The End of Reason?

[techs]

The greatest threat America has ever faced is the end of Reason. The founding fathers predicated the whole idea of the United States on Reason. Yet, there is now a substantial proportion of the country that has rejected Reason.

After all, that is what the new "conservative" philosophy is built on. There are no "facts". There is only "belief". And if someone believes something then it is then "fact"

How can we move forward to debate when a good third of the country is absolutely convinced that even things that have overwhelming evidence are wrong? I could name a hundred things, but climate change is probably the best example. The rejection of science is clearly the bellwether of the end of Reason.

 

[Craig234]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assault_on_Reason

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality across the political spectrum (mostly concentrated at its far ends).

 

[Harabec]

As an outsider I'd say - first, ditch the silly "right vs left = us vs them" mentality. It looks like cancer to me.

When you do that, people have to start THINKING. Well, hopefully.

As an example of even more extreme us vs them situation, look at Israel's own "jew wars" between religious and non-religious folks. How can you battle "holy rabbis" who tell their followers not to join the army, hardly pay any taxes and live in filth. Funny thing is, a lot of them DON'T want to be like that, but they live in such a closed society their family will shun them for having such uh, modern views.

 

[Anarchist420]

Everyone should remember that the State is a concept which means that it can't reason.

 

[Craig234]

It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian).

 

[JEDIYoda]

beating around the bush a bit are you not.....fess up Techs.....

Your actually trolling against people who would believe in a God that cannot be visibly seen and who actually consider the Bible to be God`s Holy word and thus "fact"!!

 

[Retro Rob]

beating around the bush a bit are you not.....fess up Techs.....

Your actually trolling against people who would believe in a God that cannot be visibly seen and who actually consider the Bible to be God`s Holy word and thus "fact"!!

I applaud you for speaking up -- prior to posting here, I was thinking the same thing.

Yeah, lack of reason or attacking reason is almost always associated with religion and belief in a supernatural Creator which files into the face of scientific/secular reasoning.

Techs...come clean, please. :biggrin:

 

[Albatross]

There is not enough crystal healing in the world,otherwise everything would be fine.

 

[Moonbeam]

People have all sorts of opinions as to who they believe is irrational. I would consider the holding of such opinions to be irrational because they never account for the validity of authority on which they are founded. However, when the matter is studied scientifically, and it has been in numerous peer reviewed papers, it is conservatives that fall out of the data as most irrational. But not only are they seen by science as irrational, they are also seen as posing a danger to the whole of the society in which they are members.

Pointing to the fact that irrationality can exist in many other places, conversationally valid as that may be, smacks of irrationality itself in my opinion, because it shifts the focus away from what has been documented to be factually dangerous in the direction of opinionated false equivalencies.

There seems to be only one job that rationally required attention from any who lay any claim to rationality, in my opinion, and that is how the irrationality of conservatives is to be met and redressed.

 

[cwjerome]

There is not enough crystal healing in the world,otherwise everything would be fine.

I have associated with a few people who are pretty deep into vortexes and crystals and incense, etc. They are otherwise pretty rational people who you would not suspect of being weird new ager types. I think it's fine and it gives them some comfort or whatever, just like some Christian people who have pretty wacky interpretations but seem very normal and reasonable besides the religious stuff. There is room for all of this, I don't think we all need to be computers. The nice thing about the crystal energy vibe people is they are pretty chill while many of the fundamentalist Christians are militant and aggressive... and trying to gain influence over government in a very overt way. I'm a big supporter of spirituality, just keep it to yourself and don't make it public policy.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian).

I'd put some progressives at a tie with the extreme opposite side.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As an outsider I'd say - first, ditch the silly "right vs left = us vs them" mentality. It looks like cancer to me.

When you do that, people have to start THINKING. Well, hopefully.

As an example of even more extreme us vs them situation, look at Israel's own "jew wars" between religious and non-religious folks. How can you battle "holy rabbis" who tell their followers not to join the army, hardly pay any taxes and live in filth. Funny thing is, a lot of them DON'T want to be like that, but they live in such a closed society their family will shun them for having such uh, modern views.

Your have it right. I'll expound later but rationality is not legislation or partisanship.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's more visible on the right, but there's no shortage of ignorance and irrationality and excessive ideology across the political spectrum (next biggest 'moderate' or lLibertarian).

I'd find this opinion more worthy of consideration if I ever saw you make comments that actually reflected what libertarianism was about, rather than some sort of caricature.

I think libertarianism is actually the most rational of the political philosophies. It is at its core based on reason, and on symmetric respect for rights and freedoms. Libertarians tend to have some blind spots, as everyone does, in this case a bit of naivete in understanding the human condition. But they're a heck of a lot more rational than the big two parties, that's for sure.

If you want to explain specifically what you find irrational about libertarianism, I'd love to hear it. As long as it actually is about libertarianism.

