posted
I wonder if anyone else on this board recognises my position here, or has any ideas for resolving it..
Orson Scott, the man, confuses the hell out of me. He does not fit into my usual human classification scheme. The problem, and I'm sure people have run into this before, is that he is fundamentally religious, I am fundamentally anti-religion, and yet.. I agree with the vast majority of his opinion on almost everything in the world, and like, respect and resemble everything his writing tells me about him as a person. Essentially, he makes my role-models list.
And then, occasionally, I run into things he's said like "those who flagrantly violate [arbitrary social taboo] cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society", a thought that every level of my mind expels with violent force, and that I would usually expect to see spoken by some obvious idiot I could safely ignore.
It's not that it's unprecedented for me to like religious people, I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be; but I've never before identified closely with someone starting from such a fundamentally opposed perspective to my own. Usually we disagree about almost everything from the ground up.
What's with the convergence? Any insights?
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sweetly* As another "fundamentally religious" person, might I suggest that you begin by discarding the notion that people who are religious somehow have beliefs which are less "fully thought-out" and/or are merely "following the herd and dodging the questions"?
I know plenty of non-religious (and anti-religious) people who fit that description. And plenty of religious people (I'd like to think including me) who do not. (As well, naturally, as the other way around.) How about you "fully think" about people, religious or not, as individuals? Not as something that fits a classification scheme?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Passive Aggressively* - I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be.
I don't think I made any suggestion there that such people are more or less rare under any kind of belief system. My only intended implication was that OSC is one such person.
Being only human, I don't have room in my head to fully comprehend myself as an individual, let alone anyone else. Best I can do is try to make my classifications more flexible and accurate, which is what I'm attempting here.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm similar to you (being indifferent to religion if not anti-religious) but I know tons of people who are religious. Two of my best friends are far left and far right, with me in the middle. One's a devout Roman Catholic, one's an atheist. We all get along fine, and share most of our views. I think the key is that the religious person doesn't let their faith control their life. They're religious, but that's a part of who they are, not the center of their being.
Some people are X faith first, and everything else a distant second. These are the people who corner you at airports, grocery store parking lots, and the like. In other words, they push their faith on everyone around them. This is the one surefire way to get on my ****list. I'm fine with anyone believing whatever they choose, but I want to be left in peace. I want the same courtesy and respect I show them.
And most people here are like that. If you ask a question or make a misstatement about their faith they'll respond, but they're not evangelicalizing (is that a real word?) all the live-long day.
So I don't see your dilemma. You don't have friends that disagree with you on a regular basis? Who sometimes say things you consider shortsighted and foolish?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm always more comfortable around those with fully thought-out beliefs than those who are just following the herd and dodging the questions, whatever the actual beliefs happen to be.
This may be why you grudgingly respect OSC. I know it's why I respect him; any grudging has roots in other issues.
BTW, I should make clear that I'm speaking here only from my own observations. Someone closer to him would probably be able to give you a lot more detail, but would probably be less inclined to do so. So YMMV. *grin*
He starts from a position of faith, but he recognizes that unexamined faith is untenable and works very, very hard to reconcile his statements of faith with his observed reality. For example: while he's opposed to homosexual marriage largely because of his church's position on the issue, he has done quite a bit of research in order to find a secular justification for that position. His premises are often religious ones, but his logic is often impeccable.
For all that, he can be frustrating; he doesn't often make clear that he's speaking his opinion, especially in political articles, and frequently makes certain broad and insulting generalizations that, if you're one of the intended victims, make it hard to take anything else he says in that essay seriously because you're inescapably confronted with the flaw in his argument. He angers easily and can brood, and this sort of thing colors a lot of his observations; when he mentions Clinton, for example, you can generally predict exactly what he's going to say.
But he's smart and incisive and often quite perceptive, although I find his snap judgements to be as flawed as any other man's. He speaks his mind eloquently and assuredly, and incidentally is capable of writing an excellent book. He works hard at maintaining his family, and I think the fruits of that effort are obvious; they're all wonderful human beings, and clearly return his love. And I believe that almost everything he does and says is truly motivated by a desire to do good. I disagree with him on an enormous number of topics -- ranging from the political to issues of aesthetics -- but don't think that should affect my assessment of him as a person.
------
If you're interested in broadening your horizons, BTW, this site is full of religious people who are walking examples of this sort of thing. Not everyone with faith has failed to turn a critical eye to it, or more closely examined the implications of their beliefs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually rivka, there are plenty of people who fit Marc-Forrester's description of "merely following the herd and dodging the questions".
As I see it, someone who hasn't challenged thier faith does not have strong faith, with respect to anything, be it religion or what not.
However, there are alot of people who just simply believe in <insert religion/philosophy> simply out of habit,tradition,cultural influences,etc.
As for your question rivka, my answer to it at least would be that QSC actually spends the time, maybe not directly to us his fans, but through his writing to express his beliefs and justify them.
