Philosophy Now Forum

Good Morning, Gustav Bjornstrand

Your skepticism is warranted. In the United States, the 200-plus years of our nation's existence have created innumerable tentacles of habit and belief that have a firm hold on the public mind. To loosen that grip we must pry back its fingers, one by one, with irrefutable logic. Doing so is a challenge. The difficulty is increased enormously because vested interests have usurped the reins of our national and state governments. They will not yield their power easily.

Your comments on 'democracy' in America are on point. Academics are slowly coming to realize that democracy in the United States is a myth. In a 2014 study, Gilens and Page report that what most people call democracy, isn't democracy, it's oligarchy. They found "... that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts." You can find the full report at:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/def ... cs.doc.pdf

I also agree that the definition of 'democracy' is, at the very least, ambiguous. For my part, when I speak of 'democracy', I am thinking of a political system in which the people seek out the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to public office. I've never seen that definition, but, to me, given the immense diversity of talent and ability among the electorate, it is the only rational definition. The challenge of democracy is to sift through this diversity, examining and honing the people's various perspectives while seeking out and elevating the individuals best suited to advance the common interest.

As you suggest, we "cannot really envision 'democracy' unless power is really and truly brought down to a local level." That is certainly the place to start. I apologize that I do not know what "Media systems" are and cannot comment on them.

I do not agree that "democracy ... is the source of tremendous and even irreconcilable problems and divisions that can only be bridged (read: stifled) by a powerful national government." The divisions are the direct result of the top-down structure of the American political system, which thrives on the Divide and Conquer theory of government. A bottom-up structure that eliminate the divisiveness of party politics is possible and practical.

If we are to improve our political system, we must start by heeding John Dewey's comment that the evils of democracy cannot be corrected by introducing more machinery of the kind that already exists. We need new machinery, and the attempt to design it can be expected to spur not only skepticism but outright antagonism. Still, I think the effort worthwhile.

I believe we can conceive a bottom-up political process that lets people with differing views deliberate and seek consensus on political issues. Participants will necessarily consider both common and conflicting interests. They will absorb the diverse interests, reducing them to their essential element: their effect on the electorate. This necessarily adds a bias toward the common interest.

Clearly, saying so doesn't make it so. But it should warrant further discussion. Perhaps we could start by considering the arrangement of small groups like those described in Esterling, Fung and Lee's report cited in my 06/13/17 post. Clearly, the groups would need a purpose. In a small community, that might well be the selection of members of a town council.

Would you care to consider that possibility?

Fred Gohlke

Fred: What I meant by an agreement on using the scientific method --- at least when it comes to a determination of relevant political facts --- is an agreement on using those same methods that scientists employ in doing scientific research. For example, science is telling us humans are causing the climate to change, and this change is occurring far faster than natural processes would cause. There should be no disagreement on this basic set of facts, if we agreed to adhere to scientific methods. Now, the policy issue of what to do about these facts cannot be determined alone by science, as it calls for value judgments. But, having debates over the science of whether humans are causing temperature to rise seems to me to be a waste of time and prevents us from dealing with the issues that we should be dealing with.

Fred Gohike wrote:Your skepticism is warranted. In the United States, the 200-plus years of our nation's existence have created innumerable tentacles of habit and belief that have a firm hold on the public mind. To loosen that grip we must pry back its fingers, one by one, with irrefutable logic. Doing so is a challenge. The difficulty is increased enormously because vested interests have usurped the reins of our national and state governments. They will not yield their power easily.

I think I get what you mean, but I do notice that your way of putting it is rhetorically-rich! If I catch what you mean correctly --- and that statement is ripe for mis-interpretation because what are 'tentacles' for me may not be the ones you refer to. There are many things that could have a hold on someone's mind so I could interject my own sense of what that might be.

Reading over your post I sense that you likely have a sense of what democracy is and what its value is (or isn't as the case may be). As well I think you have a sense about what democratic activism is and should be, and this activism would correspond to the 'prying back' of the 'tentacles' that interpenetrate the population.

For my part, when I speak of 'democracy', I am thinking of a political system in which the people seek out the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to public office.

