Real debate is no longer possible when platitudes become indistinguishable from policies.
The problem with making a gross generalization is that it takes only one exception to invalidate it. So, let me be more precise in offering the major contention of this essay. It isn't that genuine debate in this country had become utterly hopeless 100% of the time. It's only utterly hopeless 99.99999% of the time.
Why have I drawn this conclusion? After more than three years of writing essays and participating in debates at the Intellectual Conservative — not to mention participating in other discussions and forums leading up to the 2008 presidential election — I can count on one hand the number of legitimate debates I've had with, shall we say, people of opposing political views.
At the IC, two individuals come to mind who exemplify the best in debate, Raymond Ingles and yonkel. I've disagreed vehemently at times with both of these men (particularly Mr. Ingles), but unlike other Liberals/progressives/moderates/non-conservatives who react to things I and others have written, they bring more than their emotions and feelings to the table. As a consequence, every time they enter the discussion the issue gets thoroughly explored and advanced. They may not convince me of their position, but at least they laid it out in an adult manner for others looking in on the discussion to judge for themselves. And that, after all, as Dennis Prager is fond is saying, is a key purpose of debate: to achieve clarity rather than agreement.
And what about the others? Exempting the utter fools and drive-by flamethrowers who only enter debates to see how inane they can be in supporting their candidate or position, there is only a small number of additional people who appear genuinely sincere — but completely confused — when expressing their opinions.
Again, this isn't about agreeing with what I say. If a guy who wrote a Catholic novel can compliment an atheist for his intellectual honesty, then we're way beyond that point. Rather, these are people who feel strongly about an issue, but otherwise have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. All of this came together in the perfect self-assessment from one of these folks whose name is unimportant, but whose sentiment typifies the new Obama-nation that's been years in the making. Thinking is hard. Studying is even harder. And putting the two together before offering an assessment is too challenging to consider. Therefore, simply express a feeling and call it an analysis.
Think I'm being too hard? Here's the exact quote. "Now, I could open another internet page and google whatever information I need to answer any questions you pose that I might not be able to answer myself, and do it with great skill and in very fine detail. That's one of the joys of modern technology and a forum such as this. Then it would be fact countering fact, rather than platitudes, sloganeering and irrational emotion vs. sound, unbiased, logical analysis and reasoning. (You see, I agree with you.) But the point is there's an incredible amount of information out there. The more you read, the more confused you get. And then you find yourself right back where you started."
My translation of the above statement: "I could actually try to educate myself on the matter, dig through conflicting facts, check the sources and underlying assumptions that give rise to them, try to separate the real issues and facts from the BS, but this is hard work. So, I'll just find the best sounding platitude and stick with that."
This is what has come to pass for informed debate by too many people on the Left. So, as a public service to those folks who actually want to know something before they offer a judgment, let me review a few things that we on the Right already know and embrace, and attempt to practice whenever we state a position.
A good debate consists of at least three main elements. First, the individual making a statement relies on something other than his/her own personal opinion to form a point, or moves beyond nice-sounding platitudes and slogans when offering a conclusion. Second, the debate isn't a series of competing facts and figures thrown back and forth, but rather facts and figures placed in some kind of relevant context. A 5% unemployment rate, for example, may be an accurate figure, but it matters greatly whether the previous year's employment rate was 1% or 20% before drawing any conclusions from this fact. Finally, even when we've moved beyond platitudes and out of context facts and figures, it's still important to consider a third element to informed debate. Namely, what exactly are the sources and assumptions behind this information?
Of the three, this component involves the most work. To pick a superficial example, I'm not going to rely on a Neo-Nazi website to educate me about the extent, or relevance of, crime statistics by minority offenders. In the same vein, I won't take at face value statistics about smoking-related illnesses from a tobacco company website. But similarly, I'll also treat with similar suspicion any statistics I get on global warming from the Natural Resource Defense Council, or any facts on animal cruelty from PETA.
While our friends on the Left seem to intuitively understand my hesitation about looking at Neo-Nazi and Tobacco Company sources, from what I've discerned these past few years by looking at the comment section to the Intellectual Conservative postings, the vast majority of them are shaking their head in bemused wonder at my mention of the NRDC and PETA as representative examples of the agenda-driven Left. I spent a lot of time discussing the agenda politics of the NRDC in the latter half of http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/, so I won't repeat it all here. And, for those interested in how PETA and other Left-leaning organizations compile their data and offer their judgments, there's always my Looney Liberal Chronicles.
But the real point here is that every side in a political debate begins its assessment with underlying assumptions, and these need to be clearly laid on the table to allow the resulting data to be analyzed and interpreted. The Right does a pretty good job of this, as evidenced in the IC comment sections. Rather than bombard an opposing view with an unending series of out of context facts, more often than not you'll see these facts discussed as part of Constitutional prerogatives and limitations, market-related forces in a capitalist economic system, personal responsibility, personal freedom, and a myriad of other issues and forces that give the data meaning.
Illegal immigration, as one example, is discussed from the standpoint of federalism, border security, its economic implications, its implications on free and fair elections, its impact on healthcare and education costs, and so forth. It's even been discussed by some on the Right as a matter of racial preference; and when it has, I and others have attacked these underlying assumptions as a legitimate means of challenging some of the conclusions their advocates have drawn.
Contrast this with the standard approach of the Left, which discusses illegal immigration from the standpoint of "fairness." I can tell you what's in the Constitution. I can tell you where interpretations of the Constitution differ based on strict construction or court activism. I can tell you how an uncontrolled border threatens the physical security of the country. And I can even show statistically the impact illegal aliens have on increased education and health care costs.
But I can't tell you what "fairness" is, because "fairness" is an emotion, not a policy. It means different things to different people at a very fundamental level. Arguing from a position of fairness is simply offering a personal opinion. As I've commented on this subject before, instead of relying on some consistent, definable (dare I say "legal") criteria, some people evaluate everything on their (or their group's) own subjective notion of "fairness." They apply one set of fairness criteria to judging elections, another set of criteria to international relations, another to domestic situations, and yet another to a different situation. Thus, any decision they arrive at is "fair," because it only has to be consistent insofar as that particular situation, since in the final analysis it's merely a subjective evaluation on their part anyway. "Fairness" is simply the process that supports the outcome they desire.
Why has it come to this? Why has the notion of intuitive reasoning supplanted the need to actually know something about a subject? It's a phenomena that's been decades in the making, and to quote the good Reverend Wright, its chickens have finally come home to roost. In fact, I wrote about this in my first essay at IC, and it bears repeating.
People who think with their emotions aren't bad people, or even consciously ideological. I tend to refer to them as idiots not to insult them personally, but rather to describe the utter lack of introspection and content to their thought process.
But to be perfectly clear, it isn't so much that they are incapable of real thought, as they have been conditioned not to think. They don't question the underlying assumptions that left-wing activists use to draw their conclusions, and they accept at face value the often draconian solutions these activists maintain are the minimum requirement for sound environmental policy.
Why is this? To use the example of man-made global warming, why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car's exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate – or getting hotter at all?
The answer, I believe, can be traced to our shared value system, which provides a common frame of reference to address these and other issues. It is the shorthand, connect-the-dot reasoning we all engage in to navigate through daily life. Critical thought is only needed when the matter at hand is something unique, and we've been talking about – and worrying about – global climate change for at least 40 years.
