Dglgmut Posted May 26, 2020 Author Share Posted May 26, 2020 5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: If you are talking about health, I still disagree with generalizing so much. For example, I prefer someone who has studied medicine to diagnose me than a layman when I get sick. For that context, that would be top down. If I cut my finger and the wound is not too deep, I'm fine with putting a little alcohol and a bandaid on it. For that context, that would be bottom down. So a cut on your finger would be an acute health issue. That is definitely where top-down is more effective. But for long term health, you don't want to be on medication (which brings me to another thing you said that I'll bring up in a second), and therefore you are in a situation analogous to building a house... you want to start from the bottom up (diet, exercise, environment etc). The reason I use health as an example, and I say you cannot alternate between induction, deduction and back, is because 1. the stakes are too high--once you kill someone with your experiment, the experiment is over, and 2. everybody is different--you can't even get a new subject to experiment on. So if people have experience enough and intelligence enough to organize all of their abstractions and abstractions of abstractions in their minds, and they can understand how all of the evidence is pointing in a certain direction without sufficient inductive evidence to persuade someone without that combination of experience/intelligence, it would be beneficial if we could figure out how to bridge that gap so that we can minimize the well-intentioned mistakes in such a high-stakes area of life. Quote Now if you are talking about government, I really really really don't see a choice. I'm talking about economics, not specifically government. Most people (the vast majority of people I've talked to, read, watched) take a top-down approach to economics in that they prioritize the overall and immediate effects of a policy over the theoretical soundness of a policy. I will repeat myself that there is something arrogant about it because it's based on the assumption that all of the information is available, or will be shortly available, when in reality hidden costs and benefits are impossible to keep track of within complex systems (which is what this all comes down to). This is why I say there is an element of faith to a bottom up approach to such issues... Why can't the government force the restaurant to take down the "No Blacks" sign? I have not heard an answer that would satisfy the typical, top-down thinker. To a leftist, it sounds superstitious the answers people come up with: holding "principles" (property rights, in this case) up like a god. Quote So it's not about which approach is better, top down or bottom up. It's about how much government you want to tolerate. This is similar to the health problem that requires perpetual medication that I said I'd get back to. You bring up something that is sort of a general principle some people have, that I do, where I want as much independence as possible, for myself, for others, and even for other things, because it brings stability (which is needed for growth--a very bottom-up idea). That's actually a good way of explaining the different uses for top-down vs bottom-up solutions: top-down is for solving a problem (productive destruction), where bottom-up is useful for creating new value. Quote Note that it is possible to live in an authoritarian society with great health care. That's a crap shoot, though, not a causal outcome from opting for top down or bottom up approaches. If Fearless Leader is intelligent, manages people will, and has mostly good intentions, health care can be awesome. If Fearless Leader is an asshole, well, you take your medicine with bugs in it. I disagree. It's not possible because of something you mentioned: human nature. No one person has enough knowledge to make that system work, and anything good about it would have to be stolen from another, freer nation. It's like saying it's possible to be healthy while eating fast food, staying up all night, and smoking... if you have the right medication. I know you're only playing Devil's Advocate to your own argument, but the reality is that complex systems cannot be managed from top-down. You are coming at this from a moral standpoint, which is fine, and fitting as I put this in the Ethics forum, however, the point of this thread is not about what is right, it's about communication (which you talk about in your next post). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now