Reply With Quote
An argument in favor of irrationality is pretty astounding.
Sounds like many staunch, formally educated conservatives and christians I've come across.
They stick to their tribe no matter what logic or fact might be laying in right in front of them.
An argument in favor of irrationality is pretty astounding.
it was in response to a developed theme in this thread: having the scientific method determine policy. Manny brought the idea up, and Fuzzy fuzzily extended it. I was responding to that, and one can't very deny bodies and boards of concerned/occupationally related scientists produce a fair number of detailed policy recommendations...
in favor of its existence? I think not.
I don't understand the argument of a policy decision based on "science's" position. Science is a method of gathering information and analyzing it. It has no policy position. This discussion - as I've been having it and as I understood it from the OP anyway - was not one about specific policy decisions but rather the debate on the information involved on getting to a policy decision.
If we continue with the AGW example, climate science in and of itself has no position on global warming other than it is occurring and it is in large part due to GHG emissions from human burning of fossil fuels. There is a gigantic amount of evidence that shows this to be true to a high degree of probability. That is the end of the science. Any policy decision based on that information is dependent on value judgements based on those represented by the governments involved and what they feel is a desirable outcome.
Where the problem arises that is addressed in the OP is when politicians deny the existence of man made global warming through various fallacies (ie its not warming at all, CO2 isn't causing it, etc etc). These are simply flat out false and they are simply lies used to advance policy positions. You don't have to lift a damn finger to change AGW if society feels its not necessary Science doesn't have a damn thing to say about the values you use to make policy decisions.
So, with that out of the way maybe now we can now stop the strawmen regarding "science's" positions.
Best predictors may guarantee nothing, but they should often be used as a signpost. For example, just because the sun rose every day of your existence doesn't necessarily guarantee it will tomorrow... for instance, maybe the sun will blow up tonight. But the likelihood is quite small.
In the same sense, we should use common sense and scientific data to help guide policy. Look at the Drug War. People are being jailed at ever higher rates, the drug trade hasn't gone down, etc etc. Given this data, one would think that we should modify our approach to illegal preventing drug usage. To throw out all the data in favor of an irrational policy seems counter-productive.
whatever is not reducible to rationality, is not therefore dishonorable nor even disreputable.
WH, I know that occasionally smart folks get together, declare a consensus and assume it as the end-all be-all when it might very well not be. (Let's say they are all wrong about global warming for instance, and man has had nothing to do with it.)
To use an example of one area where scientists are wrong, and try to extrapolate that to the idea that we shouldn't bother using science at all or that it's on an equal footing as irrational politics, is wrong itself.
Not quite sure what you mean by that statement. Could you expound a bit?
Nope, that is an absolute theme of your creation. I advocated:
The same ideas behind the scientific method should be in charge of the decision making process in the political process.
and I've gone further into detail into what is behind the scientific method and how that factors into the decisions you make. You take the data, and you make decisions based off of that data. I've stated that there are several places where you don't have perfect data which in turn leads to imperfect decision making process.
You however have straight up advocated in irrationality being a part of the decision making process which is straight up mind boggling to me.
What are the exact benefits of irrationality?
Also the recommendations of scientific bodies may be backed by scientific evidence but ultimately are a value judgement that is not scientific. If a board of doctors recommends that all newborns be vaccinated against a deadly childhood diseases it is backed by data showing the vaccine is effective but ultimately is a recommendation based on the unscientific value of human life.
yet that's exactly what we've been doing for 30 years. the data, admittedly, is of more recent vintage but the results were perceptible well before the official registration of the results. it was accessible to reason well before the peer reviewed studies confirmed it, that we were doing the wrong thing. that we still are.
so if it one's experience (as in certain posters here) that all blacks are 'thugs and such' and others can verify that experience this turns what would be mere tautology into objective truth ?
Nope. This argument is that irrational behavior and decision making is by definition suboptimal but that doesn't make it dishonorable. Thats all your creation there.
Which is the exact type of thing the OP is arguing against so it begs to question why are you defending the status quo?
If you were to tweak that statement to read, "All colored people are inferior to white people", it's likely many in the South a century and a half ago would've considered this objective truth.
Could you please post the quotes of this supposed narrative?
I recall saying that the scientific method was not the issue here. I said it was logical thought and empirical proof ie at least attempting to determine an objective truth.
Going to war and basing notions like what is now referred to as the Bush policy on things like God or against and axis of evil is deplorable. Irrational thought is not inherently 'bad' but there is a difference between risky personal atruism and making policy decisions where people's lives are at stake. I think that deserves our best shot and not flying by one's pants.
humans run it. they do some human like things.
admirable, if true. I can picture it.
is there any angle in unscientific preoccupations like caring about other people? you seemed to doubt it a moment ago.
The Regular Show is quite amusing.
this thread, whole different story. learn to read. your ecstatic raptures of denunciation keep getting in the way.
Can you rephrase? I'm not understanding you.
what status quo did I defend?
Also I'm quite interested in the answer to this.
The status quo of not making decisions based on observations in reality. Your dismissal of being concerned with the state of the decision making process because it has always been that way. Your support of irrational decision making.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