These values and reference points are not bestowed upon us at birth, like Moses receiving the Holy Tablets. Rather, they are taught to, absorbed by, and reinforced within each individual through a life-long process that begins with our earliest years and extends throughout the remainder of our life. For example, we're all taught from an early age that the environment is fragile. As children we write school papers on this subject and participate in community projects to "save the environment." When we get older, we get our news from journalism school graduates who show us pictures of melting ice caps or drought-stricken farmland and talk about the importance of driving hybrid cars, practicing resource conservation, and signing the Kyoto Treaty.
As adults we happily segment our garbage to cut-down on environmental pollution, and set our thermometers at uncomfortably high or low levels to "save energy" – thereby reducing the nasty, dirty fossil fuel emissions needed to produce our electricity. The world, and our role in it, is put clearly in focus, as are the notions of "good" or "bad" behavior regarding our treatment of the environment.
This common frame of reference allows us, as a group, to make certain judgments that are universally accepted. Windmills are good. Solar energy is better. Conservation is best. The internal combustion engine, to quote Al Gore, is an example of man seeking to "artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth . . . at the direct expense of the earth's ability to provide naturally what we are seeking." By manufacturing "millions of internal combustion engines [that] automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth's ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere." [Earth in the Balance, by Al Gore, p. 207]
No one laughs at the main theme of this passage which presumes to know intrinsically what man "needs" from the Earth, and what is an "artificial enhance[ment of his] capability" to acquire natural resources "at the direct expense of the earth's ability to provide naturally what we are seeking." No further justification is required to support these value-laden judgments, because they're not seen as expressing anything controversial. They're just obvious statements about obvious matters that are plainly obvious to any thoughtful, thinking individual.
From this basis it's a logical conclusion that cars are "interfering" with the natural state of affairs of Mother Earth, which leads to an equally obvious policy objective to deal with this cancer. As for the finite supply of fossil fuels that are mined, drilled, and otherwise gouged from the Earth to feed these poison-producing internal combustion engines, they serve only one purpose: to make Dick Cheney richer, and help George Bush justify an illegal, immoral war against Saddam Hussein whom we're all glad is out of power, even though Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and ought to be impeached.
Because our schools, celebrities, TV anchorpersons and other opinion leaders accept these observations as fact, who are we to disagree? Since 1975 (my earliest memory on this subject) I've been told repeatedly that the world is running out of oil. There's only so much dead-dinosaur juice in the ground, and it will all be gone in 20 years or less. Thirty years later, the same 20-year prediction is still being made. If we don't switch to hybrid cars, solar-powered electricity, or wind-driven generators, we'll use up all the world's oil by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, or [pick a date] sometime in the near future. And when all the oil is gone, and coal is too dirty to burn, and nuclear power is too unsafe to produce, where will we be? Ergo, we need to start changing our lifestyles NOW!
At no point in this conventional wisdom analysis does anyone stop and say, "but wouldn't there be plenty of oil if we're willing to pay $100 a barrel to recover it?"
The Earth isn't running out of oil. It's running out of easily-acquired $20 a barrel oil. There's plenty of oil off the shores of California and Florida, in Alaska, Mexico, the Middle East, the North Sea, Russia, and a whole bunch of other places in the world, including oil locked in shale. It's harder to get, and therefore more expensive to acquire. But it's there.
This doesn't argue against practicing conservation or pursuing alternative means of energy production. A solar power car would be great – if there's a strong enough market demand to justify the billions of dollars of research and development needed to expedite its arrival. Windmills are a fantastic source of cheap, clean energy, unless they happen to spoil Ted Kennedy's oceanfront view, at which point good old fashioned gas guzzling cars will do just fine.
If Al Gore's prescription for responsible environmental management makes sense, he should be able to propose it without the intellectual legerdemain of over-hyped, value-laden judgments disguised as impartial analysis. It's one thing to illustrate a point with a dramatic example. It's quite another to have the example itself stand as a substitute for any further thinking about the matter. If the issue is real, the evidence will support it.
But to get the evidence, one first has to collect all the relevant data. When dealing with an issue as monumental as global climate change, 10, 20, 50, even a 100-year "trend" is nothing more than the blink of an eye in geological terms. If global warming actually exists, and further, if man is the principal cause of its existence, there should be clear, convincing evidence of this before we begin substantially rearranging important chunks of our current way of life. Why spend thousands of dollars to place your house on stilts so it won't be flooded if you're living in the middle of a desert? Such an expenditure may be perfectly reasonable for those homes along Gulf Coast beaches. But before I dip into my life savings to retrofit my house, I'd like to see a little evidence that central Utah is about to get inundated with water.
When confronted with this question, the typical answer we get from the Protectors of the Planet is that we can't afford to wait until all the data is in. By then it will be too late, so we must act now! That's why it was so important in the 1970s to take strong measures against a fast-approaching ice age – that is, until global warming became the problem. So, now we're told that we need to work just as quickly in 2006 to stop the warming of the earth, except recent studies have indicated that we may be in for a mini-ice age after all.
Apply this same reasoning to any subject — illegal immigration, universal health care, name the subject — and genuine debate becomes possible. Ignore the assumptions and sources of the data used to promote those assumptions, and all that's at stake are opinions.
And as I've said more than once, opinions are like the exit point of the human digestive system. Everybody has one.
And don’t get me started on Hollywood’s leftist race baiters.
Phil:
Re: “The Left excuses their racism because they assign it good intentions.”
Don’t forget that only whites can be racist because they have the political power to enforce it; minorities do not. As an ordinary Joe, I’d like to know where my power is in the workplace.
“…an unending quota or AA system that after almost a half century has no end in sight.”
We have Sandra Day O’Connor’s word that it will last only another 25 years.
Sedona, if I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that Neo-Nazis agree with the left on everything but race. Surely you’re not saying that, are you? You think your typical neo-Nazi is for: secular humanism, abortion rights, re-distribution of wealth (to use the stereotypical term), higher taxes, gun control(!), soft diplomacy and multilateralism in foreign policy, the UN, the rigid separation of church and state, centralized government power, etc?
Similarly, your characterization of Right/Left as reflecting only the degree of government control seems atypical to me, although obviously convenient from your perspective as it allows you to oddly claim that Nazis were leftists, rather than simply being totalitarian thugs, as most seem to view them. There is a lot more associated with conservatism and liberalism than the degree of government control. It reflects a whole complex of differing attitudes, ideas and philosophies.
It’s like if I said ‘Dogs are characterized by having a fur coat. Therefore, a cat is a dog, because they have fur.’ Your original premise is inaccurate, or at least incomplete, thus is your conclusion as well.
My point was pretty simple, not sure why all these tangents about Nazis: there’s a lot of unreconstructed bigots, they tend to sympathize with the right, and it’s not fair to characterize Conservatism with reference to their wingnuts. And the same with regard to the Left.
TT
>there’s a lot of unreconstructed bigots, they tend to sympathize with the right …
*** Again, more platitudes. I gave you examples of several prominent racist bigots (unlike your generalization without specifics).
Jessie “Hymietown” Jackson
Louie “I hate Jews” Farrakhan
The Honorable Elijah “White Devils” Mohammed
The Reverend Wright (pick a sermon)
Al “Tawana Brawley was raped by white guys” Sharpton
Malcom “I hate white people” X
You don’t recognize the pervasive bigotry on the Left because you chose to define their action as not-bigoted, when the identical action by a white person would be clearly bigoted.