As an aside, I find it amusing that anyone would consider "moderation" to be inherently irrational.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harabec
As an outsider I'd say - first, ditch the silly "right vs left = us vs them" mentality. It looks like cancer to me.

When you do that, people have to start THINKING. Well, hopefully.

As an example of even more extreme us vs them situation, look at Israel's own "jew wars" between religious and non-religious folks. How can you battle "holy rabbis" who tell their followers not to join the army, hardly pay any taxes and live in filth. Funny thing is, a lot of them DON'T want to be like that, but they live in such a closed society their family will shun them for having such uh, modern views.

Your have it right. I'll expound later but rationality is not legislation or partisanship.

I do not believe he has it right at all. The thrust of the OP is that we have entered an era in which the irrationality of the modern American conservative beliefs are a danger to the nation, a fact that science has revealed. It is the fact that the irrationality is dangerous and not the fact of where that dangerous thinking resides that is the primary issue. It is a fact that conservatives operate on a us vs. them mentality, that they make partisanship the issue, that can't be avoided with the wave of a wand, that partisanship should not be an issue. It should not be and it isn't but that is the heart of their irrationality. Furthermore, do you know a way to deal with it? Do you have a cure? What should or shouldn't be means nothing.

So if you find extremes on other sides of the political spectrum, imagine them all in a car with conservatives at the wheel and headed for a cliff. And if you can do nothing about it, do you begin to scream. When the situation is totally hopeless and every rational person can see it, what do you suggest they do? I would suggest that the only real thing to do with this topic, the only rational way to deal with the OP's topic, is to find a path that offers some hope. I believe this because I believe that without hope insanity will reign, the irrational will force the rational to respond, some how, some way, and ones that may not be pretty.

I believe we have the Taliban within our midsts.

 

[nehalem256]

but climate change is probably the best example. The rejection of science is clearly the bellwether of the end of Reason.

I would go with the Anti-GMO folks on the left as the best example. But using that instead would inconvenient for your thesis that it is conservative ideology that is unreasonable.

What I think it comes down to is that everyone thinks there own ideology is the most rational one.

 

[Craig234]

I'd find this opinion more worthy of consideration if I ever saw you make comments that actually reflected what libertarianism was about, rather than some sort of caricature.

Well, I think you buy into a marketing myth of libertarianism and do not begin to appreciate its flaws, so of course you have that response to the truth about it.

Let's just recognize that you have one opinion about it and I have another, and you will keep thinking I just don't appreciate all of its wonderful qualities and am not fairly representing it while I'll have the same feeling about your views that I do talking with committed Stalinists or Maoists who are a bit blinded in their devotion to their ideology.

I think Libertarianism is one of the most dangerous and false ideologies, subject to use and abuse for the purposes of certain agendas that could never get popular support on their own, and so we're not going to resolve that any time soon and all we can do is politely recognize the different views.

I think libertarianism is actually the most rational of the political philosophies. It is at its core based on reason, and on symmetric respect for rights and freedoms. Libertarians tend to have some blind spots, as everyone does, in this case a bit of naivete in understanding the human condition. But they're a heck of a lot more rational than the big two parties, that's for sure.

As an aside, I find it amusing that anyone would consider "moderation" to be inherently irrational.

Believe it or not, I don't really disagree with a number of the details you just listed, including that every faction has its blind spots.

All of them claim to be rational, and all of them have SOME bit of a claim to that - communism was presented as the rational, scientific alternative political ideology.

I think you like many fail to appreciate the large flaws in the 'moderate' orientation - a faction that has the biggest gap between how well-informed it thinks it is and it is IMO.

Again, you aren't going to suddenly read a post making that claim and say 'wow, you're right, moderates have a lot of flaws I hadn't noticed generally'. It probably takes years of learning and considering contrary facts to eventually come to the conclusion. I don't know how to speed that up to a few posts.

I'm not saying moderation is 'inherently irrational' - that's a straw many you put in my mouth - there are generally rational moderates.

Again in my opinion we see irrational people in every group - but I tank the most on the right, fewer in the 'moderate' or 'Libertarian' factions, and the least on the left - but many.

It's almost pontless to state that because the evidence neeed for any position on that issue is massive and not going to persuade about anyone.

I will say I once was far, far more attracted to the 'moderate' position - non-aligned, independent - and I was wrong. I thought it was the only home for rational people too.

There was a smugness in taking that position, with the comforting attacks of false equivalcny on all the partisan brainwahed lemmings blindly following their side.

Independents can consider each issue, each candiate, and vote any way based on the best choice! They're wonderful! Except they generally are terribly not understading issues.

Turns out that getting more informed can lead one to have actual informed opinions that actually line up with a faction for the right reasons, and that power comes from organization - that a horde of people going person by person without organization is a horde easily controlled, easily duped, by powerful organized interests, who know how to do things like focus groups and polliing to manufacture images for candidates to sell that exactly fit the biases of the target audience - while they have a whole other agenda.

