Politics validated by critical thinking?

[CFLarsen]

I don't think there is any doubt by now that Shanek wants to use skepticism as a way to justify his political beliefs. He thinks that by pointing to critical thinking, he can prove his way into politics.

To wit:

"Shane is a proud skeptic who loves learning about science and approaching all subjects, including politics, from a rational, skeptical viewpoint."
Source (http://shanek.ispofusa.net/about.php)

It is obvious that a lot of Superstitious claim to be skeptics, in order to validate their false beliefs and claims. But politicians?

Politics is our ideas of how societies should look. It's how we decide things, depending on what people think. One person is right-leaning, another is left-leaning, a third thinks a more religious approach is the best.

Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?

If it is possible, then that would immediately do away with democracies, and replace it something that can never be replaced, because all other politics would be provably wrong. How can you argue with science? That "Skeptical Politics" would be as inarguable as the existence of gravity. If you disagree with "SP", you're a woowoo.

If it is not possible, isn't it a bastardization, even abuse, of skepticism for your own political goals?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?

No. For starters, that assumes there is a "right" politics. The curve may be multimodal -- that is, there may be more than one political philosophy that produces equivalent results. On top of that, no form of government is stable without the support of the people, and "the people" are notorious for being immune to skeptical criticism.

If it is possible, then that would immediately do away with democracies, and replace it something that can never be replaced, because all other politics would be provably wrong. How can you argue with science?

What if the "right" system of government necessarily involves some form of democracy?

Jeremy

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by toddjh
What if the "right" system of government necessarily involves some form of democracy?

That would be highly unlikely, given the fact that so many people are superstitious, and probably will be forever.

Science is not decided democratically anyway.

[T'ai Chi]

I'd vote but your poll is incomplete. What about us who don't want to be fit in the Yes or No categories that you are imposing?

...


Originally posted by CFLarsen
Science is not decided democratically anyway.

What is your background in science again?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Shane is a proud skeptic who loves learning about science and approaching all subjects, including politics, from a rational, skeptical viewpoint."
Source

He has his own website?!?!?!?!?!?! Oh, that's rich!

What fun I will have with this!

[T'ai Chi]

(double post: deleted)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
He has his own website?!?!?!?!?!?! Oh, that's rich!

What fun I will have with this!

There's nothing wrong (http://www.cafepress.com/votekillian.12496173) with that.

;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?

If it is possible, then that would immediately do away with democracies, and replace it something that can never be replaced, because all other politics would be provably wrong. How can you argue with science? That "Skeptical Politics" would be as inarguable as the existence of gravity. If you disagree with "SP", you're a woowoo.

If it is not possible, isn't it a bastardization, even abuse, of skepticism for your own political goals?

I think that "success" is always determined post hoc and that the naysayers fade into the woodwork. Success is time and event and mindset driven and there is no gaurentee that anything will work the same way twice.

Is economics a science? It seems that on any issue I always hear disaster and success proclaimed as the inevitable result by "experts". It seems to me that if we "knew" mistakes would not be made.

[shanek]

Since the question used the words "possible" (instead of "desirable") and "all," I had to vote "no." But that doesn't mean we get to throw our skepticism out the window.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jzs
There's nothing wrong (http://www.cafepress.com/votekillian.12496173) with that.

;)

Actually, that was a special request from someone I met at a free speech festival on July 4. Give 'em what they want! :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Is economics a science? It seems that on any issue I always hear disaster and success proclaimed as the inevitable result by "experts". It seems to me that if we "knew" mistakes would not be made.

Well, we can't accurately predict the weather beyond a week or so out. That doesn't mean that meteorology isn't a science, it just means it's a chaotic system.

In general, if you ever hear economists or investment advisors or whatever telling you what's going to happen when, you can rest assured he's shovelling it. If he's right, it's by luck.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Since the question used the words "possible" (instead of "desirable") and "all," I had to vote "no." But that doesn't mean we get to throw our skepticism out the window.

You're not a skeptic, so it doesn't matter.

