posted
Yes, just as I think it is a shame that Palin did not feel able to make her Chinese-friendly speech in front of her American audience, I feel that it was a shame that Obama did not feell able to say his bit in front of a general American audience.
I'm probably biased because I think the "controversial" bits in both cases are true though Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think most of Palin's base is that worried about China. But then, I'm a bit alienated from the conservative base due to their obsession with illegal immigration so, eh, I don't know. Maybe the people I am basing this off are right fringe. I'm really sick of conservatives who now trash President Bush. Between that and Washington being overrun with democrats, it's just too painful to pay attention to politics much. Maybe that makes me part of the problem and all that.
I also think the media is poisoned by their profit motive. I don't think that has to be the case, it just happens to be the case. I am not anti-capitalist, but I am concerned by crusaders operating under a capitalist/celebrity model. It's a bad combination.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can come up with an answer for either side, yes, but that's the problem with applying scientific thinking to the historical question: There isn't always going to be falsifiability in every given question!
This is a good point. Falsifiability is both a major strength and a major limitation for science. It is a major strength because it allows us to be confident in scientific conclusions. But it is a major limitation because many questions have answers that cannot be falsified, which makes limits the sort of questions that can be answered in a scientific way. That's why history or literature do not emphasize falsifiability - because it can't falsify theories regarding the sort of questions that history and literature need to ask. For instance, you can't truly falsify the theory that "Dead author X meant Y when he said Z in his book". You can offer evidence for or against it, but the author is gone so you can't truly determine what he did or did not mean.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well sure, but it's inherently limited. If I said I believe in God, how can you tell me what's true and not true? Thus, how can you tell me my belief is false? My point is that "false belief" is a poor term, because it only applies to things that are in fact falsifiable, but a great many of the questions that permeate civic discourse aren't those kinds of questions. They have sides, and you can gather evidence to support your opinion, but no one is ever going to tell you you're wrong with concrete proof, it's just an opposing opinion.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't there a difference between a belief that is false but can't be proven false and an opinion that is purely subjective?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But isn't there a difference between a belief that is false but can't be proven false and an opinion that is purely subjective?
Perhaps you could give an example.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm going off the original post here. I seem to recall Obama making a remark about people being "bitter" and it got all blown up, and his excuse was that he says different things depending on his perceived audience. Does that make him undemocratically non-transparent?
That is a good example and perhaps I wasn't clear but I tried to indicate that I thought there were valid reasons a politician might want to speak without the media present.
The Obama "bitter" example is very interest because when you look at the full context, he wasn't saying anything very controversial. So here a fairly good record of the full (or nearly full context of Obama's remark.
When I read that entire thing (starting about a page down under "Obama in Context", It's hard to see what is offensive. It not only does it contain some very perceptive statements about parts of middle America, its also clear that the ultimate point he was trying to make was that weak support for him in certain regions should not be simply passed off as racism. He also points out that even in those most depressed communities, not everyone was bitter or cynical.
Its only when you strip that one line out of its context that it seems elitist. And while Obama certainly could have and perhaps should have found a better way to express that idea, so what? Do we really believe politicians to have to prepare every word they speak carefully to make sure they can't be taken out of context and misunderstood? I don't. We all phrase things in different ways when speaking to different audiences. That doesn't necessarily mean duplicity. But as long as the media pounces on things like this and focuses peoples attention on them, what alternatives do politicians have?
I think the media needs to bear a big part of the blame.
The best description of this problem is I've heard is encapsulated in this quote from Ezra Klein about the Obama "bitter" statement.
quote:And this is why I don’t like writing about the campaign. It’s full of hollow scandals and ignored travesties. But you have to cover the hollow scandals, because they’re are blown up until they’re definitional in the campaign. And that leaves me writing about high-profile non-events in a way that helps cement their importance, even if I’m writing to deride their legitimacy.
If you’re ever interested in really getting to the bottom of what’s wrong with political journalism, incidentally, spend some time thinking about the fact that most of its leading practitioners came up through campaign reporting, and writing about verbal gaffes and off-the-cuff comments is what they trained to do. The tone of political journalism is set by people who are thrilled — on a professional level — that Obama said this thing, and now we can cover this story.
posted
Rabbit: since Tres is a believer in God, I think he would consider the following such an example: "God does not exist". Or, if God doesn't exist, this would be an example: "God exists". Presumably the existence or non existence of God is not relative to each person's subjective opinions, even though neither statement can be proven false.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rabbit: since Tres is a believer in God, I think he would consider the following such an example: "God does not exist". Or, if God doesn't exist, this would be an example: "God exists". Presumably the existence or non existence of God is not relative to each person's subjective opinions, even though neither statement can be proven false.
And as a counter example of something that is purely subjective "chocolate tastes good". But I can't really see how either of those is really relevant to a discussion of liberal education. I was hoping for examples that might be applicable to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
