Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think this is a terminology/label difference only.
The area of overlap is surely, the truth.
If there is no truth, ie: that there is no-one who has the actual, hard story of it all, then the difference between Machiavellianism and logic disappears.
As a 'random' example: "Is there exo-life out there ?"
or:
"Did the Big Bang happen ?"
No one knows … so there is no truth, so there is no distinction between Machiavellianism and 'scientific' logic .. its a matter of 'personal taste' (to quote Sir Ed .. Witten, that is …)
Theory, with supporting empirical evidence, would then seem to be the differentiator, I guess.
Cheers
|
Machiavellism is based on deceiving others irrespective of whether the statement in question is a truth or a supposition.
For example opponents of the BB at that other website engage in a whole plethora of logical fallacies to justify their arguments.
One particular disturbing aspect is the Staw Man argument where scientists are dishonest corrupt individuals who invented the BB to preserve their careers and paychecks.
Since opponents of the BB don't engage in such nefarious activities, their version of events must be correct.
It's a very attractive line to gain converts.
You can't get more Machiavellian than this.....
Regards
Steven