|
0 members (),
80
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,536
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Because it appears that you have included that conjecture in your definitions for the stated hypothesis about the cause of war. I don't think that supporting a hypothesis with conjecture is accepted scientific method. No, I didn't. Scout did. But in either event, conjectures are part of a hypothesis. And they are both part of the scientific method.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important. And what is your evidence and proposed methodology for proving your hypothesis? My evidence was presented with several links on this thread. I don't know if it can or cannot be proved. Do you?
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
I don't think that it can be proved.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
Because it appears that you have included that conjecture in your definitions for the stated hypothesis about the cause of war. I don't think that supporting a hypothesis with conjecture is accepted scientific method. No, I didn't. Scout did. Political power IS economic power and, in today's world, economic power IS political power. So, by extension, increasing economic power is increasing political power.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit:
ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS.
In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important. And what is your evidence and proposed methodology for proving your hypothesis? My evidence was presented with several links on this thread. I don't know if it can or cannot be proved. Do you? Zeke For a moment, let us accept your conjecture. Do you think that wars and interventions are effective means of gaining the economic benefits which are the primary motivation for these events?
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
But here is a bit of evidence that might be an example of a war that was not primarily motivated by economics. Hatfields and McCoysHard to say if it was or wasn't given that the "bad blood" seemed to exist out of nothing - according to the anecdotal evidence provided in your link. My hypothesis is quite specific, to wit: ECONOMICS IS THE MAIN MOTIVATION FOR WARS AND INTERVENTIONS. In other words, even when there are other motives, the economic ones are the most important.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Because it appears that you have included that conjecture in your definitions for the stated hypothesis about the cause of war. I don't think that supporting a hypothesis with conjecture is accepted scientific method. No, I didn't. Scout did. Political power IS economic power and, in today's world, economic power IS political power. So, by extension, increasing economic power is increasing political power. Not the same at all. I equated political and economic powers - that has nothing to do with "everything". Besides, proving that "economics is the motivation for everything" would require defining what "everything" is... not an easy task. Proving a more specific point: "economics is the main motivation for wars" is a more tractable starting point.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,004 Likes: 133 |
Whatever. I'm done with this circular quibble match.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
Zeke
For a moment, let us accept your conjecture.
Do you think that wars and interventions are effective means of gaining the economic benefits which are the primary motivation for these events? Excellent question, Ardy! Yes, I do. I think that territorial expansion (which includes economic subjugation of the conquered) has been, for millennia, a form of making the conquering empire richer. History is rife with examples. In today's world, the conquest is more subtle (sometimes) than it was during Roman times, for example, but its end benefit is the same: the so-called "sphere of influence" is achieved by economic subjugation through organs such as World Bank, IMF, etc. In order for that to be effective, one must implant "friendly governments".
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Zeke
For a moment, let us accept your conjecture.
Do you think that wars and interventions are effective means of gaining the economic benefits which are the primary motivation for these events? Excellent question, Ardy! Yes, I do. I think that territorial expansion (which includes economic subjugation of the conquered) has been, for millennia, a form of making the conquering empire richer. History is rife with examples. In today's world, the conquest is more subtle (sometimes) than it was during Roman times, for example, but its end benefit is the same: the so-called "sphere of influence" is achieved by economic subjugation through organs such as World Bank, IMF, etc. In order for that to be effective, one must implant "friendly governments". So, let us consider a few events..... Who benefited from wwI, or WWII, Or Korea, or vietnam, or kosovo, or Iraq, or the soviet invaision of Afghanistan, or the Us invaision of AFG?
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