For you, and the Left, bigotry only involves motives/intentions (which often must be assumed by you), and not the actual action or policy (which can be clearly identified by all).
You define away Leftist bigoty by ignoring the action, and giving it a higher purpose. When the Right opposes things like quotas and AA, you ignore any higher purpose (like, say, removing race-based preferences), and assign it a lower purpose to justify calling it bigoted.
Once again real debate is not possible when one side plays games with language.
Interesting how this conversation has wamdered from justice to fairness to health care to equality of outcome to racial bigotry, all with the same emotion-based, personal value systems of the Left on display where all that is needed is intuition to make a point.
—For every white racist Democrat you mentioned, there’s are other shining examples of the Left who make judgments on the basis of a person’s race or religion:—-
Phil, you’re kind of making my point. As I said, oh these long 100 messages ago:
—I pointed out that I think the tendency to think emotionally, based upon unexamined assumptions, is pretty well evenly distributed, and that for every feather headed flake on the left, I can point out a bone-headed nutcase on the right, both using the same poor cognition, just in favor of a different ideological tendency—
Looks like we’re finally speaking the same language.
I say it’s a wash. Nuts on both sides, fools on both sides, and you can’t judge either side by the extremes and the distortions of some. You claim that your exaggerated caricature of emotion-laden liberal thought is so pervasive that it literally defines the ideology, but when I point out similar tendencies of nut-case emotional thinking from rightists, then it’s dismissed, sometimes in the most preposterous manner (ie, by claiming that neo-Nazis are basically liberals–I’d like to see somebody go to one of their meetings and mention that to them. Bring your gun, you’ll need it).
I’m sorry if I can’t respond to each and every point in a timely fashion. Several folks are chipping in here, and the blizzard of points being made is more than I can realistically refute and still keep my job. So if I appear to be skimming and picking out only the most egregious errors, it is due to time constraint rather than selective attention.
TT
—-Interesting how this conversation has wamdered from justice to fairness to health care to equality of outcome to racial bigotry, all with the same emotion-based, personal value systems of the Left on display where all that is needed is intuition to make a point.—-
Naturally, I disagree that my thinking is sodden with emotionalism. In fact, I’ve come to view myself as something like a pure disembodied intellect, in contrast to some I’ve met recently. At any rate, I’m afraid that in 105 comments, I still can’t say it any better than in my opening paragraph of my first post:
—-One of the things I’ve noticed is that people – all people, of every political persuasion – passionately believe that they have battled their way to objective truth through rigorous logic, empirical observation, and dispassionate analysis, all hardened in the fires of reasoned debate and fearless self-examination. And they believe that their opponents are wooly-headed, irrational doofuses who are thinking with their emotions. —-
I’m sort of signing off for the day…it’s been fun, as always, and enlightening (for you all, I trust and hope) :-)
T
Travis, maybe if you’d spend a little time ferreting out your own errors, we’d have about half the posts on this thread.
Sound advice, MM, truly. I shall see if I can find any and submit corrections.
TT
By the way, I should point out one additional thing. The social Right is also associated, in many minds, with religious fundamentalism, evangelicism, or at minimum, intense devotion to their religion. These religious beliefs seem highly salient to these conservatives as they form and express their policy positions–just as ‘fairness’ is highly salient (allegedly) to liberals as they form and express their policy positions. For example, social conservatives frequently refer to their religious traditions when opposing science education, gay marriage, abortion, and even birth control, and they’d like to see those religiously-based ideas enshrined into public policy.
Tedious disclaimers: I know that not all of the Right is religious. Duh. But a big chunk, and a highly vocal chunk. Nor are all religious people irrational, nor do they all base their policy positions on their religion as such.
But I consider all of those folks to thinking emotionally rather than using reason, because most conventional religiosity is based on faith (and superstition, in my view), rather than reason. So that’s another segment of the right whose thinking is ‘drenched with emotion.’
Surely, many of you disagree, perhaps vociferously. And I will exercise all of my (limited) will power and discipline to avoid being drawn into a discussion of the merits of religion. I’m dense, as I’ve been reminded, but not crazy. Feel free to rebut my comments about religion at length, and I’ll cheerfully allow you the last word on the matter.
But I wanted to express that bigotry is not the only thing –or even the primary thing–I had in mind when accusing far-Rightists of having analogous cognitive vulnerabilities to the ones identified in the Left.
Another pre-emptive disclaimer: Is conventional religion any more obnoxious and illogical than the New Age puffery that some Leftists use as a substitute? Not much.
TT
[Phil] “For every white racist Democrat you mentioned, there’s are other shining examples of the Left who make judgments on the basis of a person’s race or religion:—-“
[Travis] “Phil, you’re kind of making my point. As I said, oh these long 100 messages ago … I say it’s a wash. Nuts on both sides, fools on both sides, and you can’t judge either side by the extremes and the distortions of some.”
*** Notwithstanding the moral relativism of saying that both sides are bigoted [because the Left wants racial preferences, and the Right opposes preferences based on race], there’s a little problem with the consistency of your remarks. To wit:
[Travis] “there’s a lot of unreconstructed bigots, they tend to sympathize with the right …”
*** I looked hard to see you make the same sweeping generalization about the Left. All you said was “ … and it’s not fair to characterize Conservatism with reference to their wingnuts. And the same with regard to the Left.”
So, we can’t label either group by looking only at their nuts, but we CAN conclude that “there’s a lot of unreconstructed bigots, they tend to sympathize with the right [not the Left]”
[Travis] “Naturally, I disagree that my thinking is sodden with emotionalism. In fact, I’ve come to view myself as something like a pure disembodied intellect, in contrast to some I’ve met recently.”
*** I’m sure you do. When your standard for intellectual consistency and rational debate is your standard for intellectual consistency and rational debate, you’ll always meet that standard.
[Travis] “One of the things I’ve noticed is that people – all people, of every political persuasion – passionately believe that they have battled their way to objective truth through rigorous logic, empirical observation, and dispassionate analysis, all hardened in the fires of reasoned debate and fearless self-examination. And they believe that their opponents are wooly-headed, irrational doofuses who are thinking with their emotions.”
*** This is pure platitude-driven sophistry. I disagree with Yonkel on the environment, Ingles on atheism, MM on the literal interpretation of the Bible, Katzen on the foundation of Constitutional principles, and many other contributors to this website. Yet I characterized none of their thinking as irrational emotionalism.
I reserve that characterization for wooly-headed, irrational doofuses who are thinking with their emotions, like many of the paleoconservatives I’ve debated, and specific people whose I’ve debated whose arguments are little more than emotional, value-laden opinions.
Not every opinion is equally valid, or equally rational.
“The social Right is also associated, in many minds, with religious fundamentalism, evangelicism, or at minimum, intense devotion to their religion. These religious beliefs seem highly salient to these conservatives as they form and express their policy positions–just as ‘fairness’ is highly salient (allegedly) to liberals as they form and express their policy positions.”
Only a relativist of the worst kind could eqate (‘non-allegedly’) religiously held convictions that lead to a moral value system with (“allegedly”)ad hoc individual notions of fairness.
I’ll leave any further discussion of religion to others, since this particular social conservative does not fit Travis’ stereotype.
I just want to point out 2 things. After 112 comments all I’m getting from Travis is his opinion, once again underscoring the theme of my essay.
And, when addressing opinions, if the premise is flawed (the majority of social conservatives are linked to religious fundamentalism), there’s not much point in discussing further errors of judgment based on that erroneous assumption.
