| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![[header]](/include/themes/bales/images/header_01.jpg)
Login![[Me]](/avatars/users/Joe.jpg "Me")
Search![[Navigation icon]](/include/icons/mouse.png){kind=icon}
Navigation
Syndicate
![[Recent articles]](/include/icons/page_white_stack.png){kind=icon}
Recent articles![[Edit]](/include/icons/page_white_edit.png){kind=icon}
Edit![[Delete]](/include/icons/page_white_delete.png){kind=icon}
Delete![[Version]](/include/icons/clock_edit.png){kind=icon}
Last edited by ![[Views]](/include/icons/group.png){kind=icon}
Viewed 29759 times
|
![[del.icio.us]](/include/icons/delicious.gif){kind=icon}
![[Digg thins]](/include/icons/digg.gif){kind=icon}
![[Reddit]](/include/icons/reddit.gif){kind=icon}
![[Magnolia]](/include/icons/magnolia.gif){kind=icon}
![[Spurl]](/include/icons/spurl.gif){kind=icon}
![[Searchles]](/include/icons/searchles.gif){kind=icon}
| Really? Is a knowledge of cricket essential for making informed decisions making on everything from health through education to climate change? Why do you think that demanding basic educational standards from our politicians is intollerant? I think a far better analogy for my decision is the biologist John Maynard Smith's decision that the Soviet Union were up to no good in the 1950s. For a long time JMS couldn't quite believe it -- after all, the Western media would say that the Soviet Union were up to no good, wouldn't they? He was only convinced of the fact that they were up to no good when they imposed censorship of genetics in favour of a pseudoscience backed by a Soviet politician called Lysenko (and a huge crop failure and famine followed). On this matter JMS knew that it was not a Western media fabrication, and he knew it was a very bad thing and would lead to disaster. |
Posted at 2008-01-02 06:18:21 - [Del] |
![[flag]](http://www.cotch.net/include/flags/gb.png)
Bristol, EnglandJBoyd
| Really? Is a knowledge of cricket essential for making informed decisions making on everything from health through education to climate change? Why do you think that demanding basic educational standards from our politicians is intollerant? Firstly, it's inevitably elitist: whether you define 'basic educational standards' as five GCSEs, or a Ph.D., or the ability to speak English with a degree of grammatical correctness, the fact is that a substantial proportion of the population will be disbarred from political office as a result - and given that educational attainment is determined primarily by socio-economic status, that would effectively be a step backwards to the days when political power was the preserve of the upper and middle classes. Second, because any definition of 'basic educational standards' is necessarily subjective, because definitions of knowledge also involve subjectivity: you might argue that Galloway's stated views on evolution should disbar him; I could argue that anyone who accepts Richard Dawkins' view of history is equally ignorant of 'fact' and should be prohibited from positions of political power. Others would claim with equal conviction that it is a 'fact' that capitalism is the only effective model of economic activity and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be excluded from office. Which of those positions is strongest isn't the issue: it's the fact that they all turn on individual judgement, and, to a degree, conscience. Finally, how relevant is any individual's religious belief to the process of political decision-making? If you want to see where atheistic humanism can take you in relation to climate change, have a look at what the 'Spiked!' crowd have to say about it. And it's arguable that without religion, we wouldn't have any education...... |
| Firstly, it's inevitably elitist: whether you define 'basic educational standards' as five GCSEs, or a Ph.D., or the ability to speak English with a degree of grammatical correctness, the fact is that a substantial proportion of the population will be disbarred from political office as a result - and given that educational attainment is determined primarily bysocio -economic status, that would effectively be a step backwards to the days when political power was the preserve of the upper and middle classes. Well, if it's elitist to expect the people who make decisions on my behalf to know the things that they themselves are saying twelve-year-olds should know, then count me in. I'm not expecting politicians to know everything, and I don't care whether they did well at school (I happen to believe that adults, regardless of class, are not incapable of picking up knowledge). At the very least, it would be nice if they were able to admit when they were incapable of making an informed decision and read up on the issue, rather than making a fool of themselves on the radio. Oh, and by the way: "disbarred"? I hope we're not misunderstanding each other. To clarify, I'm not