posted
Today was an interesting day, with lots of strange thoughts circulating around. Some of them were important enough to be brought up here.
1) What makes Star Trek so important to the scientific/rationalist world is that it did not set up a dichotomy of Science or Fantasy. It took lots of fantastical and psuedo-scientific ideas and packaged true science around it. It was the gateway drug from religion and superstition and the fantasies people want to believe to the logic and realism of science.
2) T-Party folks talk a lot about the Entitlement Culture--of the poor who they claim feel entitled to things like health care, education, food, a livable wage and other things that you should earn, not be entitled too. Yet some of these folks, the Me Generation on Geritol are also of an Entitlement Culture, believing that they are entitled to cheap labor, not paying taxes, a Government who supplies them with what they require, a majority of representation in Congress before they have a majority of representatives elected, a President who believes and acts like they do, the ability to insult those who disagree with them, and sue those who insult them, every privilege they have now plus those their parents had or seem to remember having, cheap gas, clean air, pretty views out their windows, cheap energy, etc, etc.
3) The Pledge of Allegiance is under attack, but not mainly from those seeking to remove "under God." Mostly its under attack from those seeking to ignore the most important word in it--Indivisible.
This word, this idea, that we are one country, one people, is why the pledge was created. It is why Memorial Day was created--so that the memories of both Northern and Southern troops would be honored--equally.
There are always those who wish to tear the country apart, usually because they control one segment or another. It used to be North or South, then Black or White, City or Country, Red or Blue. Now its Conservative or Liberal. No quarter is given to the other. No humanity is recognized in the other. No peace will be allowed until the other is obliterated from our "true America".
But the True America is Indivisible--with Liberty and Justice for ALL.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a student of philosophy I have the itch to have some fun here, but I understand what you're getting at.
1) Science is not realism, realism is a particular lens to look at many facets of epistemology, ethics, etc. When you refer to science you really want to put an emphasis on the fact that it establishes knowledge through empirical inquiry. Nor is science technically rational, as to come to a conclusion using reason, and nothing but, is actually strongly opposed to realism and empirical inquiry in certain respects.
2) Logic was certainly not started by scientists, nor does it naturally always lead to "scientific" conclusions. Logic is all about the form of an argument and less to do with the premises.
3) Many philosophers would point to the fact that much of what we call science today is really nothing but modern superstition. That is much knowledge that has been gained through empirical inquiry is now treated as "common sense" to a certain degree ( and is taught as such ), thus you end up treating much "scientific" evidence on faith that the work was done well and that you're being told things that are true.
4) Oddly enough Catholicism has a very firm logic behind it ( read some Aquinas and you will see this ), which doesn't exactly make it better or good for that matter, simply that logic and "superstition" are not mutually exclusive.
That and I could go on a long time about what many people believe is American history, but I will just say this. America has always been divided in its will and attitude. Our revolution was a compromise of sorts, and so was the Constitution. That and Americans have in general always been entitled, just look at our history.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: 2) T-Party folks talk a lot about the Entitlement Culture--of the poor who they claim feel entitled to things like health care, education, food, a livable wage and other things that you should earn, not be entitled too.
.
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity, nothing exceeds the criticisms made of the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed." -->Herman Melville
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Being a student of philosophy I have the itch to have some fun here, but I understand what you're getting at.
1) Science is not realism, realism is a particular lens to look at many facets of epistemology, ethics, etc. When you refer to science you really want to put an emphasis on the fact that it establishes knowledge through empirical inquiry. Nor is science technically rational, as to come to a conclusion using reason, and nothing but, is actually strongly opposed to realism and empirical inquiry in certain respects.
2) Logic was certainly not started by scientists, nor does it naturally always lead to "scientific" conclusions. Logic is all about the form of an argument and less to do with the premises.
3) Many philosophers would point to the fact that much of what we call science today is really nothing but modern superstition. That is much knowledge that has been gained through empirical inquiry is now treated as "common sense" to a certain degree ( and is taught as such ), thus you end up treating much "scientific" evidence on faith that the work was done well and that you're being told things that are true.
4) Oddly enough Catholicism has a very firm logic behind it ( read some Aquinas and you will see this ), which doesn't exactly make it better or good for that matter, simply that logic and "superstition" are not mutually exclusive.
That and I could go on a long time about what many people believe is American history, but I will just say this. America has always been divided in its will and attitude. Our revolution was a compromise of sorts, and so was the Constitution. That and Americans have in general always been entitled, just look at our history.
I'm too exhausted to think or make any further observations. But... excellent post.
