|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
They might, that's why I suggested the rules need to be measured and revised is they don't work as intended.
Would a more robust function for trial and error be better for measuring and revising?
Not sure what you mean by knowing how to know, but anyway it seems like you could support rules in all cases where experimentation can be used?
I meant that anything that is outside the domain of some of the hard sciences has too much uncertainty for people to make claims of true knowledge. Can you think of an example of something society related in which there is no reasonable disagreement?
That sounds like a yes to me? So what is fundamentally different about rules against these activities, why not let trial and error work its magic here also?
Trial and error is at play in sub-domains within the domain of tax-based initiation of aggression; it's just not as robust in most (or all) circumstances.
|
Reply With Quote