Note to file: “in many minds” is not exactly the kind of evidence one thinks of when putting forth a rational, objective position. But it is all the “evidence” one needs when telling us about his feelings.
Surely you don’t disagree that the right wing houses most American religious fundamentalists and evangelicals. I realize that Catholics, who are highly religious, are more unpredictable in their affiliation, but the ‘Religious Right’ is practically a cliche, even among conservatives. Are you saying that there’s no truth to tht?
I didn’t mean to imply that the majority of social conservatives are linked to religious fundamentalism, but that only most religious fundamentalists are conservatives. I think I said that religious and evangelical types form a ‘large and vocal chunk’ of the conservative group. Do you consider that an inaccurate statement?
Thus, a large and vocal chunk of conservatives are thinking emotionally when they base their policy preferences on their religious ideation.
I went to lengths to disavow any implication (for those inclined to assume the worst of me) that all social conservatives are irrational or religious, or both. Quite to the contrary, in my view. That’s why I said this:
—–I know that not all of the Right is religious. Duh. ….Nor are all religious people irrational, nor do they all base their policy positions on their religion as such.—–
TT
You might want to consult some actual data about fundamentalist voters before drawing emotional generalizations.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=321
And you might want to place what you learn in an analytical framework. Otherwise the following data can lead one to conclude that Obama supporters are accurately characterized as godless people.
Three-fourths of atheists and agnostics (76%) gave their vote to Sen. Obama, while only 23% backed Sen. McCain. That is a step up from the level of support Democrats have previously received from skeptics. In 2004, 64% of atheists and agnostics voted for Democratic challenger John Kerry.
This is why what “many people think” is a meaningless observation.
Maybe one might dispute your characterizations, Travis, but that’s all you have ever provided – characterizations. Every one of us has responded to your unsupported, uncited, unbolstered “gut feelings” with facts, specifics, references, and links. Your response? Repeat your allegation.
For what it’s worth, this is from Pew Research:
White evangelical Protestants have been one of the most faithful Republican constituencies in presidential elections in recent years, voting overwhelmingly for GOP candidates. In 2004, for example, 79% of white evangelicals supported President Bush, while just 21% supported his Democratic opponent, John Kerry. White evangelicals also accounted for a third of Bush’s total votes that year.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/605/young-white-evangelicalsless-republican-still-conservative
White evangelical Protestants, a core constituency for President Bush, are a significant plurality group among Social Conservatives (43%), Pro-Government Conservatives (37%), and Enterprisers (34%). White evangelicals constitute no more than 22% of any other group in the typology, and include only 5% of the Liberals.
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945
I thought it was a noncontroversial point to link the highly religious to the right. Guess not.
Again, since there seems a tendency to misconstrue my comments, doubtless due to my poor communication, I am decidedly NOT saying that all religious people are irrational, or that all social conservatives are religious, or any such thing. Just a chunk of them, and a not-insignificant chunk, that adds incrementally (in my humble opinion) to the sum total of right-wingers who are not using altogether objective and dispassionate reasoning when arriving at their policy preferences. Many conservatives, perhaps even most, do use solid and rational logic. I’ve never disputed that, even once.
T
If someone claimed that Obama’s supporters were largely Godless because most athiests voted for him, that would be a clear case of illogic, since athiests are are only a tiny percent of the population. Clearly, most people who voted for Obama are not athiests.
If someone said that most social conservatives are fundamentalists and evangelicals because most of them voted socially conservative, that would be a clear case of illogic, since fundamentalists are only a relatively small percent of the population. Clearly, most people who voted socially conservatives are not fundamentalists.
Fortunately, I never said they were. Just a large and vocal chunk of social conservatives are fundamentalists and evangelicals. That’s my only point, and it has always been my only point.
TT
Oh yeah, one other thing. Evangelicals represent 7% of voters. “Atheists and agnostics are the second largest faith group in America, trailing only the Christian segment. These religious skeptics represent about one out of every ten adults. About four out of ten skeptics were registered as Democrats, four out of ten as independents and just two out of ten as Republicans.”
Somewhere around 90% of all reporters vote Democrat. They are the ones who characterize (or mischaracterize) the actions and positions of other groups like, say, religious fundamentalists, who “many people[then come to] think” use simple emotion to form their bigoted judgments, making them indistinguishable from clear thinking Liberals, er, I mean Progressives who eschew feelings to come at individual notions of fairness through a logical, deductive process.
If evangelicals functioned as a voting bloc, Pat Robertson would have in 1988 soundly defeated then-Vice President George H. W. Bush for the Republican nomination. But Robertson failed, as did evangelical activist Gary Bauer after him, in the 2000 presidential race.
But then again, why spoil a perfectly good observation about who and what fundamentalists are with a little analysis, when an opinion will do just fine.
>”I thought it was a noncontroversial point to link the highly religious to the right. Guess not.”
*** No, I guess not, because you did more than just associate the highly religious to the right. You said “The social Right is also associated, in many minds, with religious fundamentalism, evangelicism, or at minimum, intense devotion to their religion. These religious beliefs seem highly salient to these conservatives as they form and express their policy positions–just as ‘fairness’ is highly salient (allegedly) to liberals as they form and express their policy positions.”
You used a statistical relationship to support an opinion about the relativism of religious beliefs and liberal notions of “fairness”.
If that’s all you need to do to show an association, then I can safely conclude from the data that Obama is a Democrat, most atheists voted for Obama, so supporting Obama means supporting godlessness.
This, as we say in the highly technical world of real political science, is a stupid observation. Just like comparing religious beliefs and conservatism to liberalism and the notion of “fairness”.
I know you don’t see what the big deal is all about in me pressing this point. And that, in facty, helps further make my point.
—-“Atheists and agnostics are the second largest faith group in America, trailing only the Christian segment. These religious skeptics represent about one out of every ten adults. About four out of ten skeptics were registered as Democrats, four out of ten as independents and just two out of ten as Republicans.”—-
Sure. What’s your point? If you are saying that athiests disporortionately vote Dem, and that Dems as a group are probably less religious, you’re just stating the obvious. In fact, it’s the same thing I’m saying. I don’t get it.
And Evangelicals being a smallish proportion of the vote: I know, I just said that too. Or maybe you didn’t see my last post.
I don’t know the distinction between voting ‘as a bloc’ versus just strongly supporting a particular party. But clearly they do. The Republican party. Right? What am I missing here?
TT
You’re right, it does seem to me to be a big deal out of nothing. I expected my conclusion to be attacked, but not my simple premise that there are a lot of religious fundamentalists in the conservative wing of American politics. I’m baffled by the quibbling there. It seems obvious, but in response to the suggestion that I never support anything, I presented Pew research that I found in a 10 second Google search.
I really, really have to get to work. But in leaving, I’ll point out that despite my (mostly) civil commentary, I (or at least my arguments) – have been called ‘dense’, ‘stupid’, ‘hopeless’, and lets not forget the implicit ‘idiotic’ (the theme of the piece in question.
Some of you guys seem kind of touchy. Must be that famed conservative intellectual detatchment.
:-)
TT
Phil,
Permit me to remind you that our romp across many subjects is a classic technique of the “intellectual” left. Nothing is ever settled, because to do so would let us “stupid” conservatives win. Rather, a leftist must continually change the subject, nitpick minor points, and deconstruct every assertion in order to distill it down to meaninglessness.