talking about banning anybody from standing, merely stating the terms under which I'd be prepared to give somebody my vote. You may be incompetent, you may argue that the holocaust is a fiction, you may campaign for sharia law, you may be convinced that the world is run by a secret reptilian conspiracy, you may stand as a candidate for the legalise rape party or drown kittens in your party political broadcast. Go ahead and ask for my vote. Just don't accuse me of intolerance when you don't get it. Second, because any definition of 'basic educational standards' is necessarily subjective, because definitions of knowledge also involve subjectivity: you might argue that Galloway's stated views on evolution should disbar him; I could argue that anyone who accepts RichardDawkins ' view of history is equally ignorant of 'fact' and should be prohibited from positions of political power. Others would claim with equal conviction that it is a 'fact' that capitalism is the only effective model of economic activity and that anyone who thinks otherwise should be excluded from office. Which of those positions is strongest isn't the issue: it's the fact that they all turn on individual judgement, and, to a degree, conscience. So what? We vote for the people whose ideas we decide most resemble reality on the issues that we personally consider important. That's what democracy is all about. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have. Because none of us are capable of being experts in everything we occasionally have to judge candidates on the stupid things that they say on those topics that we are knowledgeable on. That, apparently, makes democracy intolerant? Finally, how relevant is any individual's religious belief to the process of political decision-making? Who mentioned religious belief? If you're referring to Galloway's willful ignorance of science (and now you mention it, I am sure that you are right in concluding that religious belief is the cause), then that sort of religious belief is very relevant when there are negative consequences of its conflict with reality. Religion does not have a monopoly on this, of course: other reality-conflicting beliefs of consequence, from homeopathy to racial supremacy, would also worry me. Religious beliefs of the Tony Benn or Lord Winston variety, meanwhile, are of minimal consequence, and do not especially worry me. If you want to see where atheistic humanism can take you in relation to climate change, have a look at what the 'Spiked!' crowd have to say about it. Oh? And what do Spiked have to say on the connection between atheistic humanism and climate change? I searched, but couldn't find any relevant articles. And it's arguable that without religion, we wouldn't have any education...... I can see you're dying to give it a go. |
Posted at 2008-01-03 21:26:32 - [Del] |
JBoyd
| Oh, and by the way: "disbarred"? I hope we're not misunderstanding each other. To clarify, I'm not talking about banning anybody from standing, merely stating the terms under which I'd be prepared to give somebody my vote. You may be incompetent, you may argue that the holocaust is a fiction, you may campaign for sharia law, you may be convinced that the world is run by a secret reptilian conspiracy, you may stand as a candidate for the legalise rape party or drown kittens in your party political broadcast. Go ahead and ask for my vote. Just don't accuse me of intolerance when you don't get it. I was going on the basis of: Such ignorance of science is itself sufficient reason to question a member's ability to make decisions in parliament, considering the sort of issues that parliament is asked to consider. Describing someone as incapable of doing something is not, I accept, saying that they should be barred from doing it, but it's only a couple of steps away, which, whilst I agree with your description of democracy seems to me to be the start of a slippery slope.
I think you refer to debates about whether Galloway is a 'creationist' and/or 'verging on the religious fundamentalist'
I'm not sure that 'wilful ignorance' is accurate, actually; in either philosophical or 'commonsense' terms evolution can reasonably be said to involve an element of 'chance'. To take a current example, if the Red Squirrel becomes extinct in this country, it will be because the introduction of the Grey Squirrel; the fact that there is a clear causal chain of events, doesn't mean that something that looks very much like 'luck' is not involved. Moreover, most people who agree with Galloway (and I'm one) regardless of their religious affiliation, would accept that evolution explains 'how' but not 'why'. Most modern Christians would accept that the 'Creationist' stuff about the Earth being 6000 years old is nonsense and read Genesis metaphorically rather than literally. This is why the cosmologists' metaphor of the 'Mind of God' is so significant.