Obviously, this makes a great deal of sense. But I feel certain that you would agree that a 'political actor' to 'act intelligently' and even to know his or her own interests, and to understand those in the context of a giant system of competing or cooperating 'interests', is a tall order. I would state that most people therefor are not qualified for the responsibility. Even people of general good-faith might not be able to choose properly or well. To have 'interests' is in a sense to have biases, is it not?

I do not mean to complicate the question being conversed (what does the success of democracy depend on?) but I sense innumerable and labyrinthian levels of complexity to the issue. I do not think I would be very useful in constructing some sort of solution. The reason may be that I tend to see things in a downward spiral of degeneracy (in the neutral and not necessarily 'moral' sense of the word).

I do not agree that "democracy ... is the source of tremendous and even irreconcilable problems and divisions that can only be bridged (read: stifled) by a powerful national government." The divisions are the direct result of the top-down structure of the American political system, which thrives on the Divide and Conquer theory of government. A bottom-up structure that eliminate the divisiveness of party politics is possible and practical.

Perhaps I could explain a bit more. Can I suppose that you have heard of the phrase 'crisis of democracy'? Have you heard or read Noam Chomsky's use of that phrase? He quotes establishment politicos who refer to the Sixties political revolts as 'crises of democracy' and he scorns them for the usage. Essentially (following Chomsky) they are saying that democracy is a crisis! If one accept that Sixties Radicalism is a manifestation of democracy and the people's will, then in those times when the people's will is evident, and they clamour for change or what-have-you, it is a crisis. The crisis must be overcome and then 'democracy' in some non-critical form resumes.

But if one takes the stance that (to push forward this example) that Sixties Radicalism is a democratic manifestation of chaotic and --- possibly or sometimes --- destructive trends, then 'democracy is the source of tremendous and even irreconcilable problems and divisions' that, in some sense, run amok. A small community, for example, might be quite democratic in many senses and yet each one in it subscribe to an authoritarianism or submission to some basic idea or ideal. To an outsider it would appear backward, or stifling, and indeed in some communities that could be named (Amish for example) there are established hierarchies of valuation that, to outsiders, or to us, would appear radically 'oppressive'. Yet they function. And what purpose is served by that community? How would they answer? And how would an outsider answer? One would have a positive view, the other a negative one.

If this thread is topical --- and I am of the opinion that all such topics are extremely topical and this is why people desire to jump into them and hash things out (or turn their opponents into hash as the case may be!) --- I would say that in America now certainly we seem to be approaching a crisis. I am not sure if it is a crisis of democracy, or a crisis of divisions in a democracy. I am also not sure of 'democracy' is a solution for a crisis of democracy. What is going on that produces the crisis? It is all rather complex. What is needed to still the crisis? Just as hard to answer.

I have to say that recently I have been influenced by a particular individual who writes extensively on the topic of social and 'democratic' manipulation (that is, manipulation of the demos by oligarchic elites). E. Michael Jones is a Catholic, a practicing Catholic, and his Catholic sense of things is part of his analysis and his description of his and his community's sense of loss. His 'Slaughter of Cities' is worth looking into and there are a few quite interesting videos of interviews on that topic on YouTube.

Good Morning, Science Fan

Thanks for the description. I understand exactly what you mean. The problem is that our political system does not encourage us to engage in the methods scientists employ. On the contrary, it thrives on the Divide and Conquer theory of government. If we are to base our political decisions on intellectual discourse, the first step must be to provide an atmophere in which intellectual discourse is a possible and probable forerunner to political decision-making.

In other words, if we are to build a rational society, we must change the political infrastructure that controls our nation.

We will not be able to address the climate change as long as our leaders are able to sell our laws to gigantic economic monsters. If we want to change that (and I certainly do), we're going to have to change the way we choose our leaders.

Such a major change in not possible on a nation-wide, or even a state-wide basis. It can only be done by:

1) conceiving a practical deliberative process
2) finding a community that wants to end party dominance
3) implementing the process and honing it
4) encouraging other communities to adopt it

It can be done. In May of 2015, in Frome, a small city in the U. K., a group of people who called themselves Independents for Frome (IfF) were able to displace every single member of the established political parties from their local government and replace them with independent candidates.

