TEDxMileHighSalon - Michael Huemer - The Irrationality of Politics

Michael Huemer focuses on the scope and nature of what we know, morality and truth. He is an expert at structuring logical arguments the premises of which are easy to go along with, which makes it annoying if you don't agree with his conclusions. We'll let you decide. In this TEDxMileHigh Talk, he details the irrationality of politics.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

• Category

  News & Politics

[calctube]

The irony of these comments is astonishing.

[ErikLiberty]

Google my PowerPoint "Why Do They (Terrorists) Hate Us Slideshare" It should be the first link at the top. NY Times bestselling historian Tom Woods called it a "very good presentation" on his blog and another guy added "You made this PowerPoint? Someone linked me to it a while back and it really had a big impact on my foreign policy views. That was very good work--thanks for putting it together."

[Daniel Thompson]

Note that his argument against the War on Terror is based on statistics - facts, numbers of people killed. There, you see his conclusion before he states it, on the weight of the evidence. His argument against tariffs is based on *authority* - "the vast majority of economists" - which is a very weak argument. You have no evidence for or against his conclusion; he's actually arguing for you to be *irrational* and accept it because its popular, at the moment, with most -but not all- experts.

[Andrew Clunn]

I'm pro-free trade, but it is possible for there to be focused gains in or long term stability gains from protectionism. Consider how local farms went under in Africa as cheap foreign food flooded the market. Now many nations there are dependent on food aid.

The same with his war on terror stats. More people have died in Afghanistan, than were killed on September 11. Does that mean going to war in response was irrational? He clumped all "War on Terror" stats together to appear rational.

[Andrew Clunn]

I don't think getting angry at supposed "news sources" or talking heads on the TV propagandizing is the same as getting angry in an actual discussion. but I do get angry when people make blatant emotional appeals in an attempt to guilt or shame others into agreeing with them. I don't think that makes me irrational. I'm angry at their tactics, not their positions.

[HieronymousAnonymous]

I didn't think it was possible to pack that much meaningless gibberish within the character limit, but you managed to.

Logic doesn't constrain choice sets? By DEFINITION it RULES OUT those choices that fail logically.

Also, "rational" is so well understood in the philosophical, economic, cog-sci and psychological literature that the VERY FIRST line of the definition on Wikipedia (excerpted from "Reason and Rationality") reflects EXACTLY what I wrote.

Repeat Philo 101 until you pass, kiddo.

[Joe11Blue]

Rational requires defining, it's done either through axiomatic methods or dialectic methods. Logic doesn't mean constricted choices, it means the next reasonable choice proposed by a particular course of action. Rational thought is purposefully defined purely on the logical form that is used or the process used during it's evolution. Without that logical basis it is not rational.

Congrats you managed to misinterpret how to apply rational thought.

[Andy Parrott]

Michael Huemer's book on libertarianism made me angry. Then I watched this video and felt embarrassed that I was angry.

[HieronymousAnonymous]

Yeah, the "don't get angry" part gave me the shits. It can be rational to tell someone to go fuck themselves if they're talking total fucking bullshit (especially if they are not amenable to changing their mind... e.g., religiotards and moralfags).

[HieronymousAnonymous]

It's a 14-minute talk about politics, not an exegesis of the current state of the science of cognition.

I would also assert that 'rational' is well-understood in common parlance: it means consciously attempting to make optimal choices given your objectives and the constraints under which you operate.

It was obvious from the counter-examples: teaching by counter-example has been around since Socrates.