[Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I would prefer to make this conversation a private one rather than one
conducted on list; but since you have made your reply public and on the
list, I feel obliged to do the same even though I think that the discussion
may be of little interest to most on the list now that it has moved to this
degree of deviation from the original debate.

>And here we have the real argument. If I believed that only "sophisticated 
>erudite persons" could govern well, I would consider democracy to be 
>ill-advised and unworkable, and give up on thinking about the matter.

Again Bob, you are putting your own spin on what I have said and then argue
against your spin.  I made an assertion that these was a strong factual
possibility that many of not most of the actual fighters were uneducated,
illiterate, unsophisticated, and not erudite.  This was made in order to
call into question Wayne's assertion that most of the revolutionary fighters
were fighting for a given set of ideals, slogans, and philosophical
propositions.  My suggestion was that the actual grunts involved in fighting
the revolutionary war were regular common people of the time, which meant
that they probably were not well educated, sophisticated, literate, or
knowledgeable about or able to understand the abstract philosophical
propositions that Wayne attributed to them.  In contrast, I suggested that
they probably had much more mundane and practical reasons for being involved
in the revolutionary war as actual participants fighting on the front lines
and in the trenches rather the lofty goals and ideals stated in the
Declaration of Independence, which was written by literate, educated,
sophisticated, and philosophically knowledgeable men.

Nowhere did I mention or make reference to anyone's ability to govern; I
addressed motivations for participating in the war.  You seem to want to
confound the two.

>Incidentally, Laurie, you confuse science with statistics. This is a common

>error. 

I am doing no such thing. And I challenge you to furnish concrete examples
drawn from my statements where I have confused the two.

>Pure sciences, such as mathematics, do not require statistical 
>verification in general to establish the truth or falsehood of conclusions.

>Even in experimental science, one case can make a huge difference, although

>it is, technically, statistically insignificant. Science is not nearly as 
>probabilistic as you suggest.

Playing word games again are we?  When you and others refer to science you
usually restrict it to enterprises that employ  and knowledge based on the
scientific method as opposed to some other method (i.e., the Socratic
method, intuitive approaches and methods, or anecdotal reports).  Integral
your definition of science and what distinguishes it from other forms of
knowledge and ways of knowing is its empirical nature and combination of
inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning. What you call "pure sciences"
(i.e., mathematics and logic) is a Kantian notion and do not fit this
criterion and, accordingly, do not constitute science based on the
scientific method; they are purely analytical systems of thought and
reasoning whose truths are the analytic products of and based analytically
on the premises that are assumed as axioms, which are either universal
absolutes that allow for no exceptions or degrees of truth or existential
assumptions that allow for exceptions and degrees of probability and/or
truth. Such a definition of science which you label "pure science" indeed
was regarded as science in Ancient Greece where "science" meant any
systematic body of thought or knowledge (analytic or empirical).  Under the
ancient Greek definition of "science," law, religion, metaphysics, ethics,
etc. would all be sciences. Now I have no objection to either notion of
science; what I find objectionable is the changing of definitions in a
Sophistic manner to fit the practicalities of one's arguments and points or
to refute one's opponent's arguments and points.

One case can indeed make a significant difference in a deductive or
inductive system where the premises are all universal statements such as
"all x is..." where one exception makes the statement or premise untrue or
invalid.  It is less significant when the assertions or premises are
existential in nature such as "some x are..." where exceptions do not
invalidate the truth of the assertion or premise, although the single case
or multiple case exception may be informative and add more information to
the argument. In the regards to experimental or empirical sciences, I agree
that although it may be technically statistically insignificant, a single
case can be instructive in that it can give anecdotal illustration, an
anecdotal exemplar, or additional information; but it cannot be used to
empirically test a hypothesis, support or deny the truth of a theory or
explanation, or validate empirical predictions.  Having said that, I am not
sure how any of this pertains to the discussion at hand, except that I
couched my assertions in probabilistic terms such as "likelihood" and
"possibility" rather than in terms of certainty and universality. Thus, a
few contrary cases will not refute my speculative conjectures.

As for the very last sentence of this paragraph, "Science is not nearly as
probabilistic as you suggest," I am having trouble figuring out what to
address.  Are you saying his in response to my comments that "science"
cannot test or verify things such as "inalienable rights," "all men being
created equal by their creator," the existence of a creator, etc.; or are
you responding to my suggesting that scientific realities that are treated
as factual or conceptual data and theoretical findings and explanations are
the products of theoretical interpretation, which not only change over time
but can be multiple and in conflict with each other?  Moreover, in this
sentence, which meaning of science are you using?

>By stating that rights are 
>inherent in the individual rather than granted by the government, it sets a

>standard without which democracy is unworkable and ethics belongs to 
>Machiavelli.

Of course, that presupposes a host of suppositions and beliefs as well as
being debatable.  The logic is questionable and the necessity of the
conclusion is problematic.  There is no necessary reason that democracy
would be unworkable without rights being inherent in the individual rather
than in the society as a whole nor any necessary reason that ethics would be
Machiavellian.  It also assumes a particular definition and notion of
"democracy" and of "ethics."  One can argue that "rights" are social
phenomena and depend for their existence and meaning on society and not on
the individual or collections of individuals just as government is a social
phenomenon that depends for its existence and meaning on society. Without
society, any notion of rights would be meaningless - a Hobbesian world has
no concept of rights. Governments, it can be argued, merely formalize the
rights that the society culturally values and justifies on one or another
set of grounds be it religion, science, magic, etc. 

Hypothetically, does a workable democracy require that everyone in it have
the exact same inalienable identical rights or can they have different sets
of inalienable rights? 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob Illyes
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:26 PM
To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Blago-Burris circus

Laurie writes: "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."

And here we have the real argument. If I believed that only "sophisticated 
erudite persons" could govern well, I would consider democracy to be 
ill-advised and unworkable, and give up on thinking about the matter.

So we are back to the Joe Six-Pack debate.....

Incidentally, Laurie, you confuse science with statistics. This is a common 
error. Pure sciences, such as mathematics, do not require statistical 
verification in general to establish the truth or falsehood of conclusions. 
Even in experimental science, one case can make a huge difference, although 
it is, technically, statistically insignificant. Science is not nearly as 
probabilistic as you suggest.

I wrote my original comment because I am grateful to Wayne for having 
emphasized the seminal importance of the Declaration of Independence. It is 
too easy, in noting that that the Declaration is unfortunately not legally 
binding, to underestimate its importance. By stating that rights are 
inherent in the individual rather than granted by the government, it sets a 
standard without which democracy is unworkable and ethics belongs to 
Machiavelli.

Bob

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