The idea is spreading. At least two internet sites:

http://www.indie-town.uk

and

https://www.thealternative.org.uk

are devoted to encouraging other communities to do the same.

If we want to address the climate change issue, we must first design a political structure in which deliberative democracy is possible and practical. I'd like to help on such a project. Wouldn't you?

Fred Gohlke

Fred: The reason why I limited the use of scientific method to the facts was because once we enter into the world of value judgments, then science is worthless. This is also true for logic, mathematics, and philosophy. I say this because we have a great deal of scientific evidence regarding the nature of human reasoning, and it is unlike that claimed to exist by philosophers. Human reasoning can be used to discover the truth about our external world, as we do in science. However, reasoning is also mainly used by people to justify their positions in a social context, or to criticize a political opponent's justification for their position. Once we entered such political discussions, then the way our human brains have evolved, we use reason in a very self-serving manner.

However, if we can get people to commit to science on discovering the actual facts, then that can go a long way in limiting the scope of discussions that people can engage in regarding their values and political ideologies. I'll give an example related to Gustav. Gustav is a racist, a Holocaust-denier, so he rejects the science that has shown, for many decades now, that races do not exist. Moreover, even if races did exist, Gustav rejects the findings of genetics and neurobiology, which rule out genetic determinism, which would make any social significance for any alleged races irrelevant. Moreover, he ignores forensic evidence regarding the gas chambers. For example, he believed a kid with no training in forensics at all who claimed the gas chambers must not have existed, because there were greater chemical stains on the walls of a delousing chamber than in the gas chambers. Science easily explains why this belief on the part of Gustav is based on nonsense. It takes far more gas to kill lice than it does to kill humans, by a large amount. Thus, for this reason alone, the chemical exposure would be greater in the delousing chambers than in the gas chambers where Jews were murdered. In addition, the gas chambers had high-powered ventilation systems that sucked out the gas between killings to speed up the process to kill more Jews. Finally, the walls were exposed to external weather elements and even flooding. Yet, the gas chambers had shower heads that were not hooked up to water pipes, and traces of the chemicals used to gas people were found in their walls, and ventilation systems, which is 100% inconsistent with no gas chambers having been used to murder people.

If a person admits to the science, that races do not exist, then it is impossible to argue in any coherent fashion for racism. If a person admits to the science regarding the gas chambers, then it is impossible to argue in any coherent fashion for Holocaust-denial.

We use science to establish the relevant political facts, which limits the irrational political positions that people can cling to.

I suppose this might be somewhat embarrassing to you, Mr Fred, this insertion of very different issues and concerns. When this is done on forums it is often done to thwart or derail on-going conversations. I suggest avoiding that, if you can.

Despite this, I am obligated to say that I responded here. He is not completely wrong, but he is far from right (in his description of me). I regret that these issues come up and are so very difficult for people. Yet this is part of my philosophical stance: the need and willingness to get all issues out in the open and to work them out. This does involve a 'free exchange of ideas' so these questions are apropos. My view is that we 'construct our selves' within webs of partial truths if not of lies (You likely understand the same to be so though in different areas). I think it is a worthy project to 'see things clearly' and 'as they really are'. Yet it is not at all easy.

[This was written before I saw the most recent posts by Science Fan and Gustav Bjornstrand. I do all my work off-line and may not be able to respond to those posts until tomorrow because I have to take my wife to the doctor.]

Good Morning, Gustav

Thank you for your excellent comments.

You are right. The 'tentacles' that hold your mind may differ from those that hold mine - and some of them could be the same. Among my peers, many (if not most) believe that the United States is a democratic country. Trying to persuade them otherwise is a non-trivial task.

The point is less the nature of the tentacles than the difficulty of removing them. I don't think it can be done directly. I could preach that the U. S. is oligarchical 'til the cows come home, and not change a single mind. I suspect it's best done by demonstration. The 'prying back' is probably an overstatement. It's more likely to be a case of dissolving.

I do have "a sense about what democratic activism is and should be", but I'm a mere human. As I once said:

While I may have an idea or two
The important views will come from you
Concepts devised in a single brain
Can oft by logic be split in twain

I do agree that for "a 'political actor' to 'act intelligently' and even to know his or her own interests, and to understand those in the context of a giant system of competing or cooperating 'interests', is a tall order", but it's not impossible.