"To accept a faith just because it is customary, means to be dishonest, to be cowardly, to be lazy. And do dishonesty, cowardice, and laziness then appear as the presupposition of morality?"
That aphorism goes a long way to explain why I, as a person who has taken actually take the time to think about my personal beliefs, usually find those who haven't given any thought as to why they believe in something somewhat disapointing.
But Marc, you probably should just avoid trying to classify people would help alot, even though I am sure you share some of the sentiments I feel.
Posts: 42 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Somnium: Actually rivka, there are plenty of people who fit Marc-Forrester's description of "merely following the herd and dodging the questions".
Certainly.
My point was not that they do not exist. Merely that they exist both among the religious and non-, and that being religious does not necessarily mean you fit that description.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any true statement will conflict with neither accurately observed reality nor true religious doctrine, properly understood. My belief is that no religion is complete, and science by definition is incomplete.
In fact, my own religion takes it as a matter of doctrine that we don't know everything and have much left to learn - about religion as about everything else.
So those who think my position on anything is a mindless (or even mindful) adherence to a dogma of my religion understand neither me nor my religion. While there is no shortage of unthinking Mormons (as unthinking atheists or any other belief system), there is also no shortage of thinking ones.
In my experience, the better I understand my religion and the better I understand the findings of rational scientific exploration (i.e., not science as reported in the press, but science using solid methodology and subjected to proper testing), the more I find they converge.
I am perfectly capable of leaving certain doctrines - and certain scientific findings - and certain contradictions between them - in abeyance for many years, gathering more information. I am also fully capable of altering my own ideas about the world based on new information and/or a better understanding, when those are offered to me.
Just because what I believe coincides at some points with the common understanding of Mormon doctrine does not mean that my process of arriving at my conclusion began with the Mormon doctrine and then bent everything else to fit it. All conclusions are held in abeyance while I explore an idea, because I know that given time, BOTH sources of information are highly likely to change, along with my understanding of both.
But at some point, despite the incompleteness of information, I find such a preponderance of evidence, or such an urgency of action, that I must proceed (as, ultimately, we all do, always), with a firm position that I might find myself forced to alter later. In other words, if I wait for absolute certainty, I will never speak or act at all, and my existence will be pointless.
We all act on incomplete information all the time - like the people here who post about how they think my mental processes work, despite the extreme incompleteness of their information. (In fact, in most such cases I suspect they may be describing their own mental process OR their fantasy of the mental processes of "stupid people" or "people who are not as correct as me.")
But this lack of certainty about anything is so obvious that I don't feel any need to say it every time. Certainly my opponents on major issues of the day have no such qualms - they speak in absolutes, then accuse me of absolutism when I answer them; just as the most powerful forces of intolerance in America today accuse their opponents of intolerance, which justifies their intolerant actions towards them.
Circularity of reasoning is hardly rare in our society, especially among those who style themselves intellectuals and "deep thinkers" - along with lots of dogmatic or party-line thinking, a heavy amount of post hoc ergo propter hoc, lots of false inductions and guilt-by-association, and all the other ordinary mental errors that come when "intellectual" becomes applied to those with a certain belief set instead of rigorous self-skepticism.
I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. I also recognize in myself all the natural human tendencies - to look with favor on new ideas that seem to buttress ideas I already hold; to be especially skeptical of ideas that seem to challenge cherished beliefs; to have a harder time listening to those who are attacking instead of discussing rationally; and so on. I endeavor as best I can to overcome those ordinary weaknesses and try to see past them - without overcompensating by taking the adolescent course of jettisoning old beliefs and embracing new ones as thoughtlessly as one held the old ones.
I feel no obligation to embrace silly science reporting and bad scientific methodology; nor will I accept fads that pretend to have a scientific basis when they have none. I also take into account my own reasoning and concatenation of interdisciplinary findings, which I have neither time nor inclination to explain in every single essay that I write.
But let me give as brief a precis as I can of one such lens through which I view what I see: The human species is unique in the animal kingdom for having moved its survival away from the individual and onto the community, with the tribe as an intermediary step. Other animals have herds and packs, but within them, individuals still remain the repository of memory, and DNA the respository of instinct.
Humans, however, do not depend for their ability to propagate the species on the strengths or actions of the individuals. We instead depend on the community to offer protection and reproductive opportunity, and the pressure on our DNA is not so much toward the traits that promote individual survival as toward the traits that promote the stability, strength, and survivability of the community that successfully provides safety and reproductive opportunity.
So there are communities that provide rule sets (customs, rituals, normative stories) that lead to behaviors by their members that promote the physical and reproductive security of the whole, and communities that are not so good at this. There are communities that are more civilized and communities that are more tribal; and the choices of communities have consequences in the real world, which are often as predictable as the consequences of individual choices.