[shanek]

By the way, am I to understand that Scrut was completely oblivious to the fact that I've had my own website for something like two years now, despite the fact that the "www" button at the bottom of every post I make has been there and active to that site for the longest time now? What a maroon!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
I'd vote but your poll is incomplete. What about us who don't want to be fit in the Yes or No categories that you are imposing?

Since you have insisted on participants in your botched experiment choose between only two categories (Does psi exist? Yes/No), I find your question incredibly hypocritical.

Originally posted by jzs
What is your background in science again?

I don't need a background in science to say that. If I am wrong, prove it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Since the question used the words "possible" (instead of "desirable") and "all," I had to vote "no." But that doesn't mean we get to throw our skepticism out the window.

Wait a second.

Skepticism and critical thinking isn't about what is desirable, but what is real or not.

Since you are using skepticism as a tool to determine your political views, and you find that it is not possible to do so, shouldn't you say that on your webpage? People can get the (wrong) idea that you have come to your political views based on science.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Wait a second.

Skepticism and critical thinking isn't about what is desirable, but what is real or not.

:rolleyes:

Claus, the substitution would have made the question read, "Yes - it is desirable to determine all aspects of politics, and decide scientifically what is best." That obviously doesn't mean that I find it's impossible to use skepticism. Once again, your bigotry makes you lie about what I said and what I claim. You lost al credibility as a skeptic long ago.

Edited to add: The other substitution would be "Yes - it is possible to determine many aspects of politics, and decide scientifically what is best."Your use of both the word "possible" and "all" set up a situaiton where no one could honestly answer "Yes" to the question. Obviously a cheap ploy so you can feel good about abandoning skepticism in the political arena.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by shanek
Actually, that was a special request from someone I met at a free speech festival on July 4. Give 'em what they want! :D

:)

[T'ai Chi]

Claus said


Since you have insisted on participants in your botched experiment choose between only two categories (Does psi exist? Yes/No), I find your question incredibly hypocritical.


So when one person desires two categories it is not OK, but when you do it it is OK? Hmmm..

I think it is fairly obvious you don't really have a clue what the word experiment means.


I don't need a background in science to say that. If I am wrong, prove it.


I never said that was a requirement. However, you just dodged the question. What is your background in science, Claus?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
:rolleyes:

Claus, the substitution would have made the question read, "Yes - it is desirable to determine all aspects of politics, and decide scientifically what is best." That obviously doesn't mean that I find it's impossible to use skepticism. Once again, your bigotry makes you lie about what I said and what I claim. You lost al credibility as a skeptic long ago.

Edited to add: The other substitution would be "Yes - it is possible to determine many aspects of politics, and decide scientifically what is best."Your use of both the word "possible" and "all" set up a situaiton where no one could honestly answer "Yes" to the question. Obviously a cheap ploy so you can feel good about abandoning skepticism in the political arena.

I use "possible" and "all", because that's what skeptics should do: In all matters, where it is possible to determine what is real and what is not, we should do it. In those areas where it is not possible, skeptics have nothing to do.

E.g., it is not possible to determine whether or not God exists - it is only possible to eamine the evidence in favor of, and against it. Likewise with politics.

Will you change the text on your website, so that people don't get the wrong impression that you have reached your political views based on science?

Will you also stop claiming to use skepticism and critical thinking here on this board, whenever you argue that your political platform is the right one?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
So when one person desires two categories it is not OK, but when you do it it is OK? Hmmm..

In your case, there was a third option - namely "undecided", yet you denied the participants that, despite you have claimed that you yourself is undecided.

Originally posted by jzs
I think it is fairly obvious you don't really have a clue what the word experiment means.

I think you would be wise not to re-open that can of worms, T'ai.

Originally posted by jzs
I never said that was a requirement. However, you just dodged the question. What is your background in science, Claus?

You are perfectly aware of my background. I have no formal training in science. What relevance does that have to do with my statement?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I use "possible" and "all", because that's what skeptics should do: In all matters, where it is possible to determine what is real and what is not, we should do it. In those areas where it is not possible, skeptics have nothing to do.

