religion deserves abuse almost every time in a political forum.
WH, why do you believe that voting irrationally would have the same effect as voting rationally? Do you just distrust the candidates that much? I just don't quite see why a citizenship that votes rationally based on informed decisions is as good as one that votes irrationally based off random trivial factors.
How could they not be rational? You do something which brings enjoyment to you. Seems perfectly rational. What would be irrational is repeatedly doing something you DON'T enjoy, that gives you no perceptible benefits. Doing things we like provide emotional and physical benefits to our wellbeing in many cases.
Sure, I like to argue and it's interesting to watch his behavior from a psychological perspective.
So now you have moved from instrumentalism to pragmatism. You can call me pragmatic if it makes you feel better. I will also accept reductionist and deterministic. I do not appreciate your attempt to conflate me with Friedman though. Try Mill or something.
Further, I fail to get your point in regards to unscrupulous scientists. Once again you are repeating the 'technocrats rule the world' paradigm. I agree that some people that claim to be empirical and logical are not and are not because they are trying to mislead people for personal profit. There are two responses to that first its part of a discourse. Very similar to the socratic method, if the issue is examined and weighed on it and its underpinning merits then using the principles of empiricism and logical thinking that will become apparent.
I am more than aware of researchers that are overbearing. I am in research myself however that is besides the point. Observation is observation and if a demand that claims be repeatable is held to then false claims can be demonstrably exposed. No one is arguing that man is not base but 'human and cultural posits' will effect any endeavor. The point is the foil. Irrationality or adherence to dogma/ideology is unquestioning whereas a requirement of verifiable proof is not. That is the point. You keep going back to scientific ins utions when I an the author are talking about a way of judging things and coming to conclusions for the individual and in general.
Dude, this forum isn't friendly to anyone. gfy
You can disrespect a person's views without disrespecting the person himself.
Sure, it's ok. But when there are two competing viewpoints, one based on facts and rationality and the other based on neither, I would think that the side using statistics to support their arguments would have more sway.
I'm not really trying to "side" with anyone in this particular thread. I recognize and respect that irrationality has its place in various venues, but when it comes to politics, I'd like my leaders to say, "I think this will work because of this history, these facts, this research" etc etc rather than "I think this will work because I flipped a coin, my particular God says it will, I'm too smart to be wrong" etc etc.
i can't recall ever calling you anything at all. it is your comments that you have posted that have a strong pragmatic tone but since pragmatism and reductionism are connected and if it makes you feel less pinioned i'll just say the comments seemed to be quasi-reductionist in nature. i wouldn't assume someone to be calling me a pessimist in general if i said something specific that they referred to as a skeptical comment.
i just don't buy the claim that a small sampling of creationists and anti-global warming politicos supports the claim that there is an antiscience sentiment that is threatening democracy. what is threatening democracy is a lack of conscience or regard for the planet and its citizens. science alone can not redeem this. it would take something a reductionist may claim to be lacking verification (a set of morals or ethical axioms that is)
Last edited by rjv; 10-19-2012 at 11:34 PM.
Here we go again with the 'scientists rule the world' thing. Once again, neither I nor the author are suggesting that science in and of itself is the solution to all issues. Logic and empiricism are utlizied by science but are not science in and of themselves. The 'sampling' or numbers of creationists and anti AGW pundits is both arbitrary and qualitative ie it doesn't posit much. We have school boards, legislative ins utions and the like inundated with them trying to influence policy. How many are doing it is irrelevant, the issue is the existence and efficacy of such action. In both cases incidences are on the rise.
Philosophy as opposed to religion has significant logical underpinnings. Descartes, Kant, Hume, Mill, Russell, Sartre, Rawls, Voltaire etc all use logic to come to their conclusions. Even if you argue that there is some overriding premise or desirable goal you can still come to logical conclusions based on that induction. The notions are not mutually exclusive.
Further it's not as if science specifically would not have insight into the issue that you are discussing. First there is the issue of determining cause for such behavior. Empiricism in general is a good basis of discovery. Specifically trials and the like can be used to determine cause. For example, is it based on ignorance or root behavior. Solutions can be found, behavioral science can be used to understand and adjust such behavior and education is a wonderful cure for ignorance. If some men are fundamentally and irreparably base then it doesn't matter anyway.
One thing that I am getting from both you and WH is that you view science as being high handed. Science is just a method. As DMC pointed out that is tantamount to claiming that math or geography are high handed. Math btw is another wonderful example of empiricism and induction but I digress. I personally don't think that science , ethics and/or moralism are mutually exclusive or a zero sum situation. I am only saying that irrational or illogical behavior is.
As for moral and ethical axioms, I do think for the most part they are culturally founded and not based on some overriding principle. That's jsut me. If it is an overriding principle then I would expect that it would manifest universally and result in shared experience in isolation. Absent that I remain skeptical. Even then you can be pragmatic about the application of said moralism. Mill again. I could counter your assertion of high handedness with a request for introspection. Expecting others to take a moral standard especially based on some 'authority' with no proof or logical basis for existence is about as high handed as it gets.
almost? tell us what you really mean, internetz psuedo tough guy . . .
well, that's what you would think . . .
if that's the way you think religious people think, you're a in idiot.
in b4 no true Scotsman
plus, if that's the way scientists think, I'm out
too much weight entirely rests on human observation
it's presumptuous to think rationality will or should win.
example?
As opposed to what? Human supers ion and wishful thinking?
Oh and make sure you drink a big glass of water.
Did I say I think all religious people think that way? I certainly didn't. In fact, only one of the "irrational" comments was about religion. Not sure why you would come to the conclusion you did.
For instance, I disrespect your view that irrationality is as useful as rationality when determining which candidate to pick.
Why is is presumptuous to think that rationality should win? What's wrong with rationality? Aren't you (at least trying) to rationally argue your position?
Its easy to take the side of irrationality in a debate on an internet forum but I'm going to guess that if I gave WH an important life decision to make there wouldn't be a rush use an irrational form of judgement. But then again maybe he would pray for an answer. Who knows.
any truly rational person would agree that public policy should never come from a book of myths and fantasies, internetz butthurt guy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