And anyone who does NOT believe that there are behaviors that make an individual untenable as a member of any community has clearly not thought very seriously about such matters. There are individual behaviors that make a community unlivable for many or all the other members until either the behavior is changed or the individual is removed - how much rape or murder or theft, for instance, do you think a society can tolerate before the members of the community retribalize and take firm action without waiting for the polity to act? History provides many, many examples.
I regard tribalization as a hideous condition in which the things I value in life become almost impossible to enjoy. Recent examples of tribalization (the former Yugoslavia, for instance) show plainly that despite the veneer of civilization, we all know how to fall back on the tribe when we lose confidence in the rule set of the larger community - and, given provocation, we humans WILL do it. And even those who adamantly refuse are either caught up in or destroyed by the process. (Remnants of old survival strategies remain in the DNA; there are always individuals with a behavioral predisposition toward tribalism amid a society that is more generally predisposed toward civilization, and vice versa.)
The absurdity of our current political situation, in which completely unrelated or incompatible beliefs are assumed (or demanded) of anyone who belongs to the Left or the Right, and people assume that anyone who is not certifiably dogmatically of one team must be extremely and totally of the other, constantly deforms the template of our discussions. This makes it so that any attempt to discuss issues of the utmost importance becomes clouded (or shouted down) because of all the assumed ancillary beliefs that, while irrelevant to the subject at hand, are invoked in order to punish unorthodox thinking.
The Right and the Left are equally capable of and equally skilled at such self-destructive legerdemain; it renders both camps unable either to learn anything new or to tolerate adaptation that would promote survival of the community as a whole.
External threats and internal threats are thus equally treated as physical footballs, so that both teams are trying to score their absurd goals on a playing field of quicksand. And when I try to introduce serious issues of discussion that I think are crucial to our ability to survive against outside rivals or inside tendencies toward tribalization, I find that the only answers I get are about the game, never about the quicksand. No one seems capable of understanding or addressing the actual issues I am trying to put on the table; they only recognize that I am not "on their team" and then immediately begin to punish me for being an "extremist" of the other team.
Now and then I encounter someone who understands what I'm talking about. By and large, I find (to my discouragement) that such people have largely given up on trying to communicate with the players in the political game (which unfortunately includes the overwhelming majority of those who are considered our intellectual elite).
So when I address, for example, the possible consequences of redefining marriage in a way that I think poses a serious threat to our ability as a community to provide the reproductive security that a civilized community absolutely must provide to survive (and I'm not speaking of homosexual marriage here, all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers, or not JUST that, I'm speaking of our embrace of divorce, of abortion at the woman's sole option, of extramarital mating, and many other experiments that have collectively weakened reproductive security and intergenerational cultural transmission), I am universally answered by people who don't even try to understand the actual ideas I'm talking about, who don't even understand the role of monogamous marriage (and, just as importantly, the perception of universal monogamy) in maintaining stability in a community, and who instead search for ways - which are always instantly at hand - to dismiss me as belonging to this or that category of persons that no one needs to listen to.
People who understand what I'm talking about may disagree with me (usually about the degree of the threat or the urgency of our current situation, only rarely about the actual dangers involved in the vast experiments we have performed on ourselves as a society) and thereby challenge me to test my own ideas again; they also provide me with information I did not know, which helps me constantly to revise or refine or buttress the understanding I have developed over years of study and thought.
But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Meanwhile, I write essays that, since I despair of being able to talk about core issues, merely try to alert people to this or that particular danger or problem or, rarely, a possible solution, and then I watch as I'm called a fascist, an idiot, or a religious fanatic.
So here's a word from the "religious fanatic": God's statements aren't important or true because God said them, God said them because they're important and true. So it is hardly a surprise when the most rigorous examination of human behavior in societies leads me to many points of confluence with a successful religion.
Or, to put it in terms of more scientific rigor: If a religion is successful, it will be because it is an important factor in creating or upholding a community whose rule set promotes human behaviors that lead to longterm survival of the community and the physical and reproductive security of most individuals within it. Therefore it will be no accident when rigorous science discovers facts about the consequences of human behavior that buttress the moral principles of successful religions, since the religions that do not promote pro-civilization behaviors are highly likely to be either long since dead or too weak to make a serious difference in the society in which they nestle.
There are, of course, religions that promote, not civilized, but tribal success; such religions, while possibly successful, succeed within a civilization only to the degree that they (a) addapt to civilized norms or (b) seethe under the surface of the veneer of civilization, constantly offering pressure toward tribalization, which is balanced by countervailing institutions.
So many terms remain undefined in this precis that I despair of anyone making sense of it (not least "civilization" and "tribalization") but what's the point, anyway? I know precisely how the standard responders will respond - with contempt, with the shibboleths of their team, with pretended understanding, with ludicrously irrelevant or inaccurate "data," or with personal attacks on me or attacks on my religion and how I have become a master of self-deception, because they know my REAL motives better than I know them myself.