Then, once this has all be played out, victory is declared, and the leftist gives some excuse about being too busy. He then trots off into the sunset with smug satisfaction that he has routed his opponents once again.
Oh, I forgot, there has to be a parting shot, so devestating that no one can doubt his intellectual superiority ever again.
>Some of you guys seem kind of touchy.
We value accuracy of descriptions, particularly when one is blowing smoke and pretending it’s somethiong more substantive.
Citing data is better than offering opinions.
Citing data that is out of context, or not relevant to the point one is making, or not in and of itself supportive of the point one is making, is just a more elegant form of opinion.
One thing I learned about religious denomination support for candidates is you have to define carefully who is a realmember of a denomination and who isn’t.
There was an on-line article recently about the Catholic vote for 0bama and McCain [don't ask me to find it, but it made sense based on my personal experience observing the people at my parish].
There are Catholics who go to church every week; Catholics who go to church once a month; Catholics who go twice a year; and those who don’t go at all but still identify themselves to the pollsters as “Catholic”. I would assume the same is true for the various Protestant sects. Atheists are probably similar too, but in a reverse way: there are atheists who don’t go to church weekly; there are atheists who don’t go to church monthly; there are the twice-a-year atheists; and the atheists who don’t never go [sorta like not raising hogs].
Each denomination must be normalize in some way to extract the true picture. Take Catholics for example because they are the ones I’m most familiar with. The support for never-on-Sunday “Catholics” for 0bama in 2008 was very close to their support for Kerry in 2004. As you go up the frequency of church attendance, the support for the Democrats historically diminishes, but each sub-group’s support was about the same this time as 2004, except one. If I remember the article correctly, there was a massive shift in always-on-Sunday Catholics from McCain to 0bama, compared to Kerry – enough to put him in the White House. You might go so far as to say that Catholic social teaching would have been advanced more if “real” Catholics as a group had not voted at all.
You also might say you would never get this kind of analysis from Big Leftist Media reporters whose image of religious people is based solely on what they hear from Bill Maher.
—-Permit me to remind you that our romp across many subjects is a classic technique of the “intellectual” left. Nothing is ever settled, because to do so would let us “stupid” conservatives win. Rather, a leftist must continually change the subject, nitpick minor points, and deconstruct every assertion in order to distill it down to meaninglessness.—–
Phil, I guess I’ll leave it to our largely imaginary audience to decide if I’ve been as bad as all that. Rather than have things become acrimonious, I think I’ll stop here at comment 127…that’s a nice round number :-)
No parting shots…I respect your opinion and your obvious knowledge in these areas, and enjoyed the discussion. Over and out (I promise).
TT
Travis: I always enjoy a good debate. And when that isn’t possible, a good discussion :)
Take care, Phil
Mountain Man:
When you say in post 123
“Permit me to remind you that our romp across many subjects is a classic technique of the “intellectual” left. ….. and the leftist gives some excuse …”
The presumption being that you are addressing Travis, in the third person, and that strikes me as being unmannerly.
You can expend effort categorizing the psychopathology of those that disagree with you, but a humble person, might actually use the range of viewpoint to broaden one’s thoughts. I think that was some of Phil’s thought.
I am quite impressed by Travis’ intelligence and tenacity under fire and it gets lonely being the only non conservative, so would like to keep him in the bull pen.
Phil:
Me and the missus had our annual Holiday party, so I was banished from the blog and forced to transport decorations and haul empty bottles to the curb. It was a good party- mostly liberals and a smattering of Libertarians. Liberals are good partiers. On the other hand if I ran my car into the ditch I would hope a conservative came along, more likely to have a come along. Vive la difference.
I would like to go back to your post 85 on the environment
I had stated that I hate to see the whole range of environmental issues reduced to a debate on global warming.
You said something similar,….”there may be plenty of reason for wanting cleaner air, cleaner water etc. but these are not climate change issues- they are pollution-related issues..”
I would also add that they are also issues of conserving finite resources for future generations, and geo-political considerations.
And I think that there is also a spiritual dimension, honoring and preserving God’s creation while tempering humankinds tendency to lay up treasures on the earth. And, what I would call an aesthetic component. I prefer more egrets and fewer jet skis.
I possess some qualms about a society where we buy so much to throw away so quickly. All those old saws and sensibilities from Ben Franklin, “waste not want not”, must be the Quaker in me. I know how you feel about government mandates, but how do we keep ourselves from devouring everything in sight, bought on credit.
I remember when I went to do volunteer work in Guatemala in 1976 after the earthquake as a carpenter.
We were building houses and schools with standard American practices, and the local folks would pick up every scrap of wood we dropped, and straighten every nail, and were building an impressive amount of furniture. If that is poverty then I find it preferable to excess.
Most efforts towards improving the environment, just happen to reduce carbon emissions, so regardless of the final conclusions on the effect of man on global warming, there are actions that are worth taking.
I brought up all the advantages that would have accrued to having had increased automobile fuel efficincy 20 years ago, rather than several billions of gallons of oil later, after we have bankrolled some of the world’s worst tyrants, reduced equivalently our country’s wealth, and brought the American car industry to the precipice.
This would equally apply to all aspects of promoting fuel efficiency, insulating housing, energy efficient lighting and using renewables and nuclear.
Yonkel writes:”…but a humble person, might…”
Humility is an over-rated concept and I find the accusation of lack of humility a common trait of liberals. During a debate, there is no place for humility until you have made a point and your opponent has acknowledged defeat.
In your next post you write:
“…after we have …brought the American car industry to the precipice.”
I assume you are writing about the liberals who passed CAFÉ laws but insisted on buying SUV’s with 6.8L engines. I am humbled by your admission.
Hi Ivan:
If you had twelve people of equal intelligence and judgement solving a difficult problem for which there was one correct answer, and let us say that they came up with four different answers espoused by three people each. Then you ask each person what they felt was the probability that their answer was correct, and everybody was 90% certain they were right, that would reflect a gross overestimation of each person’s accuracy, because in reality only 25% of the people are correct.
This I think is the common assumption- I am cvorrect bercause I am I. Humility involves a more modest estimation of ones abilities and intelligence. When everybody is convinced of their correctness then their is little room for solving problems and a dumber overall understanding, and on the level of national politics that is the seedbed for war and failed states. Fortunately, despite what you may take to be a wide irreconcialable chasm, Americans have fairly congruent beliefs, and the degree of seperation between you and myself e.g. is minimal compared to most other countries.
As to environmentalists driving 6.8 litre cars, agreed, that is the height of hypocricy, though my guess would be that as a group you would find a higher percentage of libs in Smart Cars than Hummers. But, I do agree with you that one needs to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.
Yonkel:
re: “…I hate to see the whole range of environmental issues reduced to a debate on global warming.”
Here’s a twist I had posted before and repeat now for the new folks: I had been debating the matter of global warming with a liberal for a number of years. Much in the vein of Phillip Ellis Jackson’s friend Harry [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8], he is a “True Believer” in Al Gore, Barak 0bama, Michael Moore, and all the rest of the Hollywood know-it-alls. I kept feeding him articles with facts that question whether global warming is real and if man had anything to do with it. Finally, he made the astounding statement, “I really don’t care if there is global warming or not, if this is the flag that must be waved to clean up our filthy environment, then I am for it.”