Posts: 1295 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: 2) T-Party folks talk a lot about the Entitlement Culture--of the poor who they claim feel entitled to things like health care, education, food, a livable wage and other things that you should earn, not be entitled too. Yet some of these folks, the Me Generation on Geritol are also of an Entitlement Culture, believing that they are entitled to cheap labor, not paying taxes, a Government who supplies them with what they require, a majority of representation in Congress before they have a majority of representatives elected, a President who believes and acts like they do, the ability to insult those who disagree with them, and sue those who insult them, every privilege they have now plus those their parents had or seem to remember having, cheap gas, clean air, pretty views out their windows, cheap energy, etc, etc.
God, where do I start. See, the mistake you're making here is completely understandable, since it's the basis of the problem.
You're confusing what people want with what people think they are entitled to.
Let me repeat that, because this seems to be a really difficult concept for some people to handle: "what you want" and "what you're entitled to" are two completely different things.
So you're saying that tea-partiers ("some", you say, but you imply that it's the rule, rather than the exception) have an entitlement culture. And here's your example of things they think they're entitled to:
cheap labor What makes you think anyone believes they are "entitled" to cheap labor? Sure, any employer would like that. Hell, my boss would probably love to pay me a tenth of what he's paying me. He'd jump over the moon if I'd volunteer instead of getting a salary. But I've never heard of anyone who thinks they're "entitled" to cheap labor.
not paying taxes This isn't an entitlement. I suppose if you think that paying taxes is as natural as the rain falling, then insisting that what you've earned is yours, to use or dispose of as you see fit, might sound like a belief in an entitlement. But tea-partiers don't think that. Nor have I heard of any tea-partiers who think they're entitled to the protection of police and armed forces without having to pay for it. I assure you that no tea-partier thinks that.
a Government who supplies them with what they require This is probably the only thing on your list that even counts as a half-truth. Although "half" is a vast overstatement. There are tea-partiers who aren't willing to campaign for the end of things like Medicare and Medicaid and farm subsidies and corporate subsidies, and the reason is usually one of two things. Either they're currently benefiting from one of those entitlement programs, or they think it's absolutely impossible to fight against them at this point in time. I find that regrettable, personally. But I think very few tea-partiers think they are "entitled" to those programs.
a majority of representation in Congress before they have a majority of representatives elected Okay, now you're making that up. That's just sloganeering on your part. Name one single tea-partier who thinks that.
a President who believes and acts like they do Again, of course they want that. Not just tea-partiers; I think 95% of the population wants that. But wanting something and thinking you're entitled to it are utterly different. The only way they can be confused is if someone thinks they're entitled to everything they want. Which is why I said the mistake is understandable, if completely off the wall.
the ability to insult those who disagree with them, and sue those who insult them How is the ability to bring a lawsuit an "entitlement"? Everyone has the right to insult those who disagree with them. Everyone has the right to sue anyone else for anything. If it's a frivolous suit, it should be tossed out of court and the person bringing it should pay court costs, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to bring suit. But that isn't an "entitlement", either. It's a right. Which means something different than I think you're aware of. A right is something you can legitimately insist that others not take from you. Your freedom of action, so long as you don't use that freedom of action to deprive others of theirs, just as an example. So if you can demonstrate that insulting people they disagree with is depriving those people of their rights, then no, they don't have the right to insult them. But if you can't, then the default is that they're free to do what they want.
every privilege they have now plus those their parents had or seem to remember having More sloganeering. And vague, to boot. No one believes they are entitled to that. They may want it, but that's different.
cheap gas Ditto.
clean air Ditto.
pretty views out their windows Ditto.
cheap energy Ditto.
But you'll get lots of kudos, just because you're lashing out at people who you dislike.
And it's interesting. You feel that you're entitled to insult those you disagree with. As evidenced by the fact that you did exactly that in your post. And I agree that you have that right. But not because you were granted it as an entitlement; because the default is that you're free to do as you like so long as you don't violate the rights of others.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Logic is all about the form of an argument and less to do with the premises.
Spoken like a person who has never learned the subject. Yes, an argument can be "valid" without the premises being correct, if its form is correct. But it can't be "sound" unless the premises are also correct.
So to say that logic is "all about" form is simply untrue. QED.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I actually agree with you on a couple of those "entitlements," but not all of them. First off, I do think that people think they're entitled to cheap gas, clean air and cheap energy. Those three in particular, and throw in clean water, are part of a larger web of cognitive dissonance in our society. Cheap energy in America means more air pollution, but we want clean air. We don't care if these basic facts get in the way, we're owed these things. I do believe that Americans in general, not just Tea Partiers think that way.