Exactly. And there are, indeed, areas where skeptics have nothing to do, such as art. So, for example, someone can make an argument (as I do) that government should not be funding art for all sorts of practical reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with what's "good art," or any other subjective evaluation; it doesn't even reach that area. Conversely, someone could claim some sort of objective benefit to government funding of art and this could also be examined skeptically. However, someone could easily come up with a reason to fund or not fund art based on what's "good art" or some other such subjective measure; skepticism wouldn't enter into the equation here.

Will you change the text on your website, so that people don't get the wrong impression that you have reached your political views based on science?

Not necessary, because none of my views fit any of hte exceptions. Everything I've posted on this board, on my website, etc. are things that quite easily fit into what we can examine skeptically, and I do. Most of your claims are things that fall into what can be skeptically examined, but you DON'T.

[plindboe]

Politics alone, can't be right or wrong. It depends upon what one's goals are. Individuals have widely different goals, so there will never be any single politics course for them to follow.

That said, skepticism does have a role in politics. There's much misinformation and it's quite easy to get fooled without it.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are perfectly aware of my background. I have no formal training in science.

No, I was not "perfectly aware" of your backround, or as it happens to be, lack of background, in science, which is why I asked.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?We can apply critical thinking to find philosophies that are more feasible and some that aren't feasible. As for finding the right one, is this anything like finding the Truth by scientific means. We can no more find the "right" politics than we can find the "right" scientific theory.

If one wants to look at political science in a truly scientific sense once will quickly find you are in the "soft" sciences, where one can not tightly control or monitor all the many variables and experiments are one offs that you can just repeat at will.

Looking through science though, there are often times when we can't setup are experiments in a lab, and don't have the controls we want. In politics we will have to settle for have a myriad of hidden variables, and those that aren't hidden still are rarely known as well as we wish, and we won't get to repeat our experiments.

This however doesn't mean we can't draw conclusion's about political philosophies, in just means in the realm of "provisionally true", this truth will be more provisional than other truths so to speak.


Originally posted by CFLarsen
If it is possible, then that would immediately do away with democracies, and replace it something that can never be replaced, because all other politics would be provably wrong. How can you argue with science? That "Skeptical Politics" would be as inarguable as the existence of gravity. If you disagree with "SP", you're a woowoo. Why would it entail doing away with democracies? Any political system has to account for the units that make up the society.

Lets suppose you come up with the "Ultimate Economic System", but then find on implementing it rigorously that people rebel because they feel they lack of control. Your conclusion would probably be that society would be more stable and productive if you a) stayed with democracy and b) tried to implement the "Ultimate Economic System" by educating the voters, even if you end up with a slightly warped form of it. You are unlikely to implement any system where the population doesn't feel all there needs are met to some extent, and to feel in control is one of those.

In my opinion, whatever the perfect system is, it is most likely a democracy of somesort. I base that on looking at the people around me and noticing that they are more likely to choose what is right for them, if it is a free choice than if they feel they are forced into it. The biggest problem in a constitutionally limited democracy as I see it is striking the balance between a government which can react quickly enough to change, but doesn't react to every whim of a fickle public.

Walt

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
No, I was not "perfectly aware" of your backround, or as it happens to be, lack of background, in science, which is why I asked.

I have told you my background before. If you want to feign ignorance, fine with me.

So, what relevance does my background have to do with my statement? Which is why you asked.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by plindboe
Politics alone, can't be right or wrong. It depends upon what one's goals are. Individuals have widely different goals, so there will never be any single politics course for them to follow.

That said, skepticism does have a role in politics. There's much misinformation and it's quite easy to get fooled without it.

Absolutely. But, as you said, we can't decide what the right politics should be, based on science, skepticism and critical thinking.

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

You basically argue three issues here: Guns, economics and Libertarianism. Some areas within these issues might be examined, but can the issues themselves be determined? No.

The problem is: That's not how you present yourself here, shanek. You claim to reach a conclusion based on skepticism and critical thinking. The matter is solved, and those who disagree with you are "woowoos" and "pseudo-skeptics".