And yet ... hope springs eternal, n'est-ce pas? Er, I mean, neh? Maybe there are lurkers who will get what I'm talking about, while the standard Orson-despisers here go about their business of demonstrating their complete lack of comprehension, for which they never seem to tire of punishing me.
quote: Certainly my opponents on major issues of the day have no such qualms - they speak in absolutes, then accuse me of absolutism when I answer them.... I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. ...all you knee-jerk shibboleth watchers...
See, it's this kind of thing that gets you in trouble. I know you're not a huge fan of my advice, but it seems to me that the people who really need to benefit from the points you made above are also the ones most likely to tune you out after hearing lines like that.
I know you know how that works. I know you're perceptive enough to see it when other people do it, because you've complained about it in the past. So why not acknowledge the possibility that a lot of these perception problems stem not from what you say, but how you say it? You're a master of the written word. Surely you realize that when you use a line like "all you knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers," you're deliberately belittling a portion of your audience -- without taking care, mind you, to specify that your comment only applies to those people who ARE actually knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers, something that'd take just a second to clarify if you felt it was necessary. Surely you don't mean to suggest that everyone to whom same-sex marriage occurred when you mentioned issues possibly detrimental to reproduction is a "shibboleth-watcher;" why then use a term which risks offering offense in that way?
You reap a LOT of what you actually sow, y'know, if not all of it. You're not any more put-upon than someone in your position should be put-upon; you're a prominent author who's highly active in both the literary and Mormon community, and have recently made the jump into punditry -- which is going to bring with it the usual pains. Moreover, it seems disingenuous to me to complain about the lack of honest debate you encounter when, in my experience, you rarely engage in actual debate. By writing these first-person essays and mentioning those who disagree with you obliquely as opponents -- and frequently dumb, misguided, or downright evil opponents, at that -- you invite hostile replies, because people who attempt to engage you on the specifics of your essays are rarely acknowledged, if ever. By responding primarily to critics of your politics in Pelegius' vein, you encourage that kind of random, wacky and baseless attack; it's the people who disagree with you respectfully, intelligently, and for perfectly valid reasons that you wind up dismissing and ultimately disillusioning.
I suffer from some of this myself; I approach things from angles. But, hey, if you're ticked off about someone saying -- as I did -- that your starting premises are frequently grounded in your religious assumptions, it's my opinion that it's far healthier to say "I disagree with you on that and find it offensive." And you can make it clear that it's not a point on which you want to invite conversation, or even that it's a point on which you'd welcome conversation -- but either way is ultimately more constructive than using lines like "the standard Orson-despisers."
You have every right to occasionally feel victimized, but I think you have to keep in mind that you have deliberately made yourself a target -- and it's hard, based on some of your essays, to really determine who threw the first metaphorical punch, anyway. You have a reasoned defense of your views -- I've seen you elaborate on them before -- and I think they can stand on their own without the rhetorical flourishes and generalized criticisms of hypothetical opponents.
Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think anyone here expects you to engage in regular debate; no one thinks you're that beholden to your audience. But if you don't, I think it's only natural for your most prominent criticism to come in the form of random unsolicited diatribes, since that's the only real alternative to communication.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for writing that OSC, I'm gratified that you continue to write for those who appreciate it; which are many. I talk to people all the time who read your columns but don't even know there are forums.
Posts: 231 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Tom, since you didn't answer a single point in my essay, but merely used it as evidence to make yet another ad hominem attack/dismissal ("feel victimized") ("hypothetical opponents"), then let me offer this latest posting of yours as a perfect demonstration of someone who, instead of noticing the quicksand, only tries to score yet another point in the meaningless game.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't answer the "points" in your essay because, by and large, I mostly agree with them. As I said in my first post on this thread, I believe you have reached your conclusions through ample thought and research, and respect you quite a lot for doing it; your many paragraphs devoted to emphasizing the reconciliation of religion with science, for example, are ones with which I wholeheartedly agree (and I didn't think I needed to repeat that, since I'd pretty much already said the same thing -- albeit more briefly and less eloquently -- in my earlier post.)
The few actual points I don't agree with -- like your position on the importance of reproduction -- are a bit ancillary to the discussion, and while I'd be happy to chat with you on those topics in another thread, I didn't think it was worth derailing this one for a discussion of same-sex marriage, divorce, etc. If you would like to talk about this issue with me (or with anyone else), I promise you that there are a number of people on this site who'd be glad to engage in that conversation should a thread be created for that purpose.
Rather, I replied to what concerned me: the fact that I had just posted in your defense, and your own reply seriously undermined the defense I had made of you by being needlessly inflammatory, insulting, and defensive. I don't think I'm stretching by saying that you occasionally feel victimized here and elsewhere, as you've made several comments along those lines; neither do I regret using the phrase "hypothetical opponents," as I think it's clear that many of the people you address in your essays -- like the aforementioned "knee-jerk shibboleth-watchers" -- are hypothetical constructs, people who may or may not be actually involved in the conversation you're having with your audience.