When I read that statement, I jumped back at least ten feet. Who said the environment was “filthy”? He certainly didn’t indicate anywhere in the whole exchange that cleaning it up was his real goal, until he made that statement. To me, it was a complete, off-the-wall non-sequitur. If cleaning up the environment is his goal, fine; he should have been arguing that instead of something that might not even be related. With that, I decided to leave that debate.
Yonkel: I’m for clean air and water too. But this isn’t “global warming”, which is my criricism of the Left. And while I like clean water, I’m not willing to automatically accept every prescription of the agenda-driven radical environmentalists to achieve this goal.
And finally, asserting that carbon emissions cause global warming (which isn’t actually happening now, if you look at the last 40 years of data), doesn’t add much to the debate either. It just makes people suspicious of the agenda-driven politics behind other prescriptions for massive social and econpomic change.
The C02 issue is far from settled, anyway.
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air.” Baliunas and Soon wrote that “there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content.”
• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: “It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”
• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: “The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown.”
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: “The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation …, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities … . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: “That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle.”
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: “global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035″
• William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.” “I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” “So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more.”
• George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: “What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural.”
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: “About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming.”
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned.”
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming “is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole”
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: “We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate… It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it”.
• Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: “So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.”
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: “[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … [A]bout 2/3’s (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.” His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries.
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: “The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect.” “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: “[T]here’s increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed.”
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: “…the myth is starting to implode. … Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor…”
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: “Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover.”
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: “At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model …, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. … Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge.”
Scientists in the following section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.”
• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): “The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content.”
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University: “[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. … At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models.”
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports “I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never “proof”) and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.”
• William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University said in a presentation, “It is an open question if human produced changes in climate are large enough to be detected from the noise of the natural variability of the climate system.”
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: “There is evidence of global warming. … But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done.”
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: “The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause–human or natural–is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.”
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: “We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.” “[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed.”
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: “We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind.”
I didn’t know there was a requirement to be humble. I guess that completely disqualifies me from posting here, since I am an arrogant hack, eh?
Yonkel
Yes, I understand and agree with you “Twelve people” scenario.
For a better explanation of my humility position, I just happened to come across this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081215/pl_politico/16569
The first rule of humility is that you may not call yourself humble, nor may you accuse others of lacking humility (implying they have less than you).
I also agree that the degree of separation is smaller than advertised, but try telling that to many of the Democrat contingencies such as the Pro-Abortion lobby, Gays, Blacks, and the Tax the Rich crowd. I saw a poll recently that asked “Is Obama damaged by the Blogojevich situation?” Yes, it was one of those non-scientific things, but the results were interesting. Every state said yes by a wide margin, EXCEPT for Washington DC. I’m not sure what that means, but it mean something.
I think I need to retitle this essay “The Debate That Will Not End”
Phil,
You have the singular distinction on IC of holding the record for your essays to exceed 100 comments.
The fact that you precipitate comments like no one else does is a unique talent. You should be honored, as long as you remain humble.
MM: I’m too modest to be humble about my humility.
>If you had twelve people of equal intelligence and judgement solving a difficult problem for which there was one correct answer …
If there is only one correct answer, then only one answer is correct. It doesn’t matter whether the person expressing that correct answer is firmly convinced he’s right, or merely thinks he’s right; or whether the people holding incorrect answers are 100% convinced that their incorrect answer is right.
On the other hand, if you’re not talking about “one correct answer”, but rather something whose ultimate truth cannot be 100% known, then the issue is one of discussion vs. debate.
In a discussion, everyone simply gives their equally-valid opinion, because opinions are just that — opinions, and everyone has one.
If it’s a debate, then one position is bolstered by the arrangement and presentation of facts [some of which may involve "correct", knowable truths].
The winner in a debate is the one whose position, based on these building blocks, holds more credability and value, and addresses more elements in a realistic, comprehensive way, than all the opposing views.
P
In the current, um, F**king controversy about what Obama’s people might have said to Blago’s people (especially your comment on 12 people solving a problem, see movie reference below),I was reminded of this article by you, specifically the third tranche of your point about discussions (or arguments as some would have it). That is, the sources and assumptions behind the info on which one relies.
Let’s start with a non-political thing: Calyee Anthony, or apparently the late Caylee Anthony. A body of a three-year old child has been found about 300 yards from that child’s home. In the absence of the forthcoming DNA (facts), we can’t say with certainty that it’s Caylee, but our intuition, our common sense, our life experience tells us that it’s not the Lindberg baby. Apparently even a police spokesman is saying it’s “probably” Caylee & apparently even the ACLU is not is saying: let’s wait before we make up our alleged minds.
Now, as a lawyer, I understand the evidentiary difference between (as we say), on the one hand, fact & on the other hand, intuition, common sense, life experience. And since it was playing while I was selling candy in the lobby of the Capitol Theater, I saw the Liberal iconic movie, Twelve Angry Men, a dozen times. But I bet it’s Caylee, poor thing.
On to politics: an incident happens which would cause embarrassment to Republicans/Conservatives or Democrats/Liberals, as the case may be. When it’s convenient, Liberals connect the dots right away & go with their intuition, common sense, life experience & when it’s inconvenient Liberals demand clear & convincing evidence, not just proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
WMD: Looney Liberal: Bush misconnected the obviously unconnected dots.
9/11: Loony Liberal: Bush failed to connect the obvious dots.
Now, with Obama/Blego, I think that anyone with ½ a brain (intuition, common sense, life experience) “knows” that someone in Obama’s transition team (Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod from the sewers of Chicago politics being the likeliest suspects) was in contact sometime, somehow, somewhere with Blago as referenced on the tapes.
And yet, the MSM is, in general, reserved in their comments about what appears to be an intuitive, common sense, life experience conclusion & are saying let’s see what develops.
Ah, Inwood, say Dem defenders, your lawschool Evidence 101 Prof would flunk you for conflating such intuition, common sense, life experience about Chicago politics to evidence. And your college Logic 101 Prof would too.
But we know that Bush went to War for Oil after he stole the 2000 Election!
PS I’m not saying that I think that anyone in the Obama team agreed to the greedy demands of Blago; my intuition, my common sense, & my life experience tells me (OK my guess is), that the Obama-ites probably said something which won’t play too well in public for those with no life experience with Chicago pols acting behind the scenes, like “Boy you’re one greedy f**ker, asking for all that s**t. Let us f**king get back to you on this magilla & let’s think about how it will play with some a$$hole from f**king Fox News if he gets wind of it.”
Mandatory Disclaimer
Being of sound mind and body, I do hereby declare to all and every, any and all that I duly understand that the aforementioned, f**king (as they say in Chicagoland) Obamessiah will be the one (The One) who shall raise his right hand on Jan 20th. I get it; I’m f**king over it!
Moreover & More Important, I do hereby further declare that I do not want the Country, or any part thereof, to fall apart just to prove to Liberals & the rest, residue, and remainder of those suffering from BDS that they elected a tabla rasa.
Inwood — having lived in Chicago, and therefore familiar with the political vernacular, I’ll give your comments a “F**king A”
The intellectual point of Phil’s great article is, of course, correct, & the comments have not diminished that fact, in my opinion.
So, to anyone still listening, let me offer some personal observations about how, alas, emotional argument has power over weak minds every time.
