[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[John W.]

Funny how all this yammering takes on a life of its own, and becomes the end
rather than the means to an end.

We have on this list a number of extremely intelligent people who, while
they may disagree on certain philosophical details, essentially agree that
we all have, individually and collectively, some sort of right to "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", which translates into rights
guaranteed by an admittedly imperfect Constitution that have nevertheless
been profoundly undermined by the American government over the past 30 or 40
years.   We all want a fundamental shift in American foreign and domestic
policy, and we agree on the essentials of what that shift needs to be.  Most
of us - and here is where there is SOME disagreement - agree that writing
letters to our elected representatives does little good, because with rare
exceptions they have become bought and paid for by special elite interests.

So what do we do?  Do we undertake a second American revolution?  Do we
issue a second Declaration of Independence?  Do we riot in the streets, as
they do in Europe?  Do we engage in repeated and orchestrated acts of civil
disobedience?  Or do we just continue to yammer on this list, straining at a
gnat while swallowing a camel?

John Wason



On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:05 PM, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at advancenet.net>wrote:

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090109/5f6ca31a/attachment.html