Government Pays $4 Million for a Bike Rack
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Partisan Industrial Complex
David Paul Kuhn writes an awesome piece about today's profitable polarized political landscape.
What he misses in pointing out however, is how governance and legislation itself is being forged by ideology. It isn't just that the Partisan Industrial Complex gets you money and power, but obviously the ability to wield it.
The Stimulus bill that passed on a partisan vote in February almost completely correlates with the proposals of radical ideologues like Van Jones through the left wing think tank Apollo Alliance. By their own admission.
How in the world are Republicans suppose to vote across the aisle when proposed legislation transforms the country into something radically different from what it was founded upon?
Ralph Waldo Emerson said something to the effect that there are only two parties in politics, the Establishment and the Movement.
And Isaac Newton is famous for his laws of physics, of which his second law neatly transfers into politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The harder the the Movement pushes, the harder the Establishment will resist.
The Partisan Industrial Complex
Shared via AddThis
What he misses in pointing out however, is how governance and legislation itself is being forged by ideology. It isn't just that the Partisan Industrial Complex gets you money and power, but obviously the ability to wield it.
The Stimulus bill that passed on a partisan vote in February almost completely correlates with the proposals of radical ideologues like Van Jones through