Nation-Building

Cross-posted to GNXP . The person you agree with 100% of the time is yourself. And sometimes, even that isn't so! Running a weblog focused on diverse topics I stumble on to many areas where I disagree with person X and agree with person Y, and many areas where the converse happens. The person with whom I will disagree will sometimes attempt to call me back to Reason, or suggest that I Really Can't Believe That. It's like my mental faculties just escape me now & then! To paraphrase H. L. Mencken there are individuals who live in terror that someone, somewhere, out there can conceive of a rational opinion at variance with their own! I exaggerate for effect. We all succumb to this tendency now & then. As a species we seem intent on focusing on individual battles rather than tracking the progress of the war, perhaps this is what makes strategic thinkers "geniuses," they are not modal personalities. This shouldn't be too surprising when you rea...

(At the invitation of Aziz Poonawalla, I'm cross posting this from RedState to Dean Nation. Thanks for the invite!) In a previous thread , I posed a question whether creationism and evolutionism could be considered to be scientific ideas, given Karl Popper's stipulation that science must be able to accept that its core theories may be proven false at any time. In that thread, a core idea seemed to leap out. In comparing the two ideas, the theory of evolution depends upon the philosophy of naturalism , while creationist theories rely upon the concept of intelligent design . When speaking about the emergence of life, the core difference that is the root of the differences between the two ideas is the origin of specific features of living organisms that result in life. The theory of evolution states that these features are the result of random natural processes influenced by intelligent considerations. The theory of intelligent design disputes that random processes and...

I'm fully aware that my last post was somewhat uncharacteristically strident. Do read the updates to that post for some responses to good critiques I received. However, it did provide a starting point for the next Dean Nation "theme" - the neccessary compatibility of scientific literacy with religious belief. Here's the two main principles at play: 1. religious teachings have no place in a science curriculum. In a school setting, religious beliefs belong in religion or cultural classes, not biology or geology. 2. religious beliefs shoudl not be excluded from the public sphere, but shoudl occupy their proper position within it. A strong distinction must be made between evidence-based approaches to inquiry (such as Science) and faith-based-approaches to inquiry (such as Religion). I'd also like to plug these old posts of mine that relates to the discussion: Proof denies faith The falsity of the Kalam Cosmoslogical Argument

Just (barely) in time for Thanksgiving, probably the first family get-together since the election for most people.... how to respond to the Bush voters in your family UPDATE (Aziz): The single most important one is reprinted below the fold: Show respect to the conservatives you are responding to. No one will listen to you if you don’t accord them respect. Listen to them. You may disagree strongly with everything that is being said, but you should know what is being said. Be sincere. Avoid cheap shots. What if they don’t show you respect? Two wrongs don’t make a right. Turn the other cheek and show respect anyway. That takes character and dignity. Show character and dignity. Also note that of the lengthy list of guidelines in the link, they can all be distilled into four simple rules: 1. Show respect, 2. Respond by reframing, 3. Think and talk at the level of values, 4. Say what you believe.

There are some issues that I simply don't see a route for reasonable compromise. One of these is in math and science education. There is a disturbing trend by the culture warriors to promote religious belief as scientific fact, within the public domain rather than in their churches where it belongs. See below the fold for an example, on how national park service officials are forced to give lip-service to Creationist accounts of the Grand Canyon's origin, and prevented from discussing the scientific natural history. Being Purple does not mean that the "median" position of every ssue must be embraced. Sometimes the Blue position, and sometimnes the Red position, is truly the Purple one. When it comes to scientific fact, there is no place for the discussion of religious belief. Likewise in the schools. The proper place to inculcate religious teaching is at home and in the church. It is true that science is not about fact, it is about thery. The scientific method...

Since Aziz posted about abortion, I figured I would give it a try. Unlike many people who assert that they personally oppose abortion but back the right to choose, I personally support first trimester abortion without qualification but am ambivalent about the courts imposing its universal national legality via the right to privacy. Though in the generality I support Roe vs. Wade I worry about the corroding impact it has had on the legitimacy of the courts and the respect for law by the citizenry of the republic. But I come here not to rehash my own qualms, but to address something a bit different: the reliance on reflective thinking on the issue of abortion and its limitations. When individuals speak of abortion in a political context, they have their talking points. For example, if you are "pro-choice" (support abortion-rights) you believe that a woman has a right to privacy, a right to her own body, etc. (if you are an anarcho-capitalist you would reframe it as a woman hav...

Thoughtful excerpts from Bill Clinton's speech at the dedication of his Presidential Library: I believe the job of a president is to understand and explain the time in which he serves, to set forth a vision of where we need to go and a strategy of how to get there, and then to pursue it with all its mind and heart, bending only in the face of error or new circumstances and the crisis which are unforeseen; a problem that affects all of us. When I became president, the world was a new and very different place, as I said. And I thought about how we ought to confront it. America has two great dominant strands of political thought -- we're represented up here on this stage -- conservatism, which, at its very best, draws lines that should not be crossed; and progressivism, which, at its very best, breaks down barrier that are no longer needed or should never have been erected in the first place. It seemed to me that in 1992 we needed to do both to prepare America for...