tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post5264703590937384683..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: The Tyranny of ConfusionGus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-56732731787334312612008-01-19T09:24:00.000-06:002008-01-19T09:24:00.000-06:00You are absolutely right about the fact that the e...You are absolutely right about the fact that the environmentalists remain irrational while some "scientists" are becoming irrational. (This is not to say that a scientist who really thinks that the evidence is in favor of anthropogenic global warming is irrational.)<BR/><BR/>And not to dispute what you brought up, but you also indirectly bring up another worthwhile point: Is it really accurate to say that they now "embrace science"? I would say not. The environmentalists and their ilk are merely embracing the respectability that lip-service to science can buy them.<BR/><BR/>To use science as a cudgel rather than a means of discovering the truth about the physical world is, fundamentally, to reject reason and science with it.<BR/><BR/>Or, as I like to say professionally: "Real scientists don't have pet theories."Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-39346980231104130332008-01-18T22:37:00.000-06:002008-01-18T22:37:00.000-06:00From the Frank Furedi quote above:Not long ago, in...From the Frank Furedi quote above:<BR/><BR/><I>Not long ago, in the 1970s and 80s, leading environmentalists insisted that science was undemocratic, that it was responsible for many of the problems facing the planet. Now, in public at least, their hostility towards science has given way to their embrace and endorsement of science.</I><BR/><BR/>It should be noted that environmentalists are embracing science now not beacuse the environmentalists have become rational, but because scientists (at least the climate alarmist scientists) have become irrational.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484553988416936997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-30207172679416722022008-01-18T17:52:00.000-06:002008-01-18T17:52:00.000-06:00"If the comment itself illustrates what is wrong w..."If the comment itself illustrates what is wrong with a position or my reply can make it do so in such a way I can reach people who ARE open to argument, I am very likely to post it."<BR/><BR/>Mm. Yes, I think that was in my mind as well, although I didn't articulate it very well.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10223664599729768316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-17779776843413357692008-01-18T15:00:00.000-06:002008-01-18T15:00:00.000-06:00Burgess,Your comment that there is, in effect "no ...Burgess,<BR/><BR/>Your comment that there is, in effect "no more philosophy" does a better job than I did by attempting to sum it up as "confusion".<BR/><BR/>Also, your example of the scientists who scoff at the notion of proof beyond the narrow field of mathematics is excellent, and it also jogs my memory of a phenomenon Leonard Peikoff alluded to in his summer DIM Hypothesis course, to which he gave the Seinfeldian name "conceptual shrinkage". <BR/><BR/>If I understood what LP means properly, it manifests in science like this: I think that most scientists would agree that you <B>can</B> reason from evidence, but that you can only go so far, and that to integrate it with the rest of your knowledge, explicitly anyway, isn't kosher. <BR/><BR/>Monica,<BR/><BR/>I (perhaps) am more "generous with my posting of comments from the types of people you bring up: If the comment itself illustrates what is wrong with a position or my reply can make it do so in such a way I can reach people who ARE open to argument, I am very likely to post it.<BR/><BR/>GusGus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-13374335691982501272008-01-18T13:16:00.000-06:002008-01-18T13:16:00.000-06:00"Even if such claims were true, they would have no..."Even if such claims were true, they would have no bearing on the question of whether animals have rights."<BR/><BR/>Exactly. <BR/><BR/>Of course, it is often easier for them to deflect the entire issue of rights altogether than to think critically about the concept.<BR/><BR/>There are people who fall into the animal rights movement out of a genuine desire to promote animal welfare, and muddle the concepts of "welfare" and "rights" without realizing the problems with that. Of course, the generally naive fall into all sorts of movements. I find it difficult to decide, at times, whether to publish such comments if I cannot determine the type of person who is commenting, or what they really mean by the term "rights". It basically boils down to whether I think the person is rational, and thus, reachable. <BR/><BR/>I had two such comments on my blog today, about a snarky post of mine written yesterday on topic of animal rights (which linked to your post on animal rights). I decided to publish them and answer with my own rebuttal. However, if they decide to respond without thinking critically about what I said, that will be the end of the conversation! :) Unfortunately, that is what usually happens with these folks. The conversation does not remain polite, and descends into a morass of mud slinging and anti-conceptual thought. Yuck.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10223664599729768316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-57482122466159001202008-01-18T12:55:00.000-06:002008-01-18T12:55:00.000-06:00"That cause ... is that there is rampant, massive ..."That cause ... is that there is rampant, massive confusion about the fundamental philosophical ideas on which our advanced civilization depends. Neither science nor those who would misuse it have the power to establish tyranny, but the deep confusion sown by evil philosophers such as Immanuel Kant can. The purpose of his folly was to make many others possible."<BR/><BR/>Your comment is very perceptive. I would like to suggest a <I>possible</I> explanation that goes a step further. (A full historical explanation of the phenomenon would require a lot of research with a lot of examples.)<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that the basic cause of the advocates of ICACC (Imminent Catastrophically Anthropogenic Climate Change) getting away with leaping from climatological studies to political mandates is this: <I>There are no more fundamentals.</I> Philosophy, in the broader culture, is dead. <BR/><BR/>This is the payoff, the cash-value, of the <I>dis</I>integration of philosophy. <I>There is no more philosophy</I> There is no more politics as a branch of philosophy. There is still science, as specialized studies. <BR/><BR/>Here is a narrow, anecdotal illustration. Last year I participated in discussions at realclimate.com. After earning a reputation for being respectful and open to learning, I asked where (in what book) I could find a proof of the "global warming" thesis.<BR/><BR/>In a calm and respectful manner, I was told by scientists there that "science doesn't do proofs." "Proof" is for mathematics. (This is the standard, bogus model of reason-as-geometry, a misleading model that goes back, I suspect, to Plato's time.)<BR/><BR/>This is another example of <I>dis</I>-integration. We have piles of evidence, they say, but we don't do proofs (that is, <I>integrations</I> of information into an argument logically leading to a conclusion). And if scientists can't integrate, we shouldn't be surprised that even broader integrations--that is, philosophical ones--are unavailable.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest that Kant, especially in the <I>Critique of Pure Reason</I>, was the main, but not only, force behind the disintegrationist movement that is heading to the bottom.Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com