I would also agree that "most people therefor are not qualified for the responsibility." The goal, of course, is to find the ones who are (or, at least, are as close to that ideal as possible) instead of letting self-interested groups tell us who we can choose as our leaders.

You suggest that "people of general good-faith might not be able to choose properly or well". I would counter with the argument that the ability to make the best decision is affected by the environment in which the decision is made.

We all have interests (or biases). Indeed, we are all driven by the pursuit of our own interest. We must find a way to harness that trait to serve society. It's easy to say, "It can't be done." It's more difficult to think through ways to accomplish it. I'd like to try.

You mention the "innumerable and labyrinthian levels of complexity" (a marvelous phrase) opened by this issue. However, they are inter-dependent. The resolution of some of them will eliminate others. I'm not suggesting that it will be easy to work through them; just that the task will simplify as we move forward.

You said:

I do not think I would be very useful in constructing some sort of solution. The reason may be that I tend to see things in a downward spiral of degeneracy (in the neutral and not necessarily 'moral' sense of the word).

Of course you do! That's because you see clearly. I suspect you see the 'downward spiral' continuing because you haven't, so far, thought much about possible alternatives.

Is it possible that you are influenced by the high visibility of deceit and corruption in our culture? The idea that it is inescapable leads to the self-defeating notion that trying to correct it is futile.

The problem is not the people; it is a political system that renounces virtue and is ruled by cynicism. The vast majority of our peers are honest people. They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise. When we make probity a primary concern in our electoral process, the pervasiveness of dishonesty in our society will diminish.

Everything you've written to me suggests a vital interest in achieving democracy and your clarity of thought is irreplaceable. I hope you'll help.

The reference to 'crisis of democracy' fits right in with this. The problem with the phrase (for me) is that Chomsky is referring to the brand of democracy practiced in America. That was, and is, in crisis. I consider that a good thing because I don't think the political system in the U.S. is democratic. (I've heard of Noam Chomsky, but never read him.)

Fred Gohlke

Good Morning, Science Fan

I would not agree that "once we enter into the world of value judgments, then science is worthless". Nor would I accept it in regard to logic, mathematics, and philosophy.

I cannot say with certainty that what we call humans evolved from animals - I've only been here for part of the journey - but, if it's true, then the effects of science, logic, mathematics and philosophy have been incremental and have occurred in spite of the predominance of non-science, or, if you prefer, nonsense. In fact, even if we didn't evolve from animals, it's still not true, because science, logic, mathematics and philosophy have prevailed.

In this context, would it be better to avoid absolutes?

You mentioned in an earlier post that "science is telling us humans are causing the climate to change, and this change is occurring far faster than natural processes would cause." We have accumulated evidence that supports that conclusion, but that evidence does not account for the ending of the most recent Ice Age. There may be forces at work here that we do not completely understand.

I'm not suggesting we should ignore science. We just have to take 'facts' cum grano salis.

You say, "reasoning is also mainly used by people to justify their positions in a social context, or to criticize a political opponent's justification for their position", and I think that's correct because, as you say, "Once we entered such political discussions, then the way our human brains have evolved, we use reason in a very self-serving manner."

This is an extremely important point because it is key to the development of a better political process; the pursuit of self-interest must be harnessed to service of the public interest. If you think that unlikely, please try to reserve judgment for the moment. I don't want to get ahead of myself on examining the political decision-making process.

"However, if we can get people to commit to science on discovering the actual facts, then that can go a long way in limiting the scope of discussions that people can engage in regarding their values and political ideologies."

Actually, I think folks are already committed to that. Our assimilation of new facts may seem slow, but it's inexorable. Hardly anyone still thinks the earth is flat.

Limiting the scope of discussions is unwise. New ideas, like the ones we're seeking here, are the cornerstone of progress.