Unfortunately, like I said people don't just hear that info and say 'wow I was wrong', it takes a lot of learning, and in the meantime too often groups substitue insults.

That's not a comment about you - just in general that each group has a long list of attacks on the other groups, none of which do a lot of good.

If you want one issue to consider on this, an example is the progressive budget - IMO rationally it far better serves the country. Buf find one person on the right, 'moderate', Libertarian, who has paid any attention to it and dealt with the rational issues comparing to their preference like the Paul Ryan budget. I haven't seen it. But they'll confidently say all kinds of things about how badly partisan it is, making assumptions.

 

[mikeymikec]

As an outsider I'd say - first, ditch the silly "right vs left = us vs them" mentality. It looks like cancer to me.

Hear hear. It happens as a matter of routine on this forum.

Back to topic - In the UK, it seems to happen on a regular basis that the government (Labour or the current coalition) will make an announcement, let's say a law they want to bring in, the logic of which goes against the consultation they did. Or they just didn't bother with any consultation at all.

 

[Craig234]

Hear hear. It happens as a matter of routine on this forum.

Back to topic - In the UK, it seems to happen on a regular basis that the government (Labour or the current coalition) will make an announcement, let's say a law they want to bring in, the logic of which goes against the consultation they did. Or they just didn't bother with any consultation at all.

As I've said, I think there is both a case for not using 'right/left' too much, and one that sometimes it's a useful categorization - but a couple questions.

I'm not sure what the 'consultation' you refer to in the UK is.

And aren't the labor and conservative splits there somewhat analaogous to left/right?

 

[Paul98]

You have this on both sides you have anti vaccine, anti genetic modification, don't believe in man made climate change, or evolution.

The problem is that on the right you have many more people who think ignorance is a good thing, and they are anti education and science. For them the facts don't matter at all and this is the major problem.

 

[nehalem256]

I think libertarianism is actually the most rational of the political philosophies. It is at its core based on reason, and on symmetric respect for rights and freedoms. Libertarians tend to have some blind spots, as everyone does, in this case a bit of naivete in understanding the human condition. But they're a heck of a lot more rational than the big two parties, that's for sure.

If you want to explain specifically what you find irrational about libertarianism, I'd love to hear it. As long as it actually is about libertarianism.

The problem with libertarianism is the same problem as with communism; at their core both reject the way actual humans behave. The danger is that they both wrap a lot of rational sounding stuff around this irrational core that make them seem appealing to a great many people.

 

[Craig234]

On this 'moderate' topic, a useful example is the group of voters who were undecided between Obama and Romney in October 2012.

There are a set of views that generally align with Obama, and another with Romney.

But these two had such clear differences in huge areas, that the only people it's easy to imagine were undecided were ones with incredibly distorted misunderstandings of the issues such that by these warped views, the two candidates were somehow neck and neck on who had the right positions.

There are a few minor example exceptions - the radicals with the 'there's no difference' opinion, and people who really care about a couple issues on each side, such as someone who's strongly 'pro-life' (pretending Romney was also, ignoring his history), while at the same time, for example, strongly preferring Obama's economics, and just unable to pick which was more important. But those are rare people.

For the most part, they were, IMO, just sort of in a confused fog trying to sort out the *marketing* messages, which of course is hard to do because they're lies designed to be black and white (no pun intended) - sort of a competition between Romney, who really loves freedom and honoring our great traditions, and Obama, who really believes in hope and the country doing great things. It's just too hard to pick!

That person will generally - not understanding other factions - look at them and assume they're just ignorant partisans who only 'root for their team' irrationally.

In some cases, that's correct, but not nearly as many as they assume.

The above is just meant to elaborate a bit on that myster to Charles of why moderates aren't obviously the only very rational faction.

Even the right has its rational members - they just tend to be rational in the way that economists are 'rational' when they make decisions based on numbers that the best policy is for those people to starve, because they're not productive - a rationality based on things like productivity above all else without human considerations and values which many or most of them sneer at as fuzzy headed.

They're rational the way the 'realpolitik' faction of Republicans were, the Kissinger faction, who boldly proclaim policies that kill 10 million to not have to kill 50 million, and see themselves as far more rational than the ideologues in their rival group, the neocons, who understand the answer is simply for American to defeat anyone who disagrees, problem solved.

They all think they're the rational ones - even the hippies, who wonder why the rest don't understand we should 'give peace a chance'.

 

[Craig234]

You have this on both sides you have anti vaccine, anti genetic modification, don't believe in man made climate change, or evolution.

The problem is that on the right you have many more people who think ignorance is a good thing, and they are anti education and science. For them the facts don't matter at all and this is the major problem.