While working for my doctorate (OK, a JD, ha, ha) in the late ‘50s & early ‘60s, I worked both in the USPO & for a liquor distributor. Without boring all here, both were using antiquated work methods, obvious to a young adult, & they were eventually forced to accept “modernization”; for the liquor industry, containerization, & for the P.O. some forms of automation. I had no solution back then or I’d have gotten rich quick, but when I noted the amount of manpower used, I was told to shut up, jobs were at stake. I’m sure the buggy whip producers had used the same arguments in the late 19th Century. So I, who had a ticket out, was accused at home of “unfairness” & lack of “compassion” by those mired in the short-term.
Understandable, but life moved on & those who didn’t adapt lost out. Perhaps I was an uncompassionate prig, but I later noted over the years that manufacturing jobs were moving first to the U.S. South & then overseas. Yes, each time there was a personal tragedy for those who had lost their jobs but anyone who dared point out the inevitably of progress found the “heartless” trump card played against him at Bar-B-Qs or cocktail parties.
But the compassionate were selective in their compassion: they bought cheaper Japanese cars & cheaper goods not manufactured in New England, for instance, & they were happy that a fifth (OOPS, showing my age; make that 750ml.) of Jameson’s had not risen as fast as the CPI, even tho the Marlon Brando’s were out of longshoremen (OOPS nmake that” Longshoreperson”)jobs in Hoboken & no longer “cahtendas”. And the yuppies were happy that Hoboken was yuppified & all those low lifes were forced to move, they not being like us, my dears.
Or take race relations: see, e.g., Beyond The Melting Pot, Moynihan & Glaser 1970, with its clear logical, but un-PC description of race relations in the ‘60s as a game where low whites (LWs) in neighborhoods like my Inwood in North Manhattan were classified as racist & told that they, the LWs, had to live with Blacks in the interests of “Fairness” & “Justice” & other Good Things, by upper-class Whites who made sure that they themselves didn’t also have to live with (or near) Blacks, or in fact suffer any unpleasantness. Again, those who fled claimed that they, of course, were not uncompassionate &, moreover, felt good about themselves for protecting their children.
So, as I say to people when, in a discussion, they claim that I’m showing my “bias” &/or that I lack “compassion”:
“OK, You’re in full Control Freak 101 Mode: I understand how your game plays out: I have biases; you have carefully-thought out positions, based on incontrovertible facts, which you feel are reasonable, in the mainstream, & not subject to challenge especially by one with biases like me. Right!
“Yes, I have opinions on some issues; only morons (OK, intellectually-challenged citizens) do not have opinions on some issues. As long as I engage in reasoned analysis based on what I see as objective facts, I’m entitled to my opinions. And you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own “facts”. Try to answer me factually instead of engaging in emotional, fact-free arguments or ad hominem attacks.”
Someone says then, “let’s change the subject”.
Sedonoman Re Post 133
“Here’s a twist I had posted before and repeat now for the new folks: I had been debating the matter of global warming with a liberal for a number of years. Much in the vein of Phillip Ellis Jackson’s friend Harry [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8], he is a “True Believer” in Al Gore, Barak 0bama, Michael Moore, and all the rest of the Hollywood know-it-alls.”
I must have missed Barack Obama in Hollywood. Jeffersons?
“I kept feeding him articles with facts that question whether global warming is real and if man had anything to do with it. Finally, he made the astounding statement, “I really don’t care if there is global warming or not, if this is the flag that must be waved to clean up our filthy environment, then I am for it.”
Sedona, you have touched one of my pet peeves- debate by anecdote. Honestly, it is irrelevant what your wacky friend said, it only reflects on him. Its like all those pols talking about Sylvester Shmoohead from Pawtatuck Iowa and his grim fate because of their oppenents scullduggery.
But if you can anecdote, I can dote with the best of em:
A pirate walks into a bar with a paper towel on his head.
The bartender says “Hey, what’s with the paper towel?”
The pirate says “Arrr, there’s a Bounty on me head”.
Re Humility and Arrogance
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
(Matthew 5:5)
And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
(Matthew 23:12)
Psalms 10:2 In arrogance, the wicked hunt down the weak. They are caught in the schemes that they devise. (WEB RSV NIV)
Inwood:
“Yes, I have opinions on some issues; only morons (OK, intellectually-challenged citizens) do not have opinions on some issues.”
Maybe any but not some issues. I have no opinion on the routing of Route 131 in North Dakota.
Lastly for the serious stuff, Phil:
Yonkel: ” And while I like clean water, I’m not willing to automatically accept every prescription of the agenda-driven radical environmentalists to achieve this goal.”
Neither am I or would want you to, and that is why we need conservatives to come up with intelligent solutions, not just pass off environmentalism as the terrain of the alarmists. I like clean water too. What could we do to help that along. That is more important to the future than who wins these debates.
“And finally, asserting that carbon emissions cause global warming (which isn’t actually happening now, if you look at the last 40 years of data)”
Only, if I look at your selectively quoted data, Phil.
I will limit my googling to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
whicdh begins:
The International National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.”[1]
It then lists as concurring organizations what appears to be most of the leading world scientific organizations:
Rather than quote them all, I will offer one picked randomly, the American Chemical Society, not known as a hotbed of radicalism,
American Chemical Society:
Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.
The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005). This statement reviews key global climate change impacts and recommends actions required to mitigate or adapt to currently anticipated consequences.[39]
Now, you and me could pluck quotes for or against global warming by the thousands until Hades freezes over, but I challenge you to show me the collection of non political scientific organizations that conclude that there is not at least a “reasonable possibility” that global warming due to human activities poses a threat to mankind.
And, that is my position. Not that human activity will definitely cause harm, but that there is a reasonable possibility that it will, which seems so much more the concensus than your certainty than it wont.
Now, as a physician, every day I treat people based on possibility and probability, because if I only acted upon certainty of diagnosis, I would be filling the morgues.
You come in with a stiff neck, fever, and seeing gremlins playing badminton on the frig, you get IV antiobiotics for menningitis. I don’t need to wait a week for the culture to return in time for your funeral.
There is no certainty in the diagnosis of dozens of diseases, from Alzheimers to Appendicitis, but we act, because it is better to err on the side of caution.
So that is my first premise. It is reasonable to take action to prevent a potential or uncertain harm. If we knew that a meteor had a 2% probability of destroying the earth within the next 50 years would you suggest action. 5%? 10%? Would you require 100% certainty.
The corollary is that the potential harm of the cure has to be weighed against the risk of the disease. If the disease carries a 20% of risk of death and the treatment similar, don’t do it, part of the Hippocratic oath- “do no harm.”
Again, as I stated before, I see little downside risk to any of a number of things we can do that would reduce carbon emmisions, and I don’t advocate drastic solutions.
Further, I see many actions that we can do that would reduce carbon emmisions, that have enough other added benefits, that even if global warming due to humankind proved to be wrong, we would still benefit from implementing those actions.
I mentioned several of those other benefits, like reducing the cash flow to oil dictators, curtailing our own country’s loss of wealth, pollution, the reduction of finite resources, not to mention the spiritual impoverishment that comes from our worship of Mammon.
And I mentioned actions like increasing fuel efficiency of automobiles, cooling and heating housing, conservation, reduction of waste, which all have benefits regardless of the outcome of the global warming debate.
One last point about discussion and debate. We do enjoy this, nuh?, or we would be doing something useful like canning pears, but, I have a little different perspective than my enjoyment of you as a sparring partner. I really don’t care who wins the debate. I am more the Taoist than the Vince Lombardi on that. I do believe that there is a common denominator of reason that runs through Americans of divergent viewpoint, which when reached to can bring real positive benefits to our country and the generations to come.