Have a look at this and this I disagree entirely with the 'Spiked' view on environmentalism (and I'd imagine, from things you've said previously that you would too); my point is that neither atheistic humanism or christianity preclude or dictate any particular position on this question. |
|
Is it? Really? In that case there an awful lot of people in this country who are a couple of steps away from thinking that half of parliament should be barred. Perhaps that's why democracy is the worst possible system of government (apart from all the others): the tyranny of the majority is only a couple of steps away from intolerance. I'm not sure that 'wilful ignorance' is accurate, actually; in either philosophical or 'commonsense' terms evolution can reasonably be said to involve an element of 'chance'. To take a current example, if the Red Squirrel becomes extinct in this country, it will be because the introduction of the Grey Squirrel; the fact that there is a clear causal chain of events, doesn't mean that something that looks very much like 'luck' is involved. Yes, evolution has an element of chance. Actually, it has several: the neutral genetic mechanisms, plus the contingency in historic events. I know that shit. But having an element of chance is not the same thing as being random. Galloway did not say "evolution has an element of chance," and I am not convinced that your interpretation is what Galloway intended. If you're right though, then what Galloway is saying is that we have survived lots of chance events to be in the incredibly improbable position that we are now in. But improbable events like that aren't very interesting: any other combination of chance events would be equally improbable, but one of them had to happen. It's hugely improbable that right now I am sitting in Dorset having done all the things that I've done, rather than in one of the many other locations this world has to offer, and having done one of the vast number of other potential combinations of things that I could have done. Had somebody predicted my biography several decades ago, ending with me sitting here in Dorset at 6pm on the 4th of January 2007, that would be interesting. Had they predicted that at 6pm on the 4th of January 2008 I would be somewhere doing something, having done some other things, that would not be interesting. To get here, we have won a lottery in which there were lots of players, many of which would have speculated on the improbability of their existence, had their existed. Moreover, most people who agree with Galloway (and I'm one) regardless of their religious affiliation, would accept that evolution explains 'how' but not 'why'. Why? Why what? I guess that's the problem: I'm not convinced that's even a question, let alone one that has been answered. |
Posted at 2008-01-04 18:27:34 - [Del] |
JBoyd
| Is it? Really? Literally, no, but I was reading you rhetorically.
Well obviously Galloway's words are open to various interpretations, and I'm not sure which is correct. Where we differ, is probably that I do think that 'improbable events' are very interesting.
Again, I think that's a difference of personal interest or intellectual type (born scientists versus born arts/humanities/philosophy people). For me I can accept all the scientific explanations as fact, but want really interests me is why when you go back to absolute basics, things obey consistent and universal laws. The purely scientific explanation of how we got here requires an 'ordered' universe, and the question 'why is it ordered?' seems to me to be the crucial one. |
| For me I can accept all the scientific explanations as fact, but want really interests me is why when you go back to absolute basics, things obey consistent and universal laws. The purely scientific explanation of how we got here requires an 'ordered' universe, and the question 'why is it ordered?' seems to me to be the crucial one. The anthropic principle? Yes, I am somewhat interested in this, but: 1. I'm not convinced it is a why question, rather than just another how question. Several answers have been proposed to answer it as a how question, involving multiverses, singularities, and other such things that are way beyond my field. I expect you would only see such a how answer as pushing the why-question back another stage. But I can't help thinking of the god-of-the-gaps: for a long time, a why-question filled the gap in our knowledge regarding where complex life came from, but when that was answered with a how-question, a new gap in our knowledge was jumped on. At the moment, the big gaps in our knowledge cited as evidence for a creator are in cosmogony and consciousness, and those gaps are steadily being filled in. Meanwhile, the "Intelligent Design" movement is desperately trying to find gaps which aren't there, in which to place their interventionist god. 2. Even if there is a why-question that needs answering, I am not satisfied with the answer offered by religion. God did it? What is god, why does god exist, why did god do it, and what evidence supports this hypothesis above others? The god "answer" claims to be solving a gap in our knowledge, but is actually asking us to be satisfied with an even greater one. It's an especially great leap from a gap in our understanding of the universe to a specific religion. |
Posted at 2008-01-05 00:24:01 - [Del] |
JBoyd
| I wouldn't disagree with you on any of that, really. There comes a point where 'faith' takes a leap in a direction that takes it away from 'science' completely (you may remember the 'Babel Fish' in the 'Hitchhiker's Guide'... though it seemed to get diluted in the film version). However, I don't think that science and religion need inevitably be in conflict. |
All text on this site is © Joe Dunckley 2001-08, except where stated, see this page for conditions of use.
0.20440983772278 secs
JBoyd
Crikey, I thought that those of us on the God-bothering side of the fence were supposed to have a monopoly on intolerance!
And deciding George Galloway is beyond the pale on the basis of this comment is a bit like saying that you weren't sure about John Major until you read his book about cricket and disagreed with it......
Posted at 2008-01-01 21:15:30 - [Ban] - [Del]