Reply With Quote
by antiscientific at udes? no.
valid scientific viewpoints are no more valid or deserving in the political arena than any other viewpoint. you do know what democracy means, right?
by antiscientific at udes? no.
by oligarchy and regulatory capture, yes.
What type of environment do you feel is conducive to this happening?
I don't have a theory of it. I just see it happening.
do you have a theory of it?
I believe its the same type of environment where science is dismissed out of hand by many people in the society. I'm no sociologist, but I definitely believe that a more educated and curious society is generally less inclined to go the authoritative route.
Basically, I feel you're arguing against the premises in the article even though I feel it aligns fairly well with many of the things you have posted. It simply looks at it from a different perspective.
Ironically, the intellectual tools currently being used by the political right to such harmful effect originated on the academic left. In the 1960s and 1970s a philosophical movement called postmodernism developed among humanities professors displeased at being deposed by science, which they regarded as right-leaning. Postmodernism adopted ideas from cultural anthropology and relativity theory to argue that truth is relative and subject to the assumptions and prejudices of the observer. Science is just one of many ways of knowing, they argued, neither more nor less valid than others, like those of Aborigines, Native Americans or women. Furthermore, they defined science as the way of knowing among Western white men and a tool of cultural oppression. This argument resonated with many feminists and civil-rights activists and became widely adopted, leading to the “political correctness” justifiably hated by Rush Limbaugh and the “mental masturbation” lampooned by Woody Allen.Acceptance of this relativistic worldview undermines democracy and leads not to tolerance but to authoritarianism. John Locke, one of Jefferson's “trinity of three greatest men,” showed why almost three centuries ago. Locke watched the arguing factions of Protestantism, each claiming to be the one true religion, and asked: How do we know something to be true? What is the basis of knowledge? In 1689 he defined what knowledge is and how it is grounded in observations of the physical world in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Any claim that fails this test is “but faith, or opinion, but not knowledge.” It was this idea—that the world is knowable and that objective, empirical knowledge is the most equitable basis for public policy—that stood as Jefferson's foundational argument for democracy.
By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.
Postmodernism infiltrated a generation of American education programs, as Allan Bloom first pointed out in The Closing of the American Mind. It also infected journalism, where the phrase “there is no such thing as objectivity” is often repeated like a mantra.
Reporters who agree with this statement will not dig to get to the truth and will tend to simply present “both sides” of contentious issues, especially if they cannot judge the validity of scientific evidence. This kind of false balance becomes a problem when one side is based on knowledge and the other is merely an opinion, as often occurs when policy problems intersect with science. If the press corps does not strive to report objective reality, for which scientific evidence is our only reliable guide, the ship of democracy is set adrift from its moorings in the well-informed voter and becomes vulnerable once again to the tyranny that Jefferson feared.
I've never read that John Locke essay but it seems like something I should read.
By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.
I can feel the rhetorical pull of that belief, but I'd love to see the evidence for it.
Thats fair and I'm not sure I can provide it. I don't have any offhand and the article makes the argument but it doesn't say this happened in X society in this manner and thats how it turned out.
the idea that the Enlightenment is unideological or anti-ideological is itself an ideology and a great temptation to power. remember the USSR?By falsely equating knowledge with opinion, postmodernists and antiscience conservatives alike collapse our thinking back to a pre-Enlightenment era, leaving no common basis for public policy. Public discourse is reduced to endless warring opinions, none seen as more valid than another. Policy is determined by the loudest voices, reducing us to a world in which might makes right—the classic definition of authoritarianism.
Sure but that (and China for that matter) are environments where debate is/was non existent. I'm not saying we should elect a great leader who follows science but I get your point. I believe the authors of the article are arguing more for a debate grounded in reality as opposed to one where arguments with no basis in reality are treated as equally valid.
so then, public debates, a la Jurgen Habermas, ought essentially to resemble graduate school seminars?
in essence, you're suggesting it's a fault not to bow to the accepted scientific consensus or to fail to embrace its modes of enquiry. within scientific ins utions this is clearly true. but why it should be true for politics?
because scientific consensus is based on factual knowledge. Are you advocating ignoring such knowledge?
The world was flat, then they found out the world was round. Through the holographic theory they say everything is flat, again. Science, since the beginning, has always thought they have it right to the point that they become political.
A true scientist would prove something to a point of high probability and then work to disprove their theory. Otherwise, ego and the skew of philosophy will always interfere with their ability to find the truth.
not at all, but people are free to ignore it in favor of whatever they perceive their real interests to be.
do you think scientific consensus ought to legislate what views are permissible in politics?
essentially, you seem to be demanding that consensus science be allowed to define facts and valid viewpoints for politics. I think that is a dangerous ideology, an hetical to freedom and worth opposing in principle.
Why are you making a leap from discussing what is prefered to whether or not it should be mandated by legislation? People are absolutely to ignore the facts but that doesnt mean I have to like it. It also doesnt mean I want to legislate what views are permissibale.
freedom includes the freedom to be a dumbass according to your definition of it. one person, one vote, regardless of the scientific validity of one's viewpoint or putative facts.
you're pissed that your (scientific) viewpoint isn't privileged over others. which is understandable, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with people who disagree or a political system that fails to conform to it.
after all, as pointed out upstream, science gets things wrong, too.
I wasn't. I was using the word legislate philosophically, not in the technical public sense. Subs ute "determine" if you like.Why are you making a leap from discussing what is prefered to whether or not it should be mandated by legislation?
This is the 2nd time you've built up this strawman and torn it down. Can you point to the place where a view contrary to this has been advocated? I nor the article ever denied its a right to do things in less than optimum manner but rather that it is not the optimal course.
Actually, there is absolutely something wrong with a political system that discounts facts and instead goes with lies or ideas that simply aren't true. This isn't to say that every decision in a political system can be made with absolute knowledge on what the outcomes of any decision will be but when a system rewards someone who discards known fact is absolutely broken. You're welcome to disagree on this front but I would personally welcome an explanation on why.
Sure, but if you can point me to a system of understanding that has advanced human knowledge anywhere near the scientific method I am very interested. Science need not be perfect in order to be the best method of expanding human knowledge available.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
