ of the day.

He said that after the law was passed (2012) not be for and has also since said its a typo. He's a trusted person when it fits their narrative but rejected when he says the contrary.

But does it matter whether he said it before or after? Saying it's a typo now contradicts his statement.

Again I agree with most people here on this issue.

 

[benjipwns]

So were rejecting psychology now and saying 'humans are special' because it gets us to our chosen desires.

So are you saying that humans don't engage in purposeful action?

I know it's an unpopular position to claim that humans have free will, but I'm sticking to it.

And of course those things have 'motivations' the way your using a term. Inputs go in and certain predictable actions come out. It's the same thing as humans on a large scale.

This is the exact opposite of what I've said. Gravity has no motivation.

and you're completely wrong about the social sciences.

Sorry, but no.

Awesome rejoinders. Let me know when they build a model not based on axioms and then can somehow test it without them.

 

[Hitokage]

Do you have anything insightful to say instead of just blathering on scoring rhetorical points as you usually do?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But does it matter whether he said it before or after? Saying it's a typo now contradicts his statement.

Again I agree with most people here on this issue.

Yes, he could be responding to what he read not the intent of the law. He was speaking on political consequences so of course he's going to make it sound bad if they don't do something.

It's not the smoking gun people want it to be. And of course the two statements contradict each other but weighing one over the other is just cherry picking out of a wider context. Of course that's what this entire lawsuit is based off.

 

[benjipwns]

Do you have anything insightful to say instead of just blathering on scoring rhetorical points as you usually do?

What would you consider "insightful"?

Some passages from Human Action that you're choosing to ignore perhaps? Some political science research that actually is falsifiable and not axiomatic?

 

[Hitokage]

What would you consider "insightful"?

Some passages from Human Action that you're ignoring perhaps? Some political science research that actually is falsifiable and not axiomatic?

I mean, I'm not exactly expecting much here, but deliberately misquoting me just to make your quip work is a rather dishonest way to carry out conversation, especially after I elaborated on my point. You don't really know what you're talking about, so apparently this is all you have left.

Also, stop equivocating political science with social science.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So are you saying that humans don't engage in purposeful action?

I know it's an unpopular position to claim that humans have free will, but I'm sticking to it.

This isn't a question of free will, it's a question of if the brain responds similarly in certain circumstances. It does.

Your 'purposefully action' phrasing says nothing and doesn't respond to the fact you're rejecting psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, basic biology that says behavior is regulated by the brain. Unless your gonna start talking about souls then your 'purposefully action' phrasing is nice sounding gobbledygook

You keep repeating stock words and phrases common and thinking this makes your argument substantive.

 

[benjipwns]

You don't really know what you're talking about, so apparently this is all you have left.

I'm glad you've been bringing this kind of insightful commentary from the very start.

Also, stop equivocating political science with social science.

I'm not, I'm using it as an example. Because it happens to be the one I'm most familiar with and the one that best shows the flaw that Mises criticized.

This isn't a question of free will, it's a question of if the brain responds similarly in certain circumstances. It does.

Your 'purposefully action' phrasing says nothing and doesn't respond to the fact you're rejecting psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, basic biology that says behavior is regulated by the brain. Unless your gonna start talking about souls then your 'purposefully action' phrasing is nice sounding gobbledygook

You keep repeating stock words and phrases common and thinking this makes your argument substantive.

So your argument is that humans are entirely predictable at all times due to "factors" and thus mushing them into a handful of variables is strong science and absolutely not axiomatic in any way?

I'm just trying to understand why people are so vehemently against the idea that individuals have their own motivations and can therefore engage in unpredictable but purposeful behavior.