SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsActual left/right wing discussion


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: koan who wrote (8684)12/3/2010 1:20:04 PM
From: TimF
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
Liberalism in general is much more broad

That's true. It includes both attitudes and states of mind, and political ideology as well as non-political concepts. Its so broad that it means directly contradictory things, and others that while not contradictory have little to do with each other.

In political terms it means both supporting of maximum freedom with minimum government intervention and control on one hand, and supporting big government with extensive powers and very active involvement in people's lives.

It means opposing the orthodox, but it also means support for many ideas that have become orthodox, while opposing reform of big government programs or in some other areas.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: one_less who wrote (8687)12/3/2010 1:28:57 PM
From: TimF
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
When a right winger proves to be immoral in his personal or private correspondence, or when a particular right wing platform is shamelessly immoral, it can be devastating to the positions taken by the right wing. Left wingers are criticised because the left wing position is generally based on liberal thinking processes. When a left winger proves to be following an unthinking lock step dogmatic directive, or when a particular left wing position is wantingly narrow minded, it can be devastating to the positions taken by the left wing.

It usually shouldn't do that. To imply the characteristics or circumstances of the arguer amount to serious points against the ideas being argued is ad-hominem (except perhaps when the argument is an argument from authority, based only or mostly on reputation, but such arguments are usually weak anyway); but in reality who argues a case effects how well it convinces others, whether or not such an effect makes logical sense in a particular case, and when the characteristic in question is hypocrisy, the impact can be very strong.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: tejek who wrote (8589)12/3/2010 1:58:01 PM
From: one_less
   of 10074
 
"...until they clean up their act."

As in?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: koan who wrote (8688)12/3/2010 2:16:16 PM
From: TimF
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
Now 80% of scientists lean democratic (liberal) and only 6/12% call themselves/lean Republican (Gallup poll). 80% versus 6/12%. In statistics that is a powerful difference and statisticians would say represents two populations.

My conclusion is that conservatives are the result of one of two things: either they are wired to think differently (nature)than liberals, or follow dogma at the expense of facts or logic.


If your conclusion has any actual basis in argument or fact you don't present it even in the most skeletal form. Scientists are not in general paragons of perfect logical thinking. They are intelligent, but so are people in fields with very different political leanings like doctors (who are not so "liberal") and engineers (who lean conservative). They often have a lot of knowledge within their fields, but again so do others, and knowledge of say chemistry doesn't make you an expert in military issues or economics (In important ways even economists are not experts in economics, they are the closest we have to it, but alchemists used to be the closest we have to experts on chemistry. This isn't intended as a slam on economists, I have a lot of respect for some of them and have studied the field myself a bit; its more an indirect comment about the complexities of the field.)

Even if scientists where clearly the best example of general knowledge and understanding (not just in their specific fields or even in the wider field of science), wisdom, and logical thinking, the fact that more scientists lean to the political left wouldn't be much in the way of evidence in support of the ideas of the political left. Scientists deviate from the norm in all sorts of ways, just because scientists are more likely to be something, do something, support something, act in some way, think in some way, doesn't imply that that way is better.

most conservatives do not believe in evolution.

That's a very questionable statement.

Very few liberals do not believe in evolution.

That's questionable as well.

That is huge because evolution is a solid fact and quite simple to understand.

Its far from the only example of such a thing. Liberals are far more likely to believe price controls work well, but they clearly don't. You can cherry pick your question, and then say "my side does better on this important question", but that doesn't do well in terms of leading us to an accurate wider understanding.

it describes exactly what a liberal is. Someone who is comfortable with change, science and logic. .

Many "liberals" are quite opposed to change, and to a reasonable application of science or logic, when it gets in the way of one of their favorite ideas, actions, or programs. Liberals support change, the way they support "tolerance". They tolerate what they think is acceptable, and support change they think are good ideas. Just like conservatives.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: koan who wrote (8707)12/3/2010 2:22:23 PM
From: TimF
   of 10074
 
Science gave us the ability to go to the moon, increase our life span by 30 years, treat horrible medical conditions like small pox and polio and infection.

One could quibble about the difference between science and technology, but I won't since scientific understanding is an important factor behind technological change, and its methods are important in terms of determining the effectiveness of things like the treatments you mention.

The distinction I will draw instead is between science and scientists. Science the process is of vital importance. That doesn't mean that the people who do it don't make a lot of mistakes, both within the process of scientific experimentation and discovery, and in other areas. That distinction has some similarity to the distinction between capitalism and capitalists. The former is in many ways the most important factor driving our material improvement and directly or indirectly funding many things along the lines of the ones you list. The later are normal human beings with their own agendas,and interests, prone to error or bad-faith as much as anyone else.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: koan who wrote (8696)12/3/2010 5:02:35 PM
From: TimF
   of 10074
 
It is not simplistic at all. It is a matter of statistics.

"A matter of statistics" does not equal or imply "not simplistic at all". Use of statistics can directly be simplistic, or the statistics can be used to inform a very simplistic argument. "Scientists lean to the left, therefore 'liberals' are more logically thinking people", is either a simplistic and weak argument or its a very incomplete one.

Because the more right you move the lower accurate processing of information that takes place. Easy to see if you look.

Easy to claim, or even falsely believe, but not well connected to reality or supported by any of your arguments.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (8698)12/3/2010 5:08:44 PM
From: TimF
   of 10074
 
Science doesn't have the rigor or integrity it once had.

It never, near universally, had the rigor many think it has. That probably also applies to integrity. Not a slam of science or scientists, its just they are put on so high of pedestal by some that no real world activity or collection of people could live up to the image.

Science often involves ideas getting more support than they deserve, or being taken further than the deserve, because the ideas become fashionable or get supported by the internal politics withing science or withing specific scientific organizations. In some areas ideas also get influenced by politics from outside of science. That's not a good thing, but then its not an unusual wrong. Its just what happens in real-world human institutions.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Lane3 who wrote (8708)12/3/2010 6:59:05 PM
From: koan
1 Recommendation   of 10074
 
When you take a history class at any university they refer to the middle ages as the "Dark Ages" and the discovery of science and reason as: "The Age of enlightenment".

Why is that do you suppose?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: TimF who wrote (8709)12/3/2010 7:19:08 PM
From: koan
   of 10074
 
<<I didn't create any of them, not even as part of a collective effort. Most likely you have not either, certainly not the more major government organizations like the federal and state governments.

Look, all we have is democracy, as flawed as it is, to save us from our barbaric inclinations. And a democracy is only as good as the people who reside in said democracy.

It is the human condition. By and large our failings as a society are due to our own behavior and nothing else.

Amorphous things like Republics and the constitution have many definitions.

If you want to see the flaws in this country look at how we treat people. For 100 years after we became a coutnry we allowed slavery, then for another 100 years not one state in the south felt the need to end segregation.

We did not give the vote to women until 1919.

That is the measure of our failings, not some esoteric psychobable about sticking to the constituion.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: TimF who wrote (8710)12/3/2010 7:23:05 PM
From: koan
   of 10074
 
Well, I like that one better. Someone once said the sign of intelligence is the ability to look at two opposing ideas at the same time.

<<Liberalism in general is much more broad

That's true. It includes both attitudes and states of mind, and political ideology as well as non-political concepts. Its so broad that it means directly contradictory things, and others that while not contradictory have little to do with each other.

In political terms it means both supporting of maximum freedom with minimum government intervention and control on one hand, and supporting big government with extensive powers and very active involvement in people's lives.

It means opposing the orthodox, but it also means support for many ideas that have become orthodox, while opposing reform of big government programs or in some other areas.>>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10