Moderator! This guys picking on me! Just 'cause I suffer a mild case of dyslexia. You’d think a guy who can’t even spell “jackass” would have more compassion, but NOOOOOOOOOO…
I’m so upset, I might go and throw myself behind a bus.
So you can’t support the notion that flouride should be in water (to continue the hypothetical); is it reasonable for you to actually support it?
If erislover is asking whether we should agree with a government policy when we have no visible evidence of harm or help, when we believe we can find mountains of scientific evidence on the subject, should we need it, when there are no special interests group taking issue with the idea, and no particular moral qualms with it…
Then yes. In that circumstance you should defer to people whose business it is to make public policy, because they probably have it right. Politicians arn’t ALWAYS dumb.
Floride is actually an excellent example of an issue that went through reasoned deliberation ages ago and now we can defer to the judgment of the past. When the US government first started putting Floride in city water supplies (or, well, urged the cities to do it, actually), people protested in droves. They were worried that state-forced medication was equal to communism.
People were really smart back then.
Anyway, after awhile people realized Floride didn’t make them start voting for Stalin and living on communal farms, and they calmed down. The gov backed up their policy with estimates of how much the US would save on medical expenses as a result, and there we go.
We defer to the judgment of the people who made this policy like many other polices… if we didn’t, we’d be forced to re-hash every lesson that people ever learned in the past. There are just some policies that you can believe in without going and doing all the research to convince yourself, because it isn’t worth the trouble.
-C
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this the hallmark of conservativism?
Obviously. But it isn’t reasonable, in my book, to take a stand on a topic if you cannot support it without such deferral.
Sorry, I must disagree. There is no constraint on the Court, or on Congress, to decide amongst logical alternatives. If the Court says 2 and 2 are 10, it is neither right nor rational. The Court has never done that, to my knowledge. On the other hand, it has declared the existence of a constitutional “right to privacy” which manifestly exists nowhere in the Constitution and has no rational basis; the justices variously pretend that it exists in the 5th, 10th, or 14th amendments. (I happen to like the idea of a right to privacy, I just cannot overlook its total absence from the Constitution). To select an example with more appeal to a liberal, the Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore was demonstrated on this very board to be rationally insupportable.
Nevertheless, I think I may be talking past you a little. It appears to me that your basic point could be rephrased as, “If you want to call liberalism irrational, refute the arguments in its favor put forward by Supreme Court justices and Congressmen, not by stoned-out hippies.” Is that fair? If so, I basically agree. Certainly most conservatives would rather take on the arguments of a radical BS artist like Julianne Malvaux than Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for a readily understandable reason: it’s easier. But that’s hardly limited to conservatives. Liberals would also rather attack the statements of a redneck like Fred Phelps than the glittering essays of William F. Buckley, for the same reason.
Still, I think we conservatives are perfectly justified in criticizing the arguments of, ahem, less distinguished liberals. After all, their viewpoints are not necessarily the same as those of the Congressmen and judges, and we don’t want them to become the arguments of the Congressmen and judges. After all, Congressmen want to be elected and judges want to be appointed, and if they hear their constituents bandying an irrational argument about unopposed they may very well adopt that argument as their own.
Then I don’t agree that this represents the liberal mindset. Consider, for instance gay marriage. Basically the only non-religious argument conservatives have against gay marriage is that marriage between male and female is “the way it’s always been.” Don’t rock the boat; it might disrupt the family. (I don’t happen to agree with that particular conservative stand). But according to your definition, the liberals ought to be as much against gay marriage as the conservatives.
I just love Great Debates.
…and Scylla and elucidator you are hilarious.
…and Danimal you are just toooooo logical.
…and I started three sentences with a conjuction, Whooee!
[sub]lower case at that.[/sub]:eek:
There is a constraint on Congress and on the Court to decide among logical alternatives. Let’s take your example of the right to privacy. While I havn’t actually studied the doctine myself, what I know about Constitutional law would make the right break down something like this:
-
4th amendment gaurnetees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. What is privacy but exactly this freedom? I don’t see the court’s doctrine growing from very illogical soil here.
-
14th amendment extends the other amendments to the states. In particular, it gaurentees that all “privledges and immunities” bestowed on citizens not be taken away by the states. So all this does is ensures the states are bound by the 5th.
-
I dont know where the 5th and 10th factor in here. Case cite?
Anyway, that’s just my take on it. I’m sure the court has more to say. But that’s just it- the court’s reasoning is PUBLISHED for all to read. When you read Scalia’s opinions in the takings cases, or Brennan’s in some of the 5th amendment, you might think some of the arguments are wrong-headed; but the logic is staring you in the face. When the words “right to privacy” were used for the first time by our court, you can be damn sure they explained where they got it from. No legitimate lawmaking body in the US can make law without explaining where it came from.
