[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

Well Bob, you seem to selectively cherry pick those aspects of science that
fit your argument while ignoring others.  I am aware that there is something
called "Science;" but last I heard, it furnished no ways to indicate the
truth of such things as "inalienable rights" or "that all men are created
equal" (except in the latter case of physical equivalency not equality or
identity) or statements that if there are inalienable rights, they are life,
liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  Furthermore, as best I know science
cannot empirically support the truth of the notion that there is a Creator
or that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable or any
other kind of rights - never mind that governments are instituted to secure
those rights or that they derive their just or unjust powers from the
consent of the governed. These are all philosophical positions that are
assumed as articles of faith not empirically testable facts or truths.  When
I refer to you throwing platitudes at us, I am referring to statements like
the one below which contain catch phrases, slogans, and quotable quotes but
little meat and potatoes of substance:

>"...all men are 
>created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
>unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit 
>of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted 
>among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." 

>It is more binding than the law, because the judge is reality.  

First, the findings of science are dynamic and constantly changing in terms
of their conceptualization, their interpretation, their validity, and their
applicability.  Secondly, moreover, the acceptance, interpretation, and use
of empirical data and findings as well as theoretical and analytical
hypotheses and conclusions is done by man the same way as judges interpret
and apply the laws that are given them to adjudicate under.  In the case of
Scientific findings and laws, it is man who judges and not nature in any
given concrete instance.  Thirdly, the same reality is open to a variety of
different theoretical interpretations and conceptual reconstructions and
methodologies can be constructed to test and produce empirical indicators
that will lend support for the interpretations and findings of the competing
visions of reality that one can find in Science - both over the years and
within any particular period or discipline.  Like all human enterprises,
there is an establishment that generally sets the standards and agenda as to
what is acceptable debate and thought and what is heretical, junk science.
How many scientists had their theories and findings dismissed by the
scientific establishment as lunacy, unscientific, metaphysics, philosophy,
irrational, crazy, or fiction only to have them become accepted as an
establishment truism later with those competing views and findings that were
previously accepted being found to be wrong or otherwise rejected.

I am not sure but is sounds to me as if you are proposing that science be
substituted for the law and that the scientific enterprise be substituted
for the legal system in societies under the assumption that the law is about
truth and its discovery and not about the regulation of human interaction
and the arbitration of disagreements so as to obtain a more or less
harmonious society.  The law and legal systems are about the enterprise of
adjudication and conflict resolution for the most part with the finding of
practical truths - not absolute Truth being something that is a secondary
function done in support of the primary function.  That is the
socio-political reality.

As for Occam's Razor, you have managed to over-simplify it in a way that
fits your argument.  Occam's Razor is a heuristic principle that generally
pertains to competing statements or explanations of the same general valid
thesis and not to either invalid theses or to statements or explanations of
competing theses. According to Wikipedia, Occam's Razor "is often
paraphrased as 'All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the
best.' In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other
respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the
fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense
that Occam's razor is usually understood. This is, however, incorrect.
Occam's razor is not concerned with the simplicity or complexity of a good
explanation as such; it only demands that the explanation be free of
elements that have nothing to do with the phenomenon (and the explanation).

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it is more
often taken today as an heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that advises
economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in scientific
theories. Here the same caveat applies to confounding topicality with mere
simplicity. (A superficially simple phenomenon may have a complex mechanism
behind it. A simple explanation would be simplistic if it failed to capture
all the essential and relevant parts.)"

You make the assertion that my argument violates this principle; but you
fail to say in any detail how or in what ways it violate the principle of
Occam's Razor supported by evidentiary examples that illustrate your points.
You seem to be prone toward categorizing a diversity of discussions and
arguments under one category or label and then attempt to use whatever
negative connotations that may be associated with the label as a self
supporting condemnation of those things that you have so classified without
ever offering any evident of comparability between the different discussions
or their fitting the characterization.  We get it that you do not like
conspiracy theories, arguments that link US policies with the actions of
Israel, arguments and statements that question the articles of faith and
myths that you believe in; but we fail to get how these various discussions
and arguments are related or connected except as a result of your labeling
process.

>Calling my brief argument "platitudes" or the revolutionary fighters 
>"illiterate and uneducated farmers and townspeople" doesn't refute 
>anything. Somehow, Paine's "Common Sense" as well as the Bible and quite a 
>bit more was absorbed by the folks who gave us the American republic.

I already clarified what I considered to be platitudes and why I referred to
them as such earlier above.  As for calling the revolutionary fighters
illiterate and uneducated, I will stand by that. There are a number of
uneducated and illiterate people in the world who are true believers and
have memorized the Bible, songs, prayers, maxiums and a whole lot more who
(a) do not understand what they have memorized and repeat, (b) cannot
discuss or evaluate what they have absorbed, or (c) explain and justify
their actions in terms of the slogans and phrases of the day.  Most of the
fighters in the revolutionary armies in all likelihood were not
sophisticated erudite persons who had more than rudimentary schooling and
reading and writing skills.  Those who made the history books and those who
wrote or read the treatises that contained the philosophies and phrases that
you attributed their fighting for were not the majority of the actual
fighters (i.e., the grunts in the army).  It was in all likelihood the
generals, the politicians, the clergy, and the shopkeepers who were informed
and enlightened, who read and wrote, who got more than mere rudimentary
schooling, who would get and read tracts like Paine's "Common Sense;" but I
suggest that they probably were not the people who did any actual fighting,
who lived and fought in the trenches or on the front lines, who got injured
and killed, etc. to any large degree.  In fact, many who could afford it may
have even hired someone to go out and fight in their behalf.

I have to note that it was you who said that most of the revolutionary
fighters were fighting for "...all men are 
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." and not
I.  I was calling this into question as both a factual matter as well as a
truism and suggesting that most of the fighters may not have been fighting
for those things at all but for more self-interested mundane practical
reasons rather than for any lofty ideals and philosophies.  What historic
records and other documents tell us about the population at the time
suggests (no one has any way of proving it one way or the other which is why
I questioned your statement) that the majority of the population was in
effect illiterate and uneducated for  which would lead one to conclude that
if the armies who fought the war were drawn from that population they would
have those characteristics for the most part and, hence, would not be
concerned with or knowledgeable about political philosophies or know and use
the terminologies, notions, and concepts that you say they were fighting
for.  I wonder if a majority of the fighters even knew who George Washington
was - let alone that he was their Commanding General.  At best, they knew
their friends and neighbors who formed their community militia unit and knew
the officers of that unit.





-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob Illyes
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 2:05 PM
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

Laurie writes "As far as I am concerned, you are doing nothing more than 
throwing
platitudes at use and adding little to the substantive discussion", and 
generally dismisses arguments other than legal.

Well, Laurie, you seem to be unaware that there is something called science 
that is a much more reliable indicator of truth than the law. It is more 
binding than the law, because the judge is reality.

One of the key elements of the scientific method is called Occam's Razor, 
which indicates that the simplest explanation that describes the evidence 
is most likely to be right. Your arguments fail on this test, as do the 
conspiracy theories regarding Israel and the US that are common on this
list.

Calling my brief argument "platitudes" or the revolutionary fighters 
"illiterate and uneducated farmers and townspeople" doesn't refute 
anything. Somehow, Paine's "Common Sense" as well as the Bible and quite a 
bit more was absorbed by the folks who gave us the American republic. I 
assume you're maintaining that they had to hire someone to read to them? I 
don't think so.

Bob

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss