Epistemology is More Important than Politics
I found this interesting. It is science and technology journalist Micheal Specter at TED where he is blasting “science denial”:
I may be wrong, but I suspect that Specter’s political and perhaps, economic, views, are to the left of my own. That’s ok – he has a scientific-empirical-rational epistemology, which means there’s an intellectual common ground where debates can actually be resolved or final conclusions arrived at that can be recognized as sensible, even if disagreement based on value choices remained.
More and more, I run across people on the Left and Right using magical, tribalistic, emotionally atavistic or other variations of irrational thinking to justify their positions. Worse, this intellectual equivalent of grunting tends to be coupled with a churlishly defiant refusal to honestly consider the costs (monetary or opportunity) involved or the logical, and still less, the unintended, consequences. Am I just getting old, or is this social phenomena getting rapidly worse?
Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of because we are all, in varying degrees, ignorant about many things. The important choice as individuals and as a society is adopting an epistemology of rational-scientific-empiricism that, if steadily applied, allows us to chip away at our ignorance and become aware of our errors and solve problems. On the other hand, adopting a posture of belligerent, stubborn, defense of our own ignorance by evading facts, logic and the conclusions drawn from the evidence of experience is the road to certain disaster.
Our epistemic worldview matters.
April 27th, 2010 at 7:42 am
I don’t mean to nitpick on words, but do you mean Epistemology is more important than Political theory/knowledge/ideals? "Politics" being a complex, natural activity of mankind and "Epistemology" being a concerted effort of mankind, I’m not sure if you can prioritise an arm over a leg or a lip over an ear 🙂
April 27th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I happened to listen to this talk last night too. I understand Specter’s frustration. As an active atheist, I have been fighting this battle against ignorance over the past few years. From that philosophical base, I have been trying to do the same in the field of political discourse (theory/knowledge/ideals etc.). I don’t think it is a coincidence that the rise in ignorance is happening simultaneous to the extreme disparity of politics in America.Did you see Sam Harris’s talk on morality and science? That really touched a nerve.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Hi Ahsan,
April 27th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
"he has a scientific-empirical-rational epistemology, which means there’s an intellectual common ground where debates can actually be resolved or final conclusions arrived at that can be recognized as sensible, even if disagreement based on value choices remained." (zen)
.
If anything can save us, its an agreed upon structure for talking things out. A place where people can go, instead of going to war. If I could work in any career/mission/purpose/idea/asset producing enterprise, it would be for the production of such a place/set of rules. This, I am sure of.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Science is arguably the most political arena that humans have ever invented. By its vary nature it delights in explaining stuff counterpoint to the accepted wisdoms of religion, "common sense" and all the rest. It is not designed to resolve arguments, but to create them, make people respond and move on when its original argument is overcome by new pots to stir. Otherwise it becomes the religion it challenges. Not to say that science is not silly, wrong, and flawed. Which many times it is. In the interests of giving an example appropriate to this forum here is a link to ponder that purports to be reasoned and scientific in nature. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/2009/December/091202/091203-engel-big-9a.jpg
April 27th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
There is no contradiction between science and religion. They are simply two of the many methodologies that humans use to come to grips with the problems of existence. The difficulty lies in confining each to its proper sphere. If you want to understand the observable phenomena of the universe and develop strategies for converting understanding into action, go with science. If you want to grapple with the meaning of life, then science is useless and go with religion. It would be like saying that there is a contradiction between poetry and accounting. If you want to analyze the economic performance of a business, accountants are more useful than poets. If you want to express awe at the sight of the Grand Canyon or your child’s face, poets do better than accountants.
Fundamentalists – and I include both Pat Robertson and Sam Harris in that category – don’t get it. That’s your problem right there.
April 28th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
We utterly failed in the face of the challenge Marx put when he invented class based logic. It drove a truck through our civilizational defenses and we have never repaired the breach. Once you concede that logic may not be universal, all sorts of nonsense can enter, and has.
April 28th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
A question for Zen and the commenters; Is ignorance growing or are we better able to see ignorance now?
.
Since there are more platforms for people to express themselves to the world, is it not possible that we still have the same level of ignorance but that it is merely more visible now.
.
Regards,
TDL
April 29th, 2010 at 2:25 am
Fantastic comments!
.
democratic core,
.
"The difficulty lies in confining each to its proper sphere."
.
Yes, however the idea that each has a proper sphere is incompatible with the great monotheistic religions, at a minimum, if they are practiced in a fundamental or literalist sense.. It took at least four centuries, a Reformation and cataclysmic wars of religion in Western Europe to disestablish Christendom. The Islamic world still rejects that separation implicitly and often explicitly. Religion and science cohabit poorly if religion insists on maximalist claims for dogma.
.
TM,
.
I agree. Marxism and more frequently, half-assed cultural versions of bastardized Marxism are a kind of intellectual/moral corrosion within Western civ ( which I imagine would probably have pleased Marx though he’d have been violently enraged by the audacity of the deviations from his grand theory).
.
TDL,
.
"Is ignorance growing or are we better able to see ignorance now?"
.
I fear it is both.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Let me stir the pot a little then. If ignorance is rising, should we be committed to the notion of democracy?
Regards,
TDL
April 29th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Hi TDL,
.
We should be committed to the idea of quality liberal education with rigorous standards and a heavy dose of hands-on, real science work as a societal norm, rather than as a rare and vanishing exception.
.
Regarding, democracy – it depends on the complexity and nature of the decisions being put to the demos. People are good collectively at making, broad, clear, honestly presented, fundamental choices "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" and punishing politicians for egregious failure, arrogance and scandal. They are worse when the choices are complex, the costs and consequences unclear and are being dishonestly presented. Demagoguery has its day.
.
Anticipating future dangers is something else the electorate does poorly but I think elites are not much better at such perceptions and are even more prone to denial when faced with evidence because they rationalize away their anxiety to justify the status quo
April 30th, 2010 at 6:07 am
[…] zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Epistemology is More Important than Politics "Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of because we are all, in varying degrees, ignorant about many things. The important choice as individuals and as a society is adopting an epistemology of rational-scientific-empiricism that, if steadily applied, allows us to chip away at our ignorance and become aware of our errors and solve problems. On the other hand, adopting a posture of belligerent, stubborn, defense of our own ignorance by evading facts, logic and the conclusions drawn from the evidence of experience is the road to certain disaster." (tags: public-policy ignorance anti-intellectualism science science-policy TED) […]
April 30th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Democracy basically plays the same role in politics that markets play in economics. It allows for "creative destruction" to take out deadwood. Like markets, democracy needs to be regulated, which is what structures like the Constitution are for. I am not at all concerned about growing ignorance. I would argue that the current American electorate is among the most sophisticated that has ever existed.