As the 2008 election neared and the magnitude of the rights’ impending defeat became apparent, the extremist rhetoric reached a strident crescendo including all the usual tactics - the fear mongering, the guilt by association, the character assassinations, the questioning of the opposition’s loyalty, patriotism, and even citizenship. The NRA spent $15 million telling people that if Obama was elected he was going to take their guns away. These tactics failed to arouse a public unusually focused on the real issues. The right’s frustration at their withering influence was apparent on blogs and openly expressed at public campaign rallies.
Obama won the election. He formed a generally centrist government with mostly competent, experienced people in his cabinet. None of the radical consequences predicted by the extremists came to pass. Ayers wasn’t put in charge of homeland security, the White House wasn’t turned into a mosque, and not a single effort was made to take away guns from law abiding citizens. The extremists, already emasculated by their resounding defeat, were further deflated when their apocalyptic predictions could not stand up to reality.
As momentum built for the Democrats’ signature legislative effort for health insurance reform, many on the right found renewed vigor by banding together and drowning out open and honest discussion at the “Town Hall” meetings. Some people got off openly displaying their weapons at these emotionally charged events. This created some controversy, which aroused them even more. As word spread the “open carriers” membership swelled and they began to hold rallies where they could strut their manhood in public. They are deliberately controversial in the hope of producing a backlash against them, thus validating their failed predictions. Unfortunately, they are having some success.
Debating them is not likely to be productive because they are out to make a point, not to engage in rational argument. It is all about them feeling better wearing their manhood on their hips, and their feelings are immune to facts and reason. Rather than erecting barriers to their manly love fests, which will only validate their point and swell their egos, we should laugh at them and ignore their movement until it dies a "little death" on it's own.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Why “Common Sense” is Often Wrong
People who do not have facts and reason to support their beliefs often appeal to “Common Sense” without any definition of the term or how they know it applies to the situation. A typical definition of common sense is, “sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like” (Dictionary.com). Most definitions include phrases equivalent to “sound judgment”, and if we accept that definition, then common sense can never be wrong. However "common sense" is often used as a substitute for sound judgment or in situations where specialized knowledge or training is required to make a sound judgment. In fact, when a person appeals to “common sense” it usually means something that the person believes to be so widely accepted that it must be true (Argument by popularity).
At one time it was common sense that the earth was flat and sat at the center of the universe, which revolved around it. This is just one example of how common sense depends on the context, knowledge, and experience of the observer.
Our world today is extremely complex and most issues we face require specialized knowledge to fully understand. For example, most people cannot make rational decisions about the efficacy of medical procedures. Not only do they not know what factors have to be considered, they do not know how to evaluate multiple, often competing, factors. “Common sense” says that if a screening procedure can identify a potentially lethal disease while it can still be treated, then it should be widely used. To reach that conclusion, however, requires statistical analysis of the accuracy of the procedure, the risk of the procedure, the actual frequency of the disease, and the risk of false positive results. Nevertheless, when experts examined all those factors and recommended reduced breast cancer screening among women without known risk factors, there was a public outcry against the facts based on “common sense” among people who could not answer, and had never even considered, the simple question, “How many breast cancers are caused by radiation from regular mammograms?”
In politics people disagree about virtually every issue, and both sides often claim “common sense” supports their side. There is often a grain of truth in commonly held beliefs, especially for simple situations. But for complex issues “common sense” is a poor substitute for knowledge and logic. It is often a smoke screen to hide a lack of knowledge or to avoid challenges to pre-existing beliefs or already decided conclusions.
As science historian Daniel Boorstin, writing about the rise of scientific methodology and its contradiction of commonly held beliefs, noted, “Modern Western science takes its beginning from the denial of this commonsense axiom… Common sense, the foundation of everyday life, could no longer serve for the governance of the world.” (The Discoverers, A history of man’s search to know his world and himself)
At one time it was common sense that the earth was flat and sat at the center of the universe, which revolved around it. This is just one example of how common sense depends on the context, knowledge, and experience of the observer.
Our world today is extremely complex and most issues we face require specialized knowledge to fully understand. For example, most people cannot make rational decisions about the efficacy of medical procedures. Not only do they not know what factors have to be considered, they do not know how to evaluate multiple, often competing, factors. “Common sense” says that if a screening procedure can identify a potentially lethal disease while it can still be treated, then it should be widely used. To reach that conclusion, however, requires statistical analysis of the accuracy of the procedure, the risk of the procedure, the actual frequency of the disease, and the risk of false positive results. Nevertheless, when experts examined all those factors and recommended reduced breast cancer screening among women without known risk factors, there was a public outcry against the facts based on “common sense” among people who could not answer, and had never even considered, the simple question, “How many breast cancers are caused by radiation from regular mammograms?”
In politics people disagree about virtually every issue, and both sides often claim “common sense” supports their side. There is often a grain of truth in commonly held beliefs, especially for simple situations. But for complex issues “common sense” is a poor substitute for knowledge and logic. It is often a smoke screen to hide a lack of knowledge or to avoid challenges to pre-existing beliefs or already decided conclusions.
As science historian Daniel Boorstin, writing about the rise of scientific methodology and its contradiction of commonly held beliefs, noted, “Modern Western science takes its beginning from the denial of this commonsense axiom… Common sense, the foundation of everyday life, could no longer serve for the governance of the world.” (The Discoverers, A history of man’s search to know his world and himself)
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Did Sarah Palin Blaspheme?
Last week Sarah Palin, who has criticized Obama for using a teleprompter, defended her use of crib notes written on her palm by claiming god did it too. Her narcissism aside, her interpretation of Isaiah 49:16. is curious. Palin is clearly stating that her god is a small god who is so imperfect that he needs crib notes to remember which tribe he has sworn to protect. Now I’m no expert, but I do know that this passage is not about god’s memory at all. The sign on the palm is symbol of god’s support, a reference to the Jews' custom of marking their hands to represent their city and temple. Thus Palin defends her hypocrisy by cloaking herself in religion while revealing a deep ignorance of scriptural interpretation. I guess fundamentalists have a hard time understanding symbolism.
I have searched high and low for a sign that any one on the right, or any religious writers, pointed out these errors. Very curious, especially since practically anytime Obama mentions religion, someone criticizes him for it.
I have searched high and low for a sign that any one on the right, or any religious writers, pointed out these errors. Very curious, especially since practically anytime Obama mentions religion, someone criticizes him for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)