Thing is, what has a far larger importance in my opinion is that there are conflicting interests, even if you understand the facts quite well.

One set of politices benefits a few, and another set benefits the many, and they're pretty mutually exclusive. There's a war of power which, as Buffet says, one side is fighting.

Addressing the problem of people who don't care about facts doesn't begin to address the larger conflict of those interests.

But in that war of interests, they can take advantage of ignorance - people who will support pro-Wall Street abuses for example can be sold if they follow carefully developed marketing, attacking liberals as 'elites' (boo, elites) and getting a tear in their eye talking about freedom and flag and country (yay, patriotism) against those sleazeball liberals who want to grab your guns and hate America and family values. It works, propaganda-wise.

 

[mikeymikec]

As I've said, I think there is both a case for not using 'right/left' too much, and one that sometimes it's a useful categorization - but a couple questions.

I'm not sure what the 'consultation' you refer to in the UK is.

If someone in government thinks that something is a good idea, a lot of the time a group of people will be picked as they're knowledgeable on the topic in question to consult on how good an idea it is or what modifications they would make. The government should then take the conclusions of that knowledgeable group of people to improve the idea or abandon it altogether.

And aren't the labor and conservative splits there somewhat analaogous to left/right?

In small ways, yes. One thing that is almost completely absent from UK politics is religious influence. Occasionally we get the odd nut, and Tony Blair got some very worried looks when he started mentioning his religious beliefs in conjunction with Iraq II.

I've never witnessed the sort of polarisation in the UK that I see in this forum where people will come out with things like "that's just what I would expect a conservative/liberal to say" as some sort of retort/insult. Usually anyone who identifies his or her self as a life-long Tory/Conservative or Labour supporter is someone that a fair number of people will back away from, because what sort of idiot thinks that either party (or the Lib Dems for that matter, but they're very much in third place) is so good that a non-politician would pledge their allegiance to them like that? Both the Tories and Labour have made some howling mistakes on both occasions that they've been in government in say the last fifty years. Thatcher gutted the primary and secondary industries of this country, Labour let the unions run amok, or more recently spent the public purse like madmen.

One of my customers likes to shout at the television when the (Tory) PM is on the news. His reaction isn't far off the "Two Minutes Hate" in the book '1984'. I can't say I'm interested in any of his views.

The liberal / conservative polarisation that goes on (seemingly) in US politics just makes no sense to me. Looking at the non-distorted definitions of each term, I'd say that my views on some topics are more conservative (ie. people should pay their own way and benefits should be a short-term solution to stop people becoming homeless) and others are more liberal (I'm very pro personal freedoms generally and believe that the government should not be spying on the people).

 

[Craig234]

If someone in government thinks that something is a good idea, a lot of the time a group of people will be picked as they're knowledgeable on the topic in question to consult on how good an idea it is or what modifications they would make. The government should then take the conclusions of that knowledgeable group of people to improve the idea or abandon it altogether.

In small ways, yes. One thing that is almost completely absent from UK politics is religious influence. Occasionally we get the odd nut, and Tony Blair got some very worried looks when he started mentioning his religious beliefs in conjunction with Iraq II.

I've never witnessed the sort of polarisation in the UK that I see in this forum where people will come out with things like "that's just what I would expect a conservative/liberal to say" as some sort of retort/insult. Usually anyone who identifies his or her self as a life-long Tory/Conservative or Labour supporter is someone that a fair number of people will back away from, because what sort of idiot thinks that either party (or the Lib Dems for that matter, but they're very much in third place) is so good that a non-politician would pledge their allegiance to them like that? Both the Tories and Labour have made some howling mistakes on both occasions that they've been in government in say the last fifty years. Thatcher gutted the primary and secondary industries of this country, Labour let the unions run amok, or more recently spent the public purse like madmen.

One of my customers likes to shout at the television when the (Tory) PM is on the news. His reaction isn't far off the "Two Minutes Hate" in the book '1984'. I can't say I'm interested in any of his views.

The liberal / conservative polarisation that goes on (seemingly) in US politics just makes no sense to me. Looking at the non-distorted definitions of each term, I'd say that my views on some topics are more conservative (ie. people should pay their own way and benefits should be a short-term solution to stop people becoming homeless) and others are more liberal (I'm very pro personal freedoms generally and believe that the government should not be spying on the people).

Actually, I've noticed a sort of polarization in the US, an acceptance of pretty bad media, a poor level of an 'informed citizenry', which Europe hasn't seemed vulnerable to now.

In a clear example, Fox News is very successful in the US without a similar propaganda outlet in the UK (or the EU).

Why is that? Thing is, I think if it can happen here, it can happen there (and Europe in the earlier 20th century shows it can change a lot).

Is it more likely the US situation will spread to Europe so even more people are low-information and misled, or will Europe's culture spread to the US?

The trends sadly suggest the former is more likely - money beats culture.