Some cases, like Mabury, are a little tricker cause the court hides it’s real motives behind an argument they don’t really beleive. But even in these cases the court has provided one logical explaination for what they’ve done- it doesnt have to be honest to be logical. (And these cases are very rare, usually dealing with cases that distribute power amoung Government. Like Bush v. Gore. Or for a real treat, look at how the 3rd district explained away having to deal with John Doe v. Bush earlier this year.)
Yes, that’s a position I agree with. But go a little further- give the hippies credit for their beliefs based on the people who make the real argument. Respect the issue seperately from the person, for they surely are seperate.
There is little risk for “way out there” theories to get implanted in our government in times of peace. Those who are elected are restrained by powerful party leadership, and while the dicta given to the masses might mirror “popular” arguments for certain issues, you can be sure different words are being exchanged behind closed doors in DC.
I dont think this works in times of great change or high emotion. When there is turmoil, the forces of mob mentality and hatred are released upon our democracy. Because of this, (going off on a tangent) it sort of strikes me as odd that Republicans are fanning the flames of social unrest and emotion; it hasn’t served them well in the past.
Actually, allowing gay and lesbian couples to do what they like very much falls into the “let it be” mindset. What we have are people who naturally (at least they say it’s biological, and I dont see any reason to argue with that) desire to be romantic with members of the same sex. They truck on over to the church and want to get married so they can share a tax form or whatnot, and the clerk tells them they can’t. The natural progression of their lives is interrupted by people who don’t want to let them continue with it.
On the surface, you might argue that enviornmentalism acts the same way- that corporations wish to put a strip mine in that forest, but then some tree huggers come along and interrupt them. But the difference is that the corporation has no natural need to create that strip mine- hell, corporations don’t really even exist, they’re just legal fictions created to shield people from liability.
The other big difference is that a primary collary of the “indecisiveness” doctrine (hehe) is that impressing your views on others is a bad call, since you might not be right. In the case of gay marriage, (barring some ridiculous argument about how a gay marriage might compare to a mystical 50s sticom family that no longer exists) two men getting to visit each other in the hospitol doesn’t really affect anyone else. Whereas in the case of the corporation, there will be lasting, obvious, physical impact on thousands as a result of the action.
-C
Eris:
---------- So you can’t support the notion that fluoride should be in water (to continue the hypothetical); is it reasonable for you to actually support it?
Well, there are a number of responses to this.
-
So, you support notions like that all the time! (et tu, quoque?
). -
I think we’re talking about decision theory here. The question is how much prior weight we should give to the existence of certain institutions, aside from other evidence, when making a policy judgement.
My take is that the burden of proof lies with those challenging existing institutions. OTOH, if a study comes out suggesting that fluoridated water causes cancer (or a higher incidence of hip fractures among the elderly), then it should taken seriously. A good policy analyst will then pull out the old studies, weigh the evidence, and re-evaluate accordingly.
Traditional conservatives (eg those in the US in the 1950s and those in Europe today) go somewhat beyond this. As I understand it, they stress that existing institutions embody all sorts of advantages that a contemporary analyst might not uncover. Thus, an institution’s longevity should be taken as evidence, even after a comprehensive evaluation has been carried out. I am more dubious about this latter suggestion, though I don’t find it wholly implausible.
----- But it isn’t reasonable, in my book, to take a stand on a topic if you cannot support it without such deferral.
(The double (triple?) negatives are getting a little confusing. I interpret this as, “Don’t take a stand if you are relying only on such a deferral.”) It is reasonable (in my tome) to “make an observation”. And you can always take a “qualified stand”.
More controversially, I think it’s ok to make certain assumptions regarding the sensibility of current fluoride policy in the absence of conflicting information. That assessment is supported by a certain faith in the US’s research establishment: to be specific, I assume that research into the effects of fluoride is small but ongoing. If a substantial problem with fluoride is discovered, it will be aired.
flowbark
My stance is basically that one shouldn’t take a stand on an issue if one’s stand consists in a simple pass of judgment to another’s knowledge. That’s really just the classic “appeal to authority” in disguise. Of course, arguing over authorities is fine, I don’t want to say otherwise, but then one’s stand isn’t on a topic per se, but on an authority who discusses such a topic. Also an “of course” is arguing over an issue using such things authorities will say (“Cite?!” :D) but as a matter of policy, “Bush is right because Bush says so” is not a compelling argument; neither is “Bush is wrong because Chirac says so.” Hence my stand that it is not a reasonable position—it is in fact a classic logical fallacy, if not also a begged question (for then we have the question: “And why should we consider his position?” belying where the stand really was after all).
