Conservatives point to traditional authority, God, Country, Leaders, Parents, etc, as a source for how we should behave. Last night I read an excellent point from Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed":
The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.
Conservatives look to the past as evidence for behaviour today. Since a certain set of rules led to a favourable outcome, a return to these old ways will solve a current problem. This was a 'light bulb' moment for me regarding dogmatic theists. They really are using evidence for support of their positions and really do believe that their assumptions are true. Asking people to 'accept god' is really asking people to accept the wisdom of the past that will fix a problem today. They don't necessarily understand why the old ways will work, but they believe it will.
Liberals, on the other hand, also argue from authority but, at first glance, it's not clear who the authority is. I believe the answer is everyone. Liberals want to solve problems by asking everyone to find their own answers. This is what leads liberals to an extreme form of tolerance where we are expected to view everyone's ideas on equal ground. Don't hurt anybody's feelings by telling them they are wrong; accept that maybe they are right and that your idea is no better than anyone else's. Let everyone be the master of their domain. Liberals are pointing to the future to fix problems by expecting each person to eventually develop a problem-solving system that will work for them.
These approaches are incompatible. Conservatives want someone to be in charge and liberals want everyone to be in charge. Ironically, Conservatives are in the better position because they have evidence from history on their side. Liberals only have 'hope' that people will find their way.
I see only one solution here. Abandon all arguments from authority. But with no one in charge, how do we make decisions? Instead of following what we think, or what other people tell us, we must use the most important tool mankind has ever devised: The Scientific Method.
We need to stop trusting what people say or what our 'gut' tells us. We need to apply the scientific method to lead us to useful answers. Conservatives need to understand that past success is not a guarantee of future success. Conditions change and a method that worked yesterday, may not apply even if the situation looks similar. Liberals need to stop assuming everyone has equal ideas. Some are just plain wrong and we need to confront those ideas head on.
Instead, let's use the scientific method to evaluate our options and find the best possible solutions, no matter who does the experiment.
3 comments:
You are comparing apples and oranges. "Liberal" and "conservative" are not methods of reasoning, like the scientific method; they are sets of axioms to which reasoning may then be applied.
The scientific method says very little -- basically nothing -- about what a government should or should not do. For example: it might be possible to show that a stable, productive society could be created through the use of a permanent underclass of slaves. This is something which is either true or false, after all, and the scientific method could determine which it was. The scientific method does not, however, say anything at all about whether or not a permanent underclass of slaves is an acceptable precondition for a stable productive society. (Or, at least, it only does so if you start off with other equally non-scientific assumptions -- the notion that slavery is unacceptable did not in fact arise via the scientific method, though.) To make that sort of determination, you have to start with some set of axioms from which to reason.
Speaking as someone with a degree in mathematics and who does logic puzzles for fun: there is very little which can done with logic without axioms. By taking the rules of logic themselves as axioms, you can deduce a few things about what is and is not provable if the right axioms are assumed, but that does nothing to establish anything. (For example, you can show that if you assume one equals zero, then any mathematical proposition is true. But that's irrelevant unless you're going to assume that one equals zero.)
Your post is basically saying "some people like utilitarian buildings, and some people like artistic ones, and there's no way to reconcile these two positions. My idea is that we should all live in buildings designed by architects." It's a non-answer; almost a non-sequitar.
My post was attempting to show how conservatives and liberals think at the lowest level, and how that level is similar.
Using your example of slaves, a conservative may argue that slavery worked in the past and that it would be a good option to solve the economic crisis today. A liberal might propose giving everyone $10,000 to do whatever they feel is best with.
Both sides would use an argument from authority to prove their proposition when they should be using the scientific method to determine if their proposals would really work.
It was a simplistic approach to explain why conservatives tend to point to god and liberals tend to support alternative medicines - both seem to think an authority knows more than science.
Thanks for your input, it's given me more fuel to consider my idea!
I agree that scientific method is the only way to ensure that people with predisposed answers to problems are weeded out on the basis of a list of hierarchical ideas that are given order to the the specificity tat would result in greater value and minimizing risk that a program will fail. Competitively bidding of 3rd party medical suppliers in such a manner that would promote volume discounts to medicare who needs to purchase medical equipment-without sacrificing efficiency -is achievable if one side abandons their predisposition or ideology that generalizes that competitive supply market ideas ALWAYS result in inefficiency for buyers. Instead scientific method would mandate looking at measures that bolster ways to make sure that some suppliers wont promote a "sucker product" (this would entail buyers mandating criteria, and ultimately the bidding platform will contain the most fittest suppliers who can deliver those expected results), or inductive reasoning on a basic level would refute inefficiency outcomes by saying: Anyone who has advertised bids or quotes for products knows that you can set
certain standards for the product or service. The bidders then submit written bids that either meet or exceed the buyers standards, the buyer opts to go with the best bid - both in price and product standards. Either you compete or you don't. The cheaper bid is not necessarily taken if their product/service doesn't meet the buyers standards, so the rhetoric that you'll get poorer
quality and service by cutting costs is BS. If the people approving the quotes
know what they're doing, medicare WILL save money and maintain quality at the
same time. By negating the bid process medicare is being ripped off. So company A loses a bid for equipment this year because someone else offered better
pricing for the same product, next year company A can reevaluate and offer a more competitive bid.
Post a Comment