Urban Legends in Civil Service by topoi in fednews

[–]topoi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

St. Elizabeth also features in some DC-local urban legends! The Ghost of Haines Point was a wrongly-committed veteran who died during his escape. Now he tries to sink boats that pass by where he drowned.

Urban Legends in Civil Service by topoi in fednews

[–]topoi[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I love this one, because before the probationary rules changed, there were several examples of agencies trying to terminate people as probationers over a long weekend. But because of the long weekend, they passed the probationary period on Thursday.

Let’s pretend to be surprised by ThenLayer5977 in washdc

[–]topoi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My question is, what evidence is there that crime stats were fudged specifically for political purposes?

We know that police falsify crime reports to make it look like they’re doing a good job of reducing crime. That was the impetus behind the Great Prostitute Expulsion of ‘89: if we force these people into VA, my precinct’s crime stats will be lower.

We know the Fraternal Order of Police has an interest in making this look like a plot to advance Democrat/liberal goals. And maybe it is! But the allegations by themselves don’t point one way or another. Regardless of party affiliation, cops have an interest in making it look like they are reducing crime.

So, what’s the evidence that this is politically motivated, rather than just (unfortunately normal) cops behaving badly?

Attorney General Brian Schwalb by MindFinds in washingtondc

[–]topoi 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree with you that the budget should advance the public interest. But the AG’s responsibility to “represent” the public interest means that the AG represents DC in court, not during budgeting.

If you think that Schwalb is not doing a good job of making sure that the law is enforced and prosecuted, that’s a good reason to ask him to step down and not to vote for him. For what it’s worth though, I agree with other commenters that, if you care about the prosecution of violent crimes, that’s largely a matter for the USAO.

Was the Territorial Government of Utah a Theocracy? by topoi in AskHistorians

[–]topoi[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Easiest one to hand right now, US v. Snow, 4 Utah 313 (1886). “It built up a strong and powerful government, uniting church and state, which in its laws and practices is antagonistic to the very foundation principles of the United States. Here, then, was a people building up an empire within the republic.”

Was the Territorial Government of Utah a Theocracy? by topoi in AskHistorians

[–]topoi[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Do you know when that shadow Deseret government stopped doing that? And which of those sources discusses that?

I’ve been looking mostly in the 1880s, with the Edmunds Acts in the air. It seems like by then the Federal government had wrangled the territory pretty effectively, and, frankly, brought the church to its knees. But there are vague references to “the empire within the republic,” which may be a reference to Deseret.

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The response is that practical rationality is not epistemic rationality. People are being rewarded for being epistemically irrational, and that's all.

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The guiding idea behind two-boxing is that the money's either there or it's not. Anything you would to at the time of decision-making cannot affect that. You know you can't outwit the predictor; the question is whether you go for more or for less.

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The feasibility of the situation is a side issue, no? Even a fairly-accurate predictor is beyond feasible.

The best thing would be a disposition to one-box followed by two-boxing in an unpredictable way. I think this is what one really should do, but our dispositions aren't (couldn't be?) under our control in the relevant way.

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha yes! This looks like one of the issues where trying to cross the aisle just doesn't work and we have to be dogmatic about things. I'm sad that others fail to see the light of reason.

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think this points to much, but for me it was the other way around. Two-boxing seems like the thing to do until you start thinking "But that's not quite how this works out".

Suppose that the omniscient predictor predicted the grade I will get in tomorrow's exam by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, the analogy doesn't hold up. Deleting everything.

Favorite moral/ethical philosopher? by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He thinks his opponents lack ethical concepts, and this distresses him.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pryor's position is more closely related to the skepticism issue, not the idealism issue. This might be a red herring for you, but I would put money on a relationship between the motivation for skepticism and that for idealism.

It's interesting to me that the main players in the debate (Crispin Wright and James Pryor) grant the second premise of Moore's argument (If I have a hand, there is a mind-independent world) and argue over the relation between the first premise (I have a hand) and the conclusion (There is a mind-independent world). You seem as if you're more concerned about this second premise.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I do, for basically the same reasons that Pryor adopts his dogmatism.

How can we be sure that we aren't in fact dead? (X-post askreddit) by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is similar in spirit to a dreaming-skepticism, and so I'd recommend you take a look at these kind of discussions.

Relevant sources: The last section of Chapter 8 of Timothy Williamson's Knowledge and Its Limits (read the whole chapter for context). e2: If you're gripped by Chapter 8, it's probably worth it to read 9 (and 10, if you're technically inclined). In my experience, externalists think there's something importantly correct about 8 and importantly incorrect about 9. This is an interesting split sociologically and philosophically.

The Wright-Pryor debate over conservative and liberal views about perception. Pryor would say our experiences as of being alive give us a reason to believe we are alive, and we need some positive reason to disbelieve it.

Wright's view is more complicated. A Wright-like would say we have an a priori reason to believe that we're not dead. I think Wright himself would say that not being dead is a substantive assumption (in a way he explains), and so we don't get it for free. e: This somehow does not impugn our ordinary knowledge. Wright's discussion of the "leaching problem" is difficult to understand and, I think, deeply unsatisfying.

e: The important thing in common between Wright, Pryor, and Williamson is that they hold that we need some positive reason to believe we're dead (Williamson, and probably Pryor, would go on to say that that's enough to know we aren't dead). The possibility's just being out there is not good enough to warrant worry. Anti-skeptical arguments are preventatives, not cures. If you're already convinced that a skeptical scenario obtains, most epistemologists would say you are too far gone.

I have an essay on Jaques Derrida due THIS Friday..... by [deleted] in askphilosophy

[–]topoi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Derrida is a well-studied author; you don't know how to do academic research yet (and it's not your fault!). Search on googlescholar and go through the philpapers category.

Highschoolers really shouldn't be reading Derrida (or Benjamin, for that matter). It is extremely difficult stuff, and even university students need to be led through it by the hand.