As far as the specific hypothetical situation goes, I agree with your presentation here:
Sure. But as you also note:
Indeed, this seems to be hallmark conservativism: that an institution or practice (or practice in an institution!) exists grants it considerable weight by virtue of its existence alone. Being somewhat conservative myself (cough) I don’t find this claim quite as dubious as you may; however, I do think, realistically speaking, I am far easy to persuade than those politicians that are conservative given what I agreed to previously. Change for the sake of change “because it seems like it should work better” is certainly not enough for me. For another illustrative point, I would comment on health care reform: pointing to existing nationalized systems that “work” is not enough for me, I don’t think all the evidence is in yet. Give it a few more generations, however, and I think it will be overwhelming whether nationalized or private health care is the better way to go.
I’m going to raise your controversy by suggesting that many feel this is a nearly universally reasonable opinion (witness our own OP). Can we make the assumption(s) you mention? —Certainly. Is it a reasonable position to take? —I don’t think so, for consider what arguments one might make from it would be, and how far they would really go. Of course here we run back into how much weight we grant existing institutions and practices again. Really, I think it is an interesting topic the more we discuss it. For though I ask you to reflect upon “how far they would go”, the question I leave unanswered is “how far they would go in the face of what?”—and of course that would be “conflicting evidence”.
Or would it be? For don’t we often find people taking a stand that “something” must be done because the current situation seems wrong? Again, health care seems like the way to go here for illustrative purposes, for I have the notion that many people do, in fact, base their opinions on nationalized health care not on economics or hard evidence but a personal dissatisfaction with the existing scheme and “something” must be better. This, I think, is not a reasonable position at least.
Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, but few issues can be resolved like a college logic exercise. After all, I have never conducted a trial demonstrating that fluoridated water is safe. I have to rely on the people who have. Others will present “evidence” that it is harmful. My decision to believe one and not the other is based on the measure of authority I place in the researchers and people like the editors of a peer-reviewed journal.
Obviously you would take a stand on the authorities in question, I didn’t say otherwise.
Preliminaries
-
Please define “reasonable position” (or describe it). This seems to be a central criteria in this discussion, and if we are working off of different definitions, we may be hosed.
-
Even more central (perhaps) is the phrase “take a stand”. That may need defining.
-
I must admit that I am wary of being slammed with some pro-conservative example consistent with my stated traditionalist POV. Ah well, one must take certain risks…
-
------- For though I ask you to reflect upon “how far they would go”… I’m unclear on what you mean in this section. (They? Go? Where?)
Ok, let’s start here:
After consulting my Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (CDP), I see that “Appeal to Authority” is not currently considered a logical fallacy per se.
However, there is a closely related fallacy called “Appeal to reverence or respect”. Let me give an example.
“Einstein agreed with flowbark on this subject. You’re saying that you’re smarter than Einstein? Hmffff!”
In contrast, “As a practical but fallible method of steering discussion towards a presumptive conclusion, the argument from authority can be a reasonable way of shifting the burden of proof [provided you don’t push the argument too far]” (CDP)
Working through our example, I think that it would be ok for me to take the following stand, “The CDC has recommended water fluoridation and I’m inclined to trust their judgment”.
Such an argument could be countered with, “Yeah but they have never considered hip fractures.” It could also be countered with, “Yeah, I’ve read their study, and I don’t like their treatment of hip fractures for these reasons”. At that point, simply repeating the phrase, “Well, I trust the CDC”, would be an appeal to reverence IMO (and an implicit ad hominem attack on the adversary’s modesty).
OTOH. I suspect the phrase, “take a stand” comes into play here. I imagine that we have a person with little background in medicine, the CDC, and an anonymous poster on the SDMB who claims that he has read the CDC study. How should our nonexpert think about this?
I’m inclined to think of this in Bayesian terms. On the one hand, there’s the CDC study. On the other hand, some doubt has been cast on it by an anonymous poster (who has provided no links). Prior to a google search, I would be inclined to give the CDC opinion a stronger weight and the anonymous poster a low but decidedly nonzero weight. I am assuming that the anonymous poster does not display the obvious characteristics of nut-jobs or axe-grinders.
I’m not clear where the “take a stand” threshold is (perhaps because I am not sure what sort of stand is being taken, as it were).
I think that I’ll work through health care in a separate post (maybe later).
Political dyslexia…now, that could explain a lot.