Political ideologies are likely to continue because partisanship is natural for humans. We seek out and align ourselves with others who share our views. Through them, we hone our ideas and gain courage from the knowledge that we are not alone in our beliefs. Partisanship gives breadth, depth and volume to our voice. In and of itself, partisanship is not only inevitable, it is healthy - provided it is always a voice and never a power. The danger is not in partisanship (or ideologies), it is in letting partisans (or ideologues) control government.

With regard to your perception of Gustav's attitudes, it provides the basis for two points regarding the free exchange of ideas and democracy.

The free exchange of ideas does not mean the ideas exchanged will be accepted to all participants in the exchange. It only increases the possibility of acceptance. We must never forget that disagreement is an important feature in the acquisition of knowledge.

In terms of democracy - in terms of a governmental structure where every member of the community participates to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability - if Gustav and I lived in the same community and sought public office, I'd be much more interested in his attitude about the need for a traffic control at a dangerous intersection in our town, or in his ideas about stopping the flow of dangerous drugs that has ruined the life of one of my grandchildren, or in other matters that concern our community, than I would be in his views on the holocaust.

All of my life, I've heard the expression, "It takes all kinds", and that's the essence of democracy. I may or may not agree with all of your views or with all of Gustav's, but I clearly recognize the need for a practical way to seek out our areas of agreement in achieving the common good. The differences in our views may, or may not, be reconcilable, but our areas of agreement are the platform from which we can move forward.

Fred Gohlke

Thank you for the explanation, Gustav. I haven't looked at the link you provided because I've been busy and because the issue is, at best, tangential to my primary concern.

I'm an old man, 88 this past April, and I have only one interest in politics: Helping to design machinery for getting government by the people.

The evolution of democracy is a very slow process and I'd like to help inch it along, while I'm still able. I feel that, if I can get the ball rolling, there are plenty of bright people who will be encouraged to keep it going.

Fred Gohlke

The danger of democracy is tyranny of the majority, made even more possible these days by technology.

In actuality, a million guesses at the number of jelly-beans in the big jar, averaged together, will most times be the correct count. Does this translate into the proper course for a nation? Before technology, no. This is why a Republic with democratically elected representatives has thrived. The fear of pure democracy was the tyranny of the masses, an aspect of human nature which should still extend to the more efficient gathering of consensus and averages. However, interpretation of the data is always ripe for abuse of inserting bias into more nuanced interpretations that require training and judgment, beyond counting jelly beans.

Tip-top comment there Walker.

Fred: No wonder you admire Gustav so much --- you are both science deniers. Evolution is a fact. Since you are in denial over this basic fact of science, there is no way that you are in a position to tell anyone else what they should or should not believe about science. You don't even know what science consists of because you claim it can make value judgments, when it most definitely cannot do so. This is basic science 101 stuff, along with evolution being basic biology 101 stuff as well.

Scientific illiteracy is a major part of the problem. Too bad you are siding with those who deny science.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:27 pm Fred: No wonder you admire Gustav so much --- you are both science deniers.

Which is tantamount to being a Science Fan denier, a crime of the highest order punishable by being put on his "foes" list. There is no discussion or appeal, there are no second chances for those who defy the alpha male of philosophy.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:13 pm

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:27 pm Fred: No wonder you admire Gustav so much --- you are both science deniers.

Which is tantamount to being a Science Fan denier, a crime of the highest order punishable by being put on his "foes" list. There is no discussion or appeal, there are no second chances for those who defy the alpha male of philosophy.

I've noticed StheFup uses the term 'alpha male' a lot. If that user was as in love with science as he claims, he would never use such an ignorant, shallow and unscientific term. I barely read his conceited arse-blowing anyway.

Thanks, Gustav.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:27 pm Fred: No wonder you admire Gustav so much --- you are both science deniers. Evolution is a fact. Since you are in denial over this basic fact of science, there is no way that you are in a position to tell anyone else what they should or should not believe about science. You don't even know what science consists of because you claim it can make value judgments, when it most definitely cannot do so. This is basic science 101 stuff, along with evolution being basic biology 101 stuff as well.

Scientific illiteracy is a major part of the problem. Too bad you are siding with those who deny science.

Dr. Carson says scientists have no evidence in the fossil record of a species transforming into another species. No witnessed evidence of this happening, either.

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-c ... ng-another