A good example is the statement that science and reason have limitations... well, duh, that's only been generally accepted in the scientific community since before I was born.
For that reason, making such a statement raises a couple of red flags in the minds of some people - myself included:
Further, even though science cannot directly speak to something like ethics, most ethical systems are based on assumptions and narratives that are open to scientific scrutiny.
I guess my point is that I think that this kind of discussion would benefit less from a greater awareness of the (by and large well appreciated) limitations of science and reason, and benefit rather more from a greater appreciation of the limitations of the limitations of science and reason...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Though I'm sure I'm not the first to point out that the RHS of thefourth identity is clearly
|heart 0| |0 heart|
* Is there such a thing as yoga pants? There should be.
** Yes, I'm being dismissive of religion/spirituality here. I'm a hard-core non-believer. What do you expect? No one worries about being dismissive of us.
In an age where concepts like solidarity and compassion have been vilified and ridiculed - but where religious mumbo-jumbo is given a free pass - dressing up solidarity and compassion in quasi-religious terms may not be such a bad idea. Like many such political shortcuts it comes at a cost; in this case the cost of opening the door for gurus, quacks and a variety of other kinds of shady characters that can couch much less savoury pursuits in much the same language.
Actually, sociology and anthropology are quite insightful as to how, why and between whom couples and marriage form. They don't tell us who to love, but show love clearly isn't random.
I'm always on the lookout for rationalizations that my husbands weren't my fault. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Rather, the idea is that we socialise very strongly among our own social class, and most weddings are among similar or close by on the social ladder - despite claims, and conscious feelings, that encounters are random.
Now, there is something to look for in the way men and women are socialised towards different ideals of marriage - which could lead to their break up. And how mores of personal accomplishment mean that an unhappy marriage has to be broken, yet social pressures towards marriage are still quite intense... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
That's ok - I take full credit for the divorces. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
A case in point is the climate change debate. The calculated consequences of our CO2 emissions are such that everybody agrees that these consequences are bad (unless you are actively working to bring about the end of the world). Even climate change deniers don't argue that these consequences are OK. Instead they have to argue that the scientific estimates of the consequences are wrong. If you accept the scientific findings we must do something to combat GHG emissions, and that is science telling us how to govern.
More generally, I think there is a very broad consensus about many moral questions when posed clearly a such. If you ask: "Is it OK that poor children die because they cannot afford medical care?", even right-wing politicians will not publicly agree. They will argue that their policies help poor children rather than harm them. It is then up to (sociological/medical) science to demonstrate when they are wrong. What is needed for this is more thinking and more science ("reason"), not less! Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I love your tag line
tomhuld:
Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
...in view of the fact that even a mention of astrology on this site is sure to bring the world down around you...
...there's only smoking that's worse....
<hides> "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What about homeopathy, can you make fun of that? Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I also agree that there is a very broad consensus that letting poor people starve in the gutter is wrong, even if it is in the short-term interest of the oligarchy. However, even when backed by a massive (if not quite unanimous - Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boyz would disagree) consensus, it remains a political position, and there is no point pretending that it's scientifically supported.
In fact, I think it can be downright harmful to present what is inherently a political decision as a technical matter than can be unambiguously resolved through the scientific method. After all, Uncle Miltie and Maggie Thatcher got a lot of traction out of obfuscating the political decisions that underlie much of the economic science (and pseudoscience) that they used.