In fact, it's exactly those two things -- your occasional defensiveness and your tendency in your essays to invent motivations for opponents and turn those hypotheticals into generalizations -- which I firmly believe make it hard for even many of the people who agree with you to appreciate some of your essays. I've observed, at least in your dealings with me, a tendency to assume the worst possible motivation, and it's something that you also appear to do with a somewhat larger brush when describing pro-choice supporters, global warming researchers, etc. I understand the need for brevity in a political piece, but it's my opinion that eliminating the ad hominems from your own essays might give you the editorial inches necessary to more satisfactorily elaborate on the strengths of your positions -- and, as a side benefit, remove many of the flippant but cutting generalizations that appear to alienate many of your readers.
To clarify: my point was not that you were wrong in any particular (especially not since we're in agreement on most of the issues addressed), but that you expressed yourself in a way that appeared calculated to wound precisely the kind of people you most needed to reach. From my perspective -- and I'll admit that it might be a flawed one -- it looks like you're spending too much time polishing the stone instead of digging the well. You may have your own reasons for doing this. You may not even mean to come off this way. But if you honestly care about this, I really wish you'd give what I'm saying some charitable consideration.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to highlight one point from the post from OSC. I for one really applaud the attempt to make judgements about valid scientific method (and not go by what the press says about a particular scientific result, for example).
I am, however, concerned about the level of expertise required to judge scientific validity. I know in my own field that people who are actual practitioners (supposed experts) make stupid mistakes all the time. Usually, these are of a type that the average lay-person would not understand or even know to look for. And yet, they are blatantly obvious to those who know the data, the methods, and the shortcomings thereof. Most often, the reason for the error is nothing more complicated than simply stopping the research when the favored/desired outcome is obtained (i.e., simple researcher bias) and a failure to consider alternative explanations.
Since the practitioners themselves make these mistakes, I submit that it is highly unlikely that the people writing about their research results, or using them to support a particular position, are going to do better.
The advantage of handling these issues in a scientific context is that there are some self-correcting mechanisms within science. Peer review, replication, and hypothesis testing all serve to ultimately correct even the most favored of wrong results.
All we have in dealing with press accounts is varying degrees of incomplete reporting and, sometimes, opposing Op/Ed pieces. If all the lay people have the same less-than-expert level understanding of the science, I suspect the whole endeavor really boils down to rhetoric, not actual, reliable facts, no matter how much data they throw at each other.
<postscript> I would like to point out that I do not intend this as a critique of Mr. Card's essays. He has yet to write on a topic area in which I have specific scientific expertise, so I cannot judge whether he is or is not doing a better job than others in the press.
My comments are simply to raise the issue of whether the ideal referred to in the earlier post is actually attainable. From the reporting covering my field of expertise, I have decided that the locally-specific answer is a resounding "no!"
But whether this is true of all fields, I cannot say.
What I will say, however, is that I prefer press accounts that include coverage of alternative viewpoints and the evidence that would support them, as well as alternative explanations of the pieces of science the author HAS chosen to present in favor of their thesis.
I suspect, however, that I'm in the minority on this and that, if adopted, my idea would simply kill off the Op/Ed "industry" overnight. People would end up too bored and confused to bother reading it at all.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But on Hatrack and on Ornery, what do I see? Those who disagree with me show little sign of understanding even the rudimentary principles I'm talking about; and those who agree with me are no better, merely assuming that I'm "on their team" and saying "go Orson!"
Wow, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. How can you whine about Tom making an ad hominen attack against you after you've insulted the majority of a board that mostly worships you? It seems as though having a reasonable discussion with you is almost impossible, as you simply assume complete stupidity from those who take an opposing position.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope OSC turns that into another published essay. That was a very good read -- gave me lots to think about.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whew. That's way more response that I was expecting - going to take me a while to absorb properly, but maybe part of the answer to my confusion is here:
"Now and then I encounter someone who understands what I'm talking about. By and large, I find (to my discouragement) that such people have largely given up on trying to communicate ..."
If Orson is the first person I've noticed with a similar worldview to my own, but grown from wildly different roots, then maybe it's not that they're rare, so much as keeping their heads down. I'll try to watch for that behaviour in myself, too. Thanks, man - this definitely counts as an insight.
Oh, and just in case it would help to know, this: "... I am universally answered by people who don't even try to understand the actual ideas I'm talking about ..." is blindingly obvious from external observation of the war you find yourself in. It's also the horribly universal experience of any person who ever worked out an opinion for themselves.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the practitioners themselves make these mistakes, I submit that it is highly unlikely that the people writing about their research results, or using them to support a particular position, are going to do better. The advantage of handling these issues in a scientific context is that there are some self-correcting mechanisms within science. Peer review, replication, and hypothesis testing all serve to ultimately correct even the most favored of wrong results. All we have in dealing with press accounts is varying degrees of incomplete reporting and, sometimes, opposing Op/Ed pieces. If all the lay people have the same less-than-expert level understanding of the science, I suspect the whole endeavor really boils down to rhetoric, not actual, reliable facts, no matter how much data they throw at each other.
