Does adherence to a political party contradict skepticism ?

[El Greco]

Ditto

[Cleon]

What, is shemp our CowboyNeal? ;) (Slashdot joke)

My answer is that it CAN be. It depends. I'd wager not many on this board vote straight party line or naively believe that either of the major parties isn't riddled with hypocrisy, double-talk, inconsistencies, and general BS.

[headscratcher4]

Only to the extent that it is a political party I don't agree with....

[DanishDynamite]

I voted "No". I did so from a European worldview, i.e. where there are many parties, each differing from the other in a few ways. Although I have never been in complete agreement with the views of any party, I have often been in agreement with 85% or so with their program. As long as they don't change their opinion anymore than I do, it is perfectly possible to stick with one party for a long time.

[toddjh]

Supporting a political party because you share a lot of their views and know they're the closest thing to what you want that you're realistically going to get, sure, that's fine.

Supporting a political party because "We Johnsons have been Democrats since 1885!" is not. Voting a straight party ticket without knowing all the candidates falls in this category.

I'm not sure how to vote because I don't know which of the above is closer to what you mean.

Jeremy

[El Greco]

Originally posted by toddjh
Supporting a political party because you share a lot of their views and know they're the closest thing to what you want that you're realistically going to get, sure, that's fine.

Supporting a political party because "We Johnsons have been Democrats since 1885!" is not. Voting a straight party ticket without knowing all the candidates falls in this category.

I'm not sure how to vote because I don't know which of the above is closer to what you mean.

Jeremy

I thought that this ambiguity might be puzzling, but I didn't clarify it because I think that the interpretation of the phrase "adherence to a political party" is actually part of the answer...

My personal view is that in most non-fundamentalistic states the building of political opinions around "ideas" and generalities is rather superannuated. In a world where information is readily available to technocrat politicians, there is almost always an optimal and clearly distinguishable way to handle a certain issue. Deciding on a certain policy involves careful study of the available data and some personal abilities. Contemporary politicians have to do less guesswork and more analyzing. Thus, efficient, responsible, honest politicians are much more important than "ideas" nowadays. I believe that a few charismatic persons placed in in pivotal positions can really make a crucial difference between two parties.

But I will not elaborate further on this because I don't want to affect the way others will interpret "adherence to a political party".

[shanek]

Adherence to a political party? No. Blind adherence to a political party? Yes.

[American]

The very idea of adherence (to anything) contradicts skepticism. For most people it's a matter of their own patience, tolerance, fears, etc. Ideally, we like to assign statistical values to what we accept as true, unlikely, or nonsense (that's where you have P-values and all that crap). Throw in economic factors (how much am I willing to invest in something that may or may not be true?), and you have yourself the modern military-industrial system that keeps all you losers down, hoping Sylvia Brown will solve your problems when you next appear with her on Ricki Lake.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by shanek
Adherence to a political party? No. Blind adherence to a political party? Yes.

What he said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by American
The very idea of adherence (to anything) contradicts skepticism.

What about adhering to skepticism?

Adhere simply means "To remain devoted to or be in support of something" (American Heritage Dictionary). It says nothing about the reasons for that support or whether or not you would continue that support in the face of that something changing into something else, or new information or evidence coming to light.

[American]

Originally posted by shanek


What about adhering to skepticism?

Adhere simply means "To remain devoted to or be in support of something" (American Heritage Dictionary). It says nothing about the reasons for that support or whether or not you would continue that support in the face of that something changing into something else, or new information or evidence coming to light.


All very good points. I am completely right though, you just added to it. Good job.

[El Greco]

I could have said it like this:

- Does reasonable support to a political party contradict skepticism ?

...or like this:

- Does blind adherence to a political party contradict skepticism ?

In both cases, the outcome of the poll would have been rather predictable, at least for this forum. I prefer the more neutral, purely observational point of view though, the one yielded by the word "adherence" according to the definition Shanek quoted. Do you think that people around us who have been voting the same party for a long time (while politicians and policies have been changing rapidly) are less than skeptics in their political life ?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Adherence to a political party? No. Blind adherence to a political party? Yes.

Originally posted by KelvinG
What he said.

What they said...