Re: Rationalizing is something we *all* do

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 28, 2012 2:43 PM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:50 PM, a b <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:04, Rami Rustom wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Bruno Marchal
>> > > >> >> <[email protected]>
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> On 25 Oct 2012, at 20:32, Rami Rustom wrote:
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> Like: most heroin user have begun with cannabis, so cannabis
>> > > >> >>> leads
>> > > >> >>> to
>> > > >> >>> heroin. The gateway theory.
>> > > >> >>>
>> > > >> >>> You can explain that the number of cannabis user among heroin
>> > > >> >>> user
>> > > >> >>> is
>> > > >> >>> irrelevant for judging a relation of causality rather easily:
>> > > >> >>> all
>> > > >> >>> heroin user have begun with water, yet nobody would say that
>> > > >> >>> *this*
>> > > >> >>> means that water leads to heroin. The correct statistics
>> > > >> >>> consists
>> > > >> >>> in
>> > > >> >>> looking and comparing the number of heroin users in the (good
>> > > >> >>> sampling
>> > > >> >>> of) population of cannabis users, and compare it with a (good
>> > > >> >>> sampling
>> > > >> >>> of) population not using cannabis. This would also prove
>> > > >> >>> nothing,
>> > > >> >>> but
>> > > >> >>> would give an evidence. Of course when done, there are zero
>> > > >> >>> evidence
>> > > >> >>> that cannabis leads more to heroin than water, and even less
>> > > >> >>> than
>> > > >> >>> alcohol.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> There are many very successful people that use cannabis and not
>> > > >> >> heroin.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > This does not say much, but I agree.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It refutes the theory that cannibas is a gateway drug, and the
>> > > >> theory
>> > > >> that cannibas ruins a person's life
>> > > >
>> > > > In your own words can you summarize what the argument actually was
>> > > > that cannibis is a gateway drug?
>> > >
>> > > Using cannibis causes people to then use heroin or other worse drugs.
>> >
>> > What is meant by 'causes'?
>>
>> A causes B. B happens because A happened.
>
> So this is the conjecture - researched, reflected on, and ultimately
> defined by you yourself

No Bruno explained the gateway theory.


> - that you have then refuted. The active ingredient
> of cannabis causes the individual to try heroin.

Thats not what I said. I said that A is *using cannabis*. You're
saying that A is *THC*. They aren't the same.


> Not statistical, not
> correlation, no identified reasoning, no review of the evidence.

*The evidence*. There is no possibility that evidence can say anything
about how people make choices. Evidence is used in scientific
knowledge creation. Choices are part moral knowledge, not scientific
knowledge. Science can not say anything about choices or how people
make choices. Only philosophy can do that.

When a person makes a choice, what he's doing is considering his
options and then making a value judgement choosing the best option.
His value judgement depends on the context of the choice. Part of that
context is his values (and epistemic ideas), and part of it is the
details of the situation.


> I don't really see the point of what you've done here Rami. You've defined
> yourself a nonsensical - actually silly  -  conjecture about how the link
> between cannabis and heroin use has been defined (by those who say there is
> one) .

Actually Bruno explained the gateway theory, not me. Read his posts
that I replied to.


> Which you then refute.

Well, if you have a criticism, then tell me, then maybe I haven't
refuted the gateway theory.


>
> What have you learned or taught by this process?

Nothing. What do you think I should learn?


> This is a lot like the
> popperian refutation of the idea getting drunk can change your personality,
> maybe produce a Mr Hyde. The conjecture is defined as alcohol causes or
> creates a  different personality. It's a stupid way to define the link in
> the first place.

So how do you think it should work?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com