Philosophy Now Forum

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:40 amYou are under the mistaken impression that as science uncovers more details about evolution that this somehow undermines the claim of evolution itself.

That's not at all what I'm saying, and I think you know it.

More accurately he doesn't know that. He suffers from a condition of mis-hearing.

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.

To all:

I'd like to avoid the gutter Science Fan wallows in. Instead, I'll repeat the statement that started this nonsense (non-Science):

"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."

Fred Gohlke

Actually Fred, you did deny evolution, and you have never once confronted anyone here who denies evolution and told them that they are wrong. Why is it that you science-deniers claim to have all the answers, when you cannot even accept basic answers that science has provided you?

Walker: You specifically denied evolution based on a handful of well-known ideas that support evolution and do not in any way undermine it. Science will continue to further develop ideas regarding evolution, so that it will be explained in ever increasing detail. The fact that there are some issues regarding these details of evolution does not in any way provide support for your claim that evolution may not have occurred. That's a great distortion of the existing scientific evidence regarding evolution.

Pick up any introductory Biology textbook used by any major western university, and not only will the text state that evolution happened, but the text will further state that evolution is the fundamental idea behind all of modern biology.

Good Morning, Gustav

"As I said before I am not sure I can be of much use in the project of 'improving public participation in the political process'."

I understood it the first time, but I can dream, can't I?

"If I cannot be of use in that, then in what can I be useful?"

Your comments are on point and frank. You can't be more useful than that.

"My choice is to assist in educational projects and elevate the capacity of people to think in rational categories."

"Improving public participation in the political process" is certainly an educational project that needs rational thought.

It's different! And different ideas can be hard to grasp. If you can elevate rational thought on the topic - whether or not your purpose is the same as mine - it's important. I'm pretty sure of the conclusions I've reached, but they need to be challenged.

Modern communication, unfortunately and inaccurately, assumes the author or announcer has greater knowledge than the audience. Not only is that rarely (if ever) true, it tends to propagate the inadequacies and biases of the source. Instead of building a sound knowledge base, the audience forms inadequate and biased opinions.

We know, intuitively, that we cannot gain knowledge unless our assertions are challenged and the underlying concepts examined. In other words, the acquisition of knowledge requires discourse. It is, and must be, a multi-directional undertaking.

My hope is that we can engage in such an exchange.

"... but rather the free exchange of a certain group of specific ideas that might help people make commitments to participate in political processes in a productive and rational way."

Before trying to identify the ideas people exchange in a political setting, we must recognize that participation in political processes is a personal decision. The realities of life, particularly our economic needs, tend to distract us from serious thought about public concerns. When, as in the United States, the political infrastructure militates against public decision-making, the people's political talents atrophy. If we are to create an environment in which deliberative democracy is practical, we must create a framework in which citizens are encouraged to discuss their political concerns with their peers.

"I would add as well that I think that beginning to think in terms of participation in political and any other process of relationship to society requires getting clear about what one values and what is to be valued."

Each of us has values. Those values may be, as you point out, in tremendous confusion, but some portion of that confusion flows from a lack of focus. In other words, when people are put in an environment where they can address specific issues, they have the values to resolve them - or, rather, enough of them have the values to create a resolution.

"In order to be able to be active, one has to be clear about what one is active about and in relation to."

Absolutely!!!!!

That is the point I was trying to make in the preceding paragraph. I have aleady alluded to this problem, and its resolution in a political setting, in my response to Science Fan regarding certain views he attributes to you.

"If you read anything else that I write you will glean out of it a group of concerns and observations about the present, about people and about perception, but in essence this all has to be with 'how one structures one's perception about who one is and what is going on not only in human culture but in this very realm of existence' (to put it sententiously). How could one make decisions until that is clear?"

We all have a perception of who we are. Some may have a clearer vision than others, but the perception is there, and it shows up every time we have to make a decision. The point is that we must have an opportunity to make a decision.

Suppose, just suppose, you live in a small town and you get this letter from the mayor:

Dear Gustav Bjornstrand,

You have been chosen to meet with several of your neighbors to select one member of your group to help choose members for the Town Council. The people in your group were chosen at random and are listed below. They have also received this notification.

Please submit your group's choice to the Town Council before 5 p.m., July 17th, 2017. If more than one name is submitted from your group, all members will be disqualified.

Respectfully requested,

Archie Bunker,
Mayor

Group Members:
Dorothy McCullum (telephone 394-519-8882)
Harold Lewis (telephone 394-519-7029)
Gustav Bjornstrand (telephone 394-519-5174)

What will happen if such a letter is sent to all citizens of the town?

Well, all the listed people may refuse to participate. If so, the group will not make a selection. If two refuse, the third person can report themselves as the selected individual. If one refuses, the other two can choose between themselves - or - not make a decision.

It is my opinion that the vast majority of such groups will do as asked and submit a choice to help choose members for the Town Council. What do you think?

Fred Gohlke

Good Afternoon, Walker

"Land ownership would give everyone an interest and a say ..."

I understand your point, but disagree with it. Society is made up of people, not land-owners. There is, among us, no shortage of competent, principled individuals with the ability to advocate the public interest. They may, or may not, be land-owners.

"The details about what determines the size of the interest and loudness of the voice could be ironed out."

They will be ironed out best by the speaker's peers.

"The federalies would need to relinquish much of the Western Lands that have been seized"

This is an issue worthy of discussion in its own right.

"When money is on the line and skin in the game, interest is self-arising and participation naturally happens."

That's true. But, in my opinion, it's true of everyone, not just land-owners.

I suspect our views are more in line than would at first appear. The difference is that, rather than using land-ownership as the discriminator, I perfer that the value of each individual's contribution to political decisions be assigned by their peers.

I asked Gustav to imagine a political environment in a small town. If you have an opportunity to check it out, please think about how the groups will make their choices. Each of the participants has 'skin in the game' because they are all members of the same community. If their decision ultimately costs or saves them money, they will all be affected. How will they decide which of their group is the best to help select members of the Town Council?

To tell you the truth, Walker, I don't think there is any way we can know how the decisions are made. The only thing that's important is that a decision will be made; someone in the group will be thought the best advocate for the others - and that's the only thing that's important.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Fred Gohlke

It's a real shame that people who engage in political debate often ignore basic economics in doing so. If one ties land-ownership into the right to vote, then why wouldn't one give greater voting rights to those people who hold more land than others?

Also, think about the effect on property values? People will be less willing to sell property, so as to retain their right to vote, which will artificially inflate the price of real estate by artificially increasing the demand for real estate. This will also cause resources to be wasted as more resources will be invested in real-estate, even if this means holding onto a vacant lot so as not to lose the right to vote, as opposed to investing that money elsewhere more productively.

It would also give voting rights to someone who owns some land worth, let's say, $1,000.00, while excluding a millionaire from being able to vote, because he has his money invested in stocks, annuities, bonds, diamonds, gold, pork-belly futures, or some other non-real-estate investments. How does that make any sense when the millionaire has a greater financial interest than the person who owns a small amount of land?