Cheap labor - This is the one I take the biggest issue with. "But I've never heard of anyone who thinks they're "entitled" to cheap labor." Read much labor history? You live near Chicago right? Tons of great labor history in the area. The middle and upper classes have expected cheap labor as a God-given right since the Industrial Revolution. That might have changed somewhat very, very recently, but it's been a huge facet of American history.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:from Black Fox: 3) Many philosophers would point to the fact that much of what we call science today is really nothing but modern superstition. That is much knowledge that has been gained through empirical inquiry is now treated as "common sense" to a certain degree ( and is taught as such ), thus you end up treating much "scientific" evidence on faith that the work was done well and that you're being told things that are true.
Doesn't that sort of ignore the chain you can follow though in empirical observation? Someone can tell me that the visible light spectrum is ROYGBV, and I'll believe it, which is perhaps an article of faith, but if I have doubts, I can get a prism and split light into its constituent parts and observe for myself that this is the visible light spectrum. Perhaps that's not the best example, but the point is that a lot of simple science is testable by the average person. If you want to say faith is involved, I'll go along to a degree, because for the uninitiated, there is a lot of faith in science, but superstition implies faith without reason, and that's where you lose me.
I think if you describe knowledge in general using the criteria you're using here, then every single thing we learn in school is superstition until we actually get out there and do the experiments and read the primary sources. In a way, I don't automatically reject this notion, as I think, as a budding historian, that reading secondary sources can often lead us astray. However, treating all knowledge not gleaned from direct observation as superstition erodes our common understanding of what knowledge is, and how it is to be disseminated. We're either learning wrong, need to remove the negative connotation from "superstition," or we're using the wrong word. I think it's the third option.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with you Lyrhawn. For instance, I have a sneaking suspicion that Asia does not in fact exist. And don't even get me started on the whole Australia myth, might as well call it Atlantis!
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... We're either learning wrong, need to remove the negative connotation from "superstition," or we're using the wrong word. I think it's the third option.
Tangent: I think superstition gets an unfair bad rap. Mind you, I'm no fan of either. But there shouldn't be as a big a gap as there is in society between the negative connotations associated with "superstitious" and the positive connotations associated with "religious."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Well for one, I actually do study the subject and the problem with soundness tends to be how exactly I prove that my premises are true. What will that burden of proof be, especially when it comes to anything that is not "physical." That and if you ever take a course on logic you will spend almost the entirety working on forms and proofs. That and I should have said that a vast majority of logic is about form. Logic does deal with soundness, but the truth of statements and what we can actually have as knowledge tends to be a question of epistemology, not so much logic. Not only this but by definition a sound argument must also be valid, hence still really about form. Last but not least logic does not teach you how to predict the truth value of a premise, simply to understand and search for the causal links in the argument and how to go after those causal links.
Lyrhawn- What I meant to go after there is the fact that many science classes at the lower level are not so much science, but the memorization of formula and theory that have already been established. Of course this is a good way to progress people towards actually conducting science, but in the end we hold much of what we do on faith that the person before us did it well.
Superstition is based on reason, simply something very basic. My parents/society told me that X is true and since they are right about Y and Z then X must be true as well. Of course as you stated above you could go and split light with a prism, but then I would ask you,"how do you know that is all of visible light and that you might not be able to split the others into even more basic wave lengths(not to mention how do you know about wave lenths." Well then you would have to conduct more experiments, and after those perhaps even more. All I am saying is that is isn't so simple, there are always more questions. I am not classing it all into superstition, however as we continue to advance a lot of science becomes an issue of faith for people, and not empirical inquiry. Especially for the "masses" it becomes something bordering on religion or superstition. Not to mention another definition for superstition is blindly accepted belief, and I certainly believe under that definition for many people science becomes a kind of superstition.
I'm not stating that as a reason for people to stop believing scientists or throw out all information that they haven't attained themselves. Simply to point out the fact that many people will blindly believe whatever some M.D. tells them on television or a singular crack pot scientist proclaims as truth.
That and on the matter of cheap labor I agree with you Lyrhawn, but not only with Chicago. Look across history as a whole and you will see that those on top tend to take it for granted that those on bottom will work for scraps.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: Logic is all about the form of an argument and less to do with the premises.
Spoken like a person who has never learned the subject. Yes, an argument can be "valid" without the premises being correct, if its form is correct. But it can't be "sound" unless the premises are also correct.
So to say that logic is "all about" form is simply untrue. QED.