Here's what I see as the big problem to be overcome in solving this: there's almost no meaningful policy decision that can be made using specialized knowledge from only one field. In addition, I doubt there are many meaningful policy decisions that can be made using only specialized scientific knowledge. Some moral framework is necessary, if only to choose between the desired outcomes. And, in this country at least, we allow average citizens a great deal of indirect input into the moral framework used to evaluate policy choices.
Further, many people realize that their preferred policy choices can be supported by particular scientific outcomes. This creates incentive throughout the creation and exchange of scientific information - from funding decisions made by scientists and non-scientists alike all the way through what gets reported in the popular media.
Whether scientists do try to shade outcomes to support their moral beliefs doesn't actually matter much to the problem: the perception is such that no one is likely to change their policy viewpoint on scientific conclusions alone. They will require some details of the analysis and experiments that led to the conclusion.
If, as you say and I tend to agree with, most people are not capable of understanding much more than the conclusions in most fields, then we have an enormous problem taking scientific discoveries into account in our political system.
I do not want a system where we designate an expert to make each particular decision. I want a system where chosen decision makers can receive reliable advice from experts that is taken into account when making the decision.
Since we the people are the choosers of those decision makers, we need to be able to get that reliable advice, too.
I wish I knew of a way to do it.
*None of this is meant to disagree with you, Bob. It just spurred me to thinking about problems related to what you wrote.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I want a system where chosen decision makers can receive reliable advice from experts that is taken into account when making the decision.
I think this is the lynchpin. How do we trust any elected official to fairly and justly identify sources of reliable advice?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way I could think of is strict campaign spending caps at all levels, with zero lattitude for wiggle room, with political action committees and stuff.
It would probably limit freedom of speech in one sense, as far as political action committes doing publicity for canidates but "he who has the money gets to speak" really isn't freedom of speech at all.
posted
I have no clue, really. At least not a single answer. Dilligence by the elctorate is the best way I can think of.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I totally agree. And, to my mind, the best thing we could do is use the experts (like those at the National Academy of Sciences) to provide information to decision makers.
I think we do that to a certain extent now (in government, NAS is consulted), but we also rely heavily on the system of lobbyists, hoping that by getting information from opposing lobbyists our decision makers will get a complete and balanced picture.
I know of no field where the question of bias can be eliminated, however. I also know that it's easier for some lobbyists to get to some politicians, and that introduces another source of bias.
Specifically how to help the lay person -- I haven't got a solution.
In my field, I'm working to set up an informal network of research analysts to provide peer review and advice/assistance. I'm part of such groups now, but I still see the need for more.
In other fields, I have no clue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "he who has the money gets to speak" really isn't freedom of speech at all.
I dunno. If you accept the premise that money is a function of some level of merit/work, then it's just an extension of that work. I'm highly nervous about suggestions which rely on imposing financial controls on campaigns or individuals, since I think those targets will immediately start working on ways to circumvent those limits instead of actually working responsibly within their remit. And even somehow removing the influence of PACs won't solve the problem: how would any politician, who has trained presumably in another field, be able to tell a reliable expert from a fraud?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do.
With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis. It's hard to read that and not feel defensive. *Sigh* I've been trying to talk around my core reaction, but I haven't found a good way to do it, so I will just throw it out there: Your post makes me feel like I'm stupid for not seeing what you see, thinking about it like you do, and coming to the same conclusions that you do, for the same reasons. I don't think you meant for me to feel that way, but when I read your posts, I have to interpret your writing as myself, not as you.
I read your post, and it makes me feel inferior. I start wondering, am I badly missing all of the points that Card makes? I had thought that I had a reasonable understanding, and I thought that Card's writing was clear, but am I so far off? What's wrong with me? When I write this post, am I exposing my ignorance of whatever point I am missing for everyone to see?
I am learning to question and consider everything that I read. This is a growing process, moving from being a passive reader to an active reader. Like everyone else, my perspective and thought process are unique, formed from my own experiences, training, and education. In some ways, it is likely better. Probably in most, it is not. There is a One True Way of Looking At Things, but it belongs to the Lord. I am always striving to better myself and to correct, adjust, and refine my approach so that I can better percieve truth. All too often, I fail miserably. But I pick myself back up, glue my ego together (takes a lot of time, it's a big ego) and keep trying.
I'm not going to see things the way that you do. I'm probably going to continue missing the point. I will, without a doubt, make my own conclusions. Be patient. Don't get angry, because it doesn't help my understanding.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...we also rely heavily on the system of lobbyists, hoping that by getting information from opposing lobbyists our decision makers will get a complete and balanced picture.