And it's not just me you call that. Don't try to present this as a "Claus vs. Shanek" issue, because it isn't. It's everyone who debates with you, and disagrees with you (which seems to be most people around here). E.g., right now, you are getting clobbered in the Economics: I, Pencil (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50172) thread. Clobbered! And how do you refer to those who clobber you?

They are merely "woowoos" and "pseudoskeptics", and can therefore be summarily dismissed.

You have taken to dismissing your opponents under the cloak of skepticism, when you have no basis for it. You are abusing the skeptic movement, this board, and the JREF, for your own political goals.

I find that deplorable.

[CFLarsen]

I wonder who voted Yes. Care to step up to the plate and explain why? I would like to hear the reasoning behind.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by shanek
By the way, am I to understand that Scrut was completely oblivious to the fact that I've had my own website for something like two years now, despite the fact that the "www" button at the bottom of every post I make has been there and active to that site for the longest time now? What a maroon!
TCS is a a descendant of a fugitive Black slave from the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maroon) Or do you mean that he post from a deserted island? (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0117900.html) Damn he was lucky to land on one with a good internet connection. Or perhaps you we're refering to his skin colour (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=48928&dict=CALD).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
By the way, am I to understand that Scrut was completely oblivious to the fact that I've had my own website for something like two years now, despite the fact that the "www" button at the bottom of every post I make has been there and active to that site for the longest time now? What a maroon!

It's not about you. You don't have to feel ignored, even though I know it's tough on you not to be the center of everybody's attention all the time.

It's simply a variation of "banner blindness". You see it so often, that you stop seeing it: Your brain filters it out.

It's a very common problem with user interfaces. No need to scorn people for it. It can even happen to you.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kerberos
TCS is a a descendant of a fugitive Black slave from the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maroon) Or do you mean that he post from a deserted island? (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0117900.html) Damn he was lucky to land on one with a good internet connection. Or perhaps you we're refering to his skin colour (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=48928&dict=CALD).


Nope.... (http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970731)

[Nyarlathotep]

Politics cannot be decided scientifically because, at its core, politics is all about opinion. Politics is about what trade offs people are willing to make in order to acheive what results, i.e. are you willing to accept higher taxes for more government services, are you willing to give the police more powers in return for a reduction in crime, etc. You can no more determine those things scientifically than you can use science to determine if Coke tastes better than Pepsi. It's all opinion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have told you my background before. If you want to feign ignorance, fine with me.


No, you have not.


So, what relevance does my background have to do with my statement? Which is why you asked.

In the statement you mentioned science, so I asked what your experience was with science. After dodging it the first time, you answered; no formal experience. Case closed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jzs
No, you have not.

In the statement you mentioned science, so I asked what your experience was with science. After dodging it the first time, you answered; no formal experience. Case closed.

Rrrrrrrright. http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/inmyeye.gif

If you have something you want to discuss, let us know.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You basically argue three issues here: Guns, economics and Libertarianism. Some areas within these issues might be examined, but can the issues themselves be determined? No.

You're arguing just like a creationist again. "Economics" is not an "issue;" it's a way of examining a chaotic system. Economic issues are individual issues that come out of this, such as, "Should we have a Minimum Wage"? You want to lump all of these together the way creationists lump all of the myriad theories of biological evolution (natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) into one single theory, which it isn't, and then claim the theory can't be proven.

The problem is: That's not how you present yourself here, shanek. You claim to reach a conclusion based on skepticism and critical thinking.

And I have provided evidence for those conclusions.

[typical personal abuse deleted]

It's everyone who debates with you, and disagrees with you (which seems to be most people around here).

No, it isn't. Just ask Earthborn.

[more pathetic personal abuse deleted]

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kerberos
TCS is a a descendant of a fugitive Black slave from the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries? (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=maroon) Or do you mean that he post from a deserted island? (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0117900.html) Damn he was lucky to land on one with a good internet connection. Or perhaps you we're refering to his skin colour (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=48928&dict=CALD).