From a philosophical perspective, I would agree that logic is all about form. Logic is taught as a tool to use to find truth. Just like hammer doesn't care about whether the structure you're building with it is sound or not, logic doesn't care about whether the argument you're building is true or not. Yes, it's true that basically any formal logic class will require you to learn the definitions of "sound" and "valid" and apply them to examples. But that's like the first week of class. Everything else the rest of the semester is going to be about translating English (or whatever language) into the target logic system, and then understanding how to validly manipulate those propositions in an argument. Maybe in your second or third semester of logic you'll get back to thinking about the real world - we did Gödel in my second semester, and that was quite fun.
Of course, what you learn in a class about formal logic is very relevant to any other study of philosophy - which is why it's required for most philosophy majors in US colleges. It's like math & engineering.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me repeat that, because this seems to be a really difficult concept for some people to handle: "what you want" and "what you're entitled to" are two completely different things.
While this is not universally true, I think that many tea-partiers have difficulty differentiating between "what they have earned" and "what they have been given" that leads me to think that they have their own brand of entitlement.
People who grow up in safe neighborhoods with decent schools and who have parents who have always been able to put food on the table have been *given* something enormous. That type of background puts somebody far closer to success in every arena of life than somebody who grows up without it. When somebody with so many drivers pushing them to suceed fails to recognize any factor in their bounty other than their own actions they have missed something critical and in my mind, adopted an entitlement philosophy.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amanecer- Your definition of entitlement seems to lean more towards something along the lines of simply being extremely Libertarian. That is a person owns themselves and the fruit of all their actions. I think if you really go at it most people, and even Americans for that matter, are thankful for a few individuals that helped shape them to be the person that they are. However, you have to be careful on how much you want to subjugate a person to "society." If I write a beautiful poem do I have to give credit to every person that taught me English, as well as those who taught them? You end up in an infinite loop until you get to the inventor of language, and really you could keep going from there. Should you owe anything to society if it punishes you for things outside of your control?
That and being able to grow up in a relatively safe neighborhood with a decent education (and just so you know I have never seen a "decent" public school curriculum, but that is a story for another day) is not necessarily that radical in America ( or many other nations for that matter). Of course that all depends on your definition of food on the table, decent schools, and safe neighborhoods. All I am saying is, beware the radicalism that you bestow onto others.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox- I think most people feel that for a moderate amount of effort on their part they are "entitled to" a certain standard of living that would not have been possible if not for many things that had nothing to do with them.
I won't disagree that most Americans, myself included, often take for granted the complex systems that allow us to enjoy our prosperity. The reason I targeted Tea-Partiers with the statement is because they go a step beyond most Americans and want to dismantle many of the systems that allow our country to be a place where a relatively safe neighborhood, education, and food are not necessarily that radical.
In your poetry example, it's not about giving credit to every person who tangentially contributed to the creation of the poem. It's about acknowledging that you could not have written the poem if not for your education and then avoiding a call to destroy your educational system.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you there, and I will even go so far and say that I don't agree with the "tea-party" folk for the most part. Mainly as upholding the Constitution ( Which literally defines the government ) and hating the government(as an entire system) are really mutually exclusive in my eyes. At the same time just because those systems allowed or caused something good to happen does not mean that the system should be continued for that sake. Many faulty and unethical ( so far as that many people would find them unethical ) governments have led to good things occurring, on that note, many of those systems have led to those same three three criteria being met.
However, I would say that it is not radical to assume that given a moderate amount of effort ( little side note but if everyone worked hard it would be considered moderate) you should be able to live a good life. Now, I am assuming that you find their idea of a good life to be a bit opulent, and I would agree with you. That does not mean that people aren't entitled to those three categories you brought up. Unlike what many people would like us to believe, Americans actually work pretty hard. We don't get many days off, and we don't get a lot of benefits. Certainly not when you compare social systems to anyone else's. Just because some people work "hard" and don't get the benefits of that does not mean that they shouldn't receive those same benefits. Like it or not, but our entire system of government rests on the idea that people are entitled to certain things simply for being human beings. At the very least in the "beginning" of American society enlightened men who held property were afforded those rights, but I digress.
At this point I would love to point out that if you look at things it is actually "easier" in many ways to live in a hunter-gatherer society or many of the earlier agricultural society. That would be something for another day, but people are often swayed by the idea that this world is somehow much easier for all of us.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also warn you that I love to disagree with people to simply force them to refine their arguments. Its a bad thing to do, but I love to split hairs. Just so you know that its nothing personal.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also warn you that I love to disagree with people to simply force them to refine their arguments. Its a bad thing to do, but I love to split hairs. Just so you know that its nothing personal.
I have a tendency to do the same thing, so no office taken. Honestly, I don't really disagree with anything in your last post, so... Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Honestly, I don't really disagree with anything in your last post, so... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
