No matter the reality that reason is imperfect because our own reasoning process is fraught with "noise" introduced by our biases in the form of slanted premises and unexposed assumptions I believe it is a good place to start, sometimes. John Emerson in the comments says this: The idea that militant Islam is a threat equal to Nazi Germany or the USSR, or might become that big a threat, is assumed by many and perhaps most hawks, and it really underlies the whole Iraq War. That idea is almost impossible to argue in detail and I've seldom or never seen it argued. It's just pure fantasy . I don't know if it is pure fantasy, but yes, I do think that to a great extent it is fantasy. I've believed this from the fall of 2004 when I extended my reading to non-science blogs. Many of the individuals expressing a hawkish perspective claim a historical perspective, but as someone who loves history for its own sake I tend to find their analyses grounded in biased and m...
Comments
I think the more insightful way to go is the opposite direction - to look at systems as a whole rather than individual holons in the hierarchy.
However as your own comment illustrates people prefer to think about things as atomic in nature. You are doing it with biiology; others do it with politics. For example, look at eth conservative and liberal positions on abortion, death penalty, and collateral damage in war. Neither side has a coherent narrative or set of principles that tie their positions on these issues together. They apply reductionist analysis - largely driven by political maneuvering - and come up with stances that are not really related to each other.