None of the above. (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
You're arguing just like a creationist again. "Economics" is not an "issue;" it's a way of examining a chaotic system. Economic issues are individual issues that come out of this, such as, "Should we have a Minimum Wage"? You want to lump all of these together the way creationists lump all of the myriad theories of biological evolution (natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc.) into one single theory, which it isn't, and then claim the theory can't be proven.

Now, there's a strawman if I ever saw one. No, I am not arguing like a creationist, it is merely your weak attempt of evading the point.

Originally posted by shanek
And I have provided evidence for those conclusions.

And you claim that they are based on science, skepticism and critical thinking?

Originally posted by shanek
[typical personal abuse deleted]

No, it isn't. Just ask Earthborn.

[more pathetic personal abuse deleted]

Yes, yes, whatever. Don't practice what you preach....

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now, there's a strawman if I ever saw one. No, I am not arguing like a creationist, it is merely your weak attempt of evading the point.

YOU SAID IT, Claus, so it's not a strawman. YOU are the one who is evading, once again.

And you claim that they are based on science, skepticism and critical thinking?

Yes. And I showed why at the time.

Yes, yes, whatever. Don't practice what you preach....

:rolleyes:

I proved you wrong, and I proved you a liar.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
YOU SAID IT, Claus, so it's not a strawman. YOU are the one who is evading, once again.

Screaming your head off again. You should do something about those anger management issues.

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. And I showed why at the time.

OK, so you are abusing skepticism for your own political goals.

Originally posted by shanek
:rolleyes:

I proved you wrong, and I proved you a liar.

This is not helping you one little bit. Oh, well...

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?

This is, of course, what communism also tried, and failed to do.

I must point out that if politics can't be validated by critical thinking, and I'm in complete argument with the polls here, then your suggestion elsewhere that exposing straw men mitigates them is also suspect via the same reasoning.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jj
This is, of course, what communism also tried, and failed to do.

Sure. It never pays to adhere to a rigid party line, with no consideration for real life.

Originally posted by jj
I must point out that if politics can't be validated by critical thinking, and I'm in complete argument with the polls here, then your suggestion elsewhere that exposing straw men mitigates them is also suspect via the same reasoning.

Nope. Exposing strawmen is merely pointing out that someone is employing a logical fallacy. That politics can't be validated by critical thinking, is similar to creationism not being able to be validated by CT.

[Keneke]

I've come in late to this debate, but I voted yes. It is all possible, but politics is just too vast a subject for any one person to tackle at once. So...yes. Conceivably. In the distant future.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Politics is our ideas of how societies should look. It's how we decide things, depending on what people think. One person is right-leaning, another is left-leaning, a third thinks a more religious approach is the best.

Is it possible at all to scientifically validate a political philosophy? Can we apply critical thinking to find the "right" politics?


I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in here because, well, it's been a time since I posted in the Poly forum and I was starting to get the shakes. I don't believe we'll ever find a skeptical solution to the 'egalitarian vs. meritocracy' debate, which is more or less how I divide the progressives from the conservatives, as it does seem to come down to simple opinion. However, I do think we can take a critical look at the policies promoted by political parties, and determine if those policies actual work the way the parties represent them, or otherwise. In other words, I don't think we can build the perfect philosphy through skepticism, but we can surely expose those ideas that aren't working.

Cheers.

[Luke T.]

People aren't machines. Good luck trying to come up with an equation for them.

[Luke T.]

The governors are people. The judges are people. The cops are people. The People are people. And, as much as I hate to admit it, the people behind the counter at the DMV are people.

No two are the same.

Someone is always going to be wanting. As long as there is a gap in height, color, food, housing, pronunication, shoe size, proximity to Wal-Mart, or paper clips, there will be want.

When people want, they are unpredictable.

Good luck.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Keneke
I've come in late to this debate, but I voted yes. It is all possible, but politics is just too vast a subject for any one person to tackle at once. So...yes. Conceivably. In the distant future.

So, it's more of a "distant future" thing, than a "possible here and now".

OK....very open-minded, I must say. At some point, I will ask you for evidence.... :)