In theorizing, a political scientist makes an argument and this argument is not necessarily logically sound. It is logically sound if and only if it satisfies The Principles of Reasoning but it appears to me that your arguments to not satisfy these principles.
These principles are "entropy minimax," as described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook.: The Stanford library contains a copy of this treatise, I think.
"Entropy minimax" is the solution to the ancient, previously unsolved Problem of Indyction, where the problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the inferences that will be made by a model of a physical system, about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future from amongst a larger set of possibilities. After being discovered by Christensen, "entropy minimax" failed to catch on. Instead, the builders of models of physical system selected these inferences, as they had done in the past, by the intuitive rules of thumb that are called "heuristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selected a a particular set of inferences for being made by a model of a physical system, a different heuristic selected a different set of inferences for being made by this model. In this way, the heuristics method violated the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). The LNC was amongst Aristotle's three Laws of Thought. If you are making this mistake, as I suspect that you are, I'm willing to help you correct this mistake pro bono. I live a few miles from the Stanford campus in Los Altos Hills.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher,
Writer of the Substack entitled "Building A Model Of a Physical System Without Making Any Mistakes."
Dear Prof. McFaul:
In theorizing, a political scientist makes an argument and this argument is not necessarily logically sound. It is logically sound if and only if it satisfies The Principles of Reasoning but it appears to me that your arguments to not satisfy these principles.
These principles are "entropy minimax," as described by the late theoretical physicist Ronald Christensen in the seven volume treatise on this topic that is titled "The Entropy Minimax Sourcebook.: The Stanford library contains a copy of this treatise, I think.
"Entropy minimax" is the solution to the ancient, previously unsolved Problem of Indyction, where the problem is of how, in a logically permissible way, to select the inferences that will be made by a model of a physical system, about the conditional outcomes of the events of the future from amongst a larger set of possibilities. After being discovered by Christensen, "entropy minimax" failed to catch on. Instead, the builders of models of physical system selected these inferences, as they had done in the past, by the intuitive rules of thumb that are called "heuristics." However, on each occasion in which a particular heuristic selected a a particular set of inferences for being made by a model of a physical system, a different heuristic selected a different set of inferences for being made by this model. In this way, the heuristics method violated the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC). The LNC was amongst Aristotle's three Laws of Thought. If you are making this mistake, as I suspect that you are, I'm willing to help you correct this mistake pro bono. I live a few miles from the Stanford campus in Los Altos Hills.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher,
Writer of the Substack entitled "Building A Model Of a Physical System Without Making Any Mistakes."
650-941-0533 ( land line )
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com (email)
Finally! From The Washington Post: Biden Approves Ukraine's use of long-range U.S. weapons inside Russia, reversing policy.