See, I work in a field founded on the advocacy principle, and I know that this doesn't lead to the presentation of all relevant information in any given situation. When there are only two parties (and discovery is complete), this is acceptable, because each side gets to present what it considers important to the finder of fact. The incentive process works toward the selection of information most helpful to each side.
It is the curse of our current political situation that policy disputes are seen as two-sided. Even worse, the advocacy system in politics doesn't have 500 years of experience behind it in ensuring some form of parity between the two parties' chance to advocate.
A trial, from complaint to final appeal, is set up to ensure each party has an equal chance to be heard and to present evidence. It also attempts to remove particularly distracting information from the process, with varying but usually at least decent success.
A political decision has none of these, and yet most of the information comes from advocates.
I think financing is terribly problematic here. If scientific discourse is relevant to the political process (and I think we all agree it is), then limiting political discourse will either require limiting scientific discourse or leaving a hole big enough for a truck to drive through. The advocacy groups would put out scientific information on an unlimited budget, then just reference that information in their restricted speech.
It would also seriously disadvantage the side with the more nuanced or intricate position.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I reject, at least partially, that money is a function of level of merit or work in the upper middle class and above. On an individual level only "new money" is when it isn't a lottery winner. Otherwise, it's cause you had an ancestor that had the right combination of intelligence, dilligence, luck and quite possibly sleaziness.
At a corporate level, it's not neccesarily true either, though I don't have it thought out well enough yet to give specific examples, though Underwriters Laboratory comes to mind, as one of my personal pet peeves.
I think finding the level of discerning intelligence and integrity and general horse sense that you want in a politician is so rare in the general population, that trying to put those people in to politics is nearly impossible with the system today, since it's just as likely, if not more to be found gnarled, weathered but educated farmers who'd never leave their land, rather than anywhere else.
posted
Ultimately, this is why I'm a big fan of reducing the size of the federal government. There are too many decisions here being made at the top level, and it's making it too hard for people at that level to make informed choices.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ultimately, this is why I'm a big fan of reducing the size of the federal government. There are too many decisions here being made at the top level, and it's making it too hard for people at that level to make informed choices.
I'd join that party. Keep overall taxation levels the same but flip most of the non-military, non-foreign policy taxes over to the states. Then the states can adjust their service and taxation levels to fit the desires of the people.
Basically the party would take almost no positions nationally not relating to foreign policy, defense, customs, immigration, and a few other well-defined set of areas where national coordination is really needed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the source of the division that people were talking around -- before the thread went off in its own direction -- is this:
quote:OSC wrote: Meanwhile, I write essays that, since I despair of being able to talk about core issues, merely try to alert people to this or that particular danger or problem or, rarely, a possible solution...
Why not talk about core issues? Your "brief precis" here was both comprehensible and wonderfully explanatory, and in the short time since you posted it there have already been multiple requests to make it available in another format and/or venue. I think it's clear that if you were to write one or more essays in this style there would absolutely be a market for them (so to speak). People would read them (I sure would). I do understand that you can't review your entire belief structure and the rationales behind each aspect of it right from the beginning within the confines of a single op-ed essay, but you have dismissed your entire audience (knee-jerk detractors and supporters explicitly; "innocent bystanders" by implication) as unable to comprehend your reasoning without first outlining it.
For example, I often respond strongly and negatively to the op-ed columns of yours that I do read. From the part of your post before the precis I presume this means that this automatically puts me in the "has not bothered to consider my ideas" category... yet I read your precis with outright pleasure, because it made a few aspects of your belief structure and reasoning much clearer to me. Even the parts of it where you dismissed the ability of others (and I took this dismissal to include myself) to comprehend what you wrote were easier to set aside because at least, in this case, the precis itself was there, and the overall tone of the piece wasn't "ornery." I may not share your views, since we start with very different premises, but for once I'm a bit closer to understanding them.
I don't think your characterization of the knee-jerk "side-takers" is wholly or even mostly inaccurate -- posts like Pelegius', for instance, aren't exactly uncommon -- but to dismiss everyone in this community as well as your entire readership with a single blanket statement of that sort is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are plenty of people both here and "out there" who could, I think, surprise you with their ability to understand what you're saying. You just have to present it without dismissing them out of hand.
Of course, that does put a larger burden of effort on you than on your readers -- you have to be more thorough and tactful than the Pelegiuses of the world, who will always be there.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say that I have been enjoying this thread but I best get back to my studies so that my law school professors do not make a fool of me in class when I respond to one of their questions on some subject like tort law with rhetoric from this forum
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tern said: With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.
tern- I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does. There is no way for anyone, except maybe his wife, to understand the personal experiences that have led him to place more value on one thing than on another. IME, a belief systmem is a combination of both fact and personal experience. Though someone else may be better able to judge the accuracy of a given fact, I think that claiming authority over the ability to judge another's beliefs is akin to saying, "I know you better than you know yourself."
I'm certain that I would be offended if anyone else presumed that they were better equipped than I am to decide what I should believe in.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tern said: With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.
tern- I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does. There is no way for anyone, except maybe his wife, to understand the personal experiences that have led him to place more value on one thing than on another. IME, a belief systmem is a combination of both fact and personal experience. Though someone else may be better able to judge the accuracy of a given fact, I think that claiming authority over the ability to judge another's beliefs is akin to saying, "I know you better than you know yourself."
I'm certain that I would be offended if anyone else presumed that they were better equipped than I am to decide what I should believe in.
I interpreted OSC's sentence here to mean that he questions his beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown signs of knowing how to question their own beliefs.
The only reason it didn't offend me is because I know for a fact it's not true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's funny, I went back and read your post again and realized that you read Card's post as criticising your ability to scrutinize your beliefs, not his.
I'm always amazed at how far short the written word falls when it comes to communicating intent.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I didn't take it that way because it didn't seem consistent with the rest of the post. I read the quoted portion as a response to Tom's answering for him.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted it the same way Dagonee interpreted it. I wouldn't presume to tell Card what he should believe in, either.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also interpreted it the way tern and Dagonee did. Even on reading it again, LadyDove, I have a hard time seeing it the way you do. I wasn't offended by it for the same reason that Dagonee wasn't.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't take it that way because it didn't seem consistent with the rest of the post. I read the quoted portion as a response to Tom's answering for him.
If he meant it the way you read it, I doubt anyone disagrees with it. But it's also not saying anything particularly relevant to the rest of the piece if interpreted that way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Add me to the chorus of people who interpreted it as tern and Dag did. I just took it as an indicator that Card hadn't spent enough time on the forum to have gotten to know its members very well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's funny, I went back and read your post again and realized that you read Card's post as criticising your ability to scrutinize your beliefs, not his.
FWIW, I also assumed Card was saying he had scrutinized his own beliefs more rigorously than most people here know how to scrutinize their own. That's specifically why I cited it as one of three examples of statements which could be eliminated from his post to make it more effective and persuasive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's saying that people here don't know how to examine their own beliefs, or that we don't do it as much as he does. Rather, it seems to me that OSC just feels that none of the posts that he's read indicate to him how much we do examine our beliefs.
It may have been better if he phrased it something like this:
"People here may question their beliefs as rigorously as I do, however, I haven't seen any posts that indicate this to be so. Instead, it seems that the majority of the responses to my columns are based more on ignorance and malicious intent rather than from a sincere attempt to understand the differences between our beliefs."
Added: and as Noemon basically said, this just means that OSC hasn't spent as much time on this forum as many of us have.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Instead, it seems that the majority of the responses to my columns are based more on ignorance and malicious intent rather than from a sincere attempt to understand the differences between our beliefs.
As I said in my previous post, this is partly due to the fact that, as someone who does not regularly engage in debate here, his primary exposure to criticism of his columns comes in the form of one-sided diatribes posted by random newbies. I would like to think that his opinion on this matter would change were he to spend some time talking to various regulars on some of the issues about which he writes essays, if just to understand why they may not agree. Were I to hand-pick debate opponents for Card, Pelegius and Thor would not be near the top of my list for anything but entertainment value.
I'd love to see him talk constitutional law with Dag, or global warming with Rabbit, or same-sex marriage with KarlEd. Jokingly and gingerly, I'd offer to chat with him about web design. What I'm trying to say is that if he only really takes a visible interest in his most erratic critics, all his critics are going to seem erratic and uninformed. And it's my opinion that this will bias and calcify his thinking; I think that would happen to anyone in a similar situation -- as has happened, for example, to people from Garrison Keillor to Harlan Ellison.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, maybe I'm delusional, but I don't see that post as an attack. I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths. It's not a crutch, but a loadbeam within the framework of the belief in community.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may have missed some of the subtleties in his wording, LD. I've quoted three in my follow-up, but there are others. The essay is BOTH a candid explanation of his beliefs AND an attack, and my argument is that it works better as the former if the latter is eliminated. I believe his beliefs are well-reasoned enough to stand on their own, and I'd rather see him spend the space elaborating on his positive reasons for an opinion than speculating negatively about the reasons his opponents might hold a contrary one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that most of his post is a very candid explanation of why he believes as he does. That part is great. It's the extra things tacked on that come across as an attack and lower the effectiveness of his argument.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see it as a very candid explanation of why a person has decided to believe as he does and an assertion that he uses the same litmus test for his religion that he does for the other beliefs he holds as truths.
And the comparison to others' questioning of their own beliefs was utterly unnecessary for that explanation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until they seized control of the board. Which brings us back to square one.
Are scientists big on hostile takeovers? I think a board loosely modelled on the supreme court would be, if nothing else, a lot more effective than our current system. This would kind of eliminate the inherent drawbacks of newly appointed cabinets every 4 years.
And really, isn't the idea just to improve on the current system? I mean, there is no perfect system.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
would help alot, even though I am sure you share some of the sentiments I feel.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