P
Want a curent example of Liberal Un-Think? OK, it’s a shoe in.
When Republicans/Conservatives point to attacks such as the recent one in Mumbai as an example of an Islamofascist threat, we’re told by Liberals that we’re simplistic & binary & that these “madmen” & such violence are not representative of the feelings, beliefs, whatever of Islam, Muslims, & Mideastern people. (As one wag put it: “it’s that 99% which is giving the other 1% a bad name!)
When Republicans/Conservatives dismiss the shoe thrower at the President as an unrepresentative madman, we’re told by Liberals (see, for instance, the NYT smarmy story) that it would be simplistic & binary to dismiss this “angry”, “sensitive”, “oppressed” guy as a madman since he is somehow “representative” of the feelings, beliefs, whatever of Islam, Muslims, & Mideastern people.
How to reconcile this seeming inconsistency? Simple: BDS. Bush lied & people died. This shoe thrower embodies liberal feelings.
>that is why we need conservatives to come up with intelligent solutions, not just pass off environmentalism as the terrain of the alarmists.
*** The problem is, if “everyone” buys into the premise that man made global warming is (a) real, and (b) a problem, then the only “solutions” that will be accepted by conventional wisdom are man-made fixes. Assume for the moment that despite the snow in Las Vegas yesterday, and the last 40 years of stable or increasing world temperatures, that GW is somehow still provably “real”. This still begs the question, is man (vs. sunspots, vs. natural climatic changes) responsible?
The challenge isn’t to come up with an alternative fix to a flawed premise that presumes a man-made, therefore man-fixable problem. It’s to challenge the McCarthy-like pogrom against anyone who dares to question whether the premise is indeed accurate or flawed. Those opposed to the present Man-made GW dogma are fighting the battle to get a real, honest evaluation of the present situation before acting. It’s ready-aim-fire, not ready-fire-aim.
>The International National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that “An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system… There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
*** Yonkel, come on. We’ve had this conversation before.
1. As I’ve frequently pointed out, one does not have to be a “scientist” (either a person with a science PhD, or a PhD in a relevant field; i.e. botanists commenting on physics) to have voting membership in many of the organizations that proclaim this consensus. You need to look at the difference between scientific studies, and vested interests. If science determines that global warming is natural and not man-made, then there is no research money to “fix” the problem. I lived in this world for many years, and saw how government funds were allocated. [By the way, you cite the ACS as a source for determining that there is man-made global warming. Have a look at their website. Anyone can become a member, not just Ph.D’s. Type in “Global Warming” in their search engine and look at some of the links that follow. Among the “solutions” is to carpool, recycle, turn down your lights, take public transportation,and switch from red meat to chicken (no other agenda here). Oh, and to give more government funding to “solving” the problem.]
2. Regarding a 50 year “trend”: I’ve already pointed out that the present “heating” trend began in the late 1800s, when things were colder than normal (thus everything that follows is warmer). Even with that, world temperatures stabilized in the latter half of the 20th century, and have actually fallen in the last 10 years. It matters where you start to draw your conclusions, and 50 years (even 250 years) isn’t enough time to determine a trend. Only man’s hubris would make him think differently.
If you think otherwise, please tell me what the normal temperature of the earth should be, and tell me the extent to which non-human actions warm or cool the earth, and tell me this trend over a geologically relevant period (which is NOT 100 or even 500 years — there was a little ice age in the 1500s), and then we can talk about the role man may play.
3. “Consensus” is not “fact”. It’s consensus. Climatology is not medicine. You can test the effects of drugs on people, and understand how the human body functions with a relative degree of certainty. You know that giving X treatment will hurt or harm a person, and that it should take Y hours or days for the effects to be felt (immediate if it’s a high dose of arsenic, perhaps months of it’s a few milligrams of Proscar). Now tell me what the weather will be in Chicago in 6 month. Not just an estimate (“cold”), but temperature, wind conditions, condensation levels, etc. And then do it for the year 2051.
You have fallen into the false analogy that since medicine and climatology both involve “science”, they are fundamentally the same. Climatology depends on computer models filled with assumptions. Medicine does not. Change the models’ assumptions and you change the prediction. But giving anyone 1000 mg of arsenic will always have the same effect, regardless of whether it’s liquid, solid, mixed with food, given intravenously, etc.
4. You cite the American Chemical Society consensus that “There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities.” I just cited you 50+ prominent scientists — with no ulterior government-funding agenda — who dispute this. I’ll listen to people who have no social agenda to press, or who have no government money at stake, before I’ll take the word of people with a vested interest in one “solution” over another (or insisting that a man-made problem exists in the first place).
>I see many actions that we can do that would reduce carbon emmisions, that have enough other added benefits …
*** I prefer my solutions to a problem to be real before society is required to enact them. If GW advocates want to talk about the salutary benefits of reducing carbon emissions, let them argue this point. But it’s a dishonest way to act when the activists merge this with the fiction of man-made global warming.
Good intentions are not enough to justify deliberate dishonesty on the part of man-made GW advocates, who claim that consensus = proven fact, and who advocate self-serving, agenda-ridden solutions to “problems” that they claim exist. The last 40 years of data is already showing the lie about man screwing up the climate, which is why we’ve gone from global cooling in the 70s, to global warming in the 90s, to the ubiquitous “climate change” in the 21st century. Hot cold wet dry it’s all due predominately to man.
Otherwise intelligent people wouldn’t accept this claptrap logic for a minute, if they didn’t fear being labeled politically correct by asking basic, pertinent questions like “how do you know this?” But I, for won, am unwilling to surrender my common sense to the herd mentality and accept as fact something that is just a theory — and a theory that is nothing more than a consensus that is disputed by others NOT seeking government funding or wanting to be agents of social change (mass transit, less red meat, recycling, etc.).
> … that even if global warming due to humankind proved to be wrong, we would still benefit from implementing those actions.
*** If the day ever comes when Al Gore has to admit that the evidence does not support his man-made global warming hysteria, he’ll look in the camera and say sincerely “Perhaps I was wrong, but I did everything with the best of intentions. And besides, $25 a gallon hysteria-induced gasoline was good for the environment.”
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t. But if the issue cannot be argued honestly, it has no reason being treated credibly.
If limiting unnecessary pollution is a good thing, and it certainly is, it should be argued on its own merits, not used as an emotional sop to pursue a global climate change agenda.
>I really don’t care who wins the debate.
*** Neither do I — when it’s an academic dispute (was Jefferson better than Adams, are the Cowboys better than the Giants?). But when it involves making public policy, I do care which side of the issue prevails.
>I do believe that there is a common denominator of reason that runs through Americans of divergent viewpoint, which when reached to can bring real positive benefits to our country and the generations to come.
*** This is only possible when both sides are willing to examine the assumptions upon which “facts” are produces. To date, the man-made global warming crowd will not allow this discussion (ergo, it’s all about consensus — their consensus!). Once consensus has been invoked, the discussion is supposed to end.
This is crap, and I refuse to buy into it to be thought of kindly by enviro-Nazis.
Careful, Phil. Yonkel might pass judgment on you and start throwing Scriptures at you, too.
I sure do love how the “judge not lest ye be judged” crowd loves to judge people. I must say, howerver, that it is somewhat refreshing to have a couple of other Scriptures quoted besides that one. I was beginning to think that leftists had only one Scripture memorized.