Please be advised that friend Scylla is a painfully shy and modest person, who hops away from such public notice like a sparrow on a hot griddle. Myself, I am of such adamantine character that I can withstand such gales of flattery as would crush his timid spirit, and stand ready to endure as much as stern duty demands.
flowbark
*1. Please define “reasonable position” (or describe it). This seems to be a central criteria in this discussion, and if we are working off of different definitions, we may be hosed. *How about: a position that would stand up in GD? 
A reasonable position is one in which the argument is persuasive on logical and empirical grounds.
2. Even more central (perhaps) is the phrase “take a stand”. That may need defining. To have decided on a course of action (or inaction) regarding some topic. To have an opinion, and an inclination to get others to share that opinion.
4. ------- For though I ask you to reflect upon “how far they would go”… I’m unclear on what you mean in this section. (They? Go? Where?) The arguments.
Of course. Now I ask you: have you taken a stand on water flouridation or have you taken a stand on authorities to trust in some matters? That’s my point: if you are deferring your judgment for theirs, then you haven’t reasonably taken a stand on flouride per se, you’ve taken a stand on who to trust in matters of flouride.
Now, lest you carry this farther than I intend, recall my original objection was to the phrasing:
Anyone who could make a successful argument about water flouridation authorities would really fall outside my criticism.
Ah, it was just illustrative.
Endureth no more.
I’ve gotta apologize to elucidator for critiquing his insistence on spelling “their” as “thier”. It really does seem to be a good 'ol Texas boy dyslexic thing. elucidator himself took note of the problem in this thread when he mocked Dubya’s pronunciation of “nuclear”:
There is the most recent debacle, as to the Keystone Kops like forgery regarding the allegation that Iraq was feverishly attempting to purchase uranium in Africa. Which balderdash was cited in this State of the Union Adress. Offered as proof of the Saddamites imminent nuc-yu-lar threat."
Perhaps, now that he has felt the slings and arrows of outrageous grammatical correction, elucidator will be slower to rag Bush over language bloopers.
Actually, I was more concerned with his bland acceptance of utter balderdash as proof positive of dire threats. Frankly, his rather astonishing lack of rhetorical skills, considering what we are given to understand was a first rate education, doesn’t concern me nearly so much as his adamant refusal to admit information that does not conform with his preconceptions, paired with his eagerness to regard as unimpeachable evidence that Inspector Clouseau would have seen through. May I make so bold as to suggest that this ought to concern you as well?
I ain’t no Bush fan, good Texas-Minnesota buddy. I reproduced that quote as part of a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” observation.
Pax, cowboy. 
Knock yourself out. I ain’t delicate.
eris: Thanks for the definitions. I will adopt them in this thread.
--------- Now I ask you: have you taken a stand on water fluoridation or have you taken a stand on authorities to trust in some matters?
I think the answer is “both”. a) We’ll say that I can provide evidence regarding the CDC’s expertise. b) Given their expertise, it is ok to share their conclusions.
The preceding is my opinion. I am inclined to get others to share that. So I have taken a stand.
However. My position with regards to a) is reasonable. My position with regards to b) is less so. I guess I would say that I can provide both logical and empirical grounds for b), though the argument is somewhat-less-than-persuasive.
[Persuasive: I think b) passes the plausibility test, passes the bar-room test, fails the “Would I base policy on this?” test and fails the GD test by a moderate or small margin.]
Why does it fail the GD test? It fails the GD test because the cost of further investigation is fairly low. (We can use google and scan for critiques of our hypothetical report, for example.)
I’m not sure whether the preceding is helpful.
flowbark shifts his position
------- The problem is that since leftism is now standard, there are necessarily more people who believe it than can really explain it.
Ok, there is something funny here. Leftism (or conservatism) isn’t a narrow issue, it’s a whole outlook. So I suppose that people should be able to articulate defensible reasons for their core beliefs.
Furthermore, if you are marching in an anti-war/pro-war demonstration (or signing a petition), a stronger stand is being taken and I might argue that the participants have an added responsibility to be informed on the subject.
That said, some observations are in order.
-
I don’t believe that I have ever heard a thoughtful remark come out of the mouth of any protester (pro-war or anti-war) on television. At best, all that is heard is a position statement. (Ok, that may not be true: BBC reporters can be pretty skilled at asking the sorts of penetrating questions that elicit either reflexive or intelligent responses.)
-
I have noted that you shouldn’t expect a high level of articulation from you’re average Joe or Pat. I will also note that it is better to evaluate someone’s arguments when they are in a contemplative state (such as writing a letter or post) rather than when they are improvising an instant response during a tv interview that lasts all of 30 seconds. I for one am better at verbal improvisation when I am seated at my computer than when I am pounding the sidewalk.
(Discussion of conservative and other stances with regards to big issues such as health care may or may not be postponed indefinitely. There. I think I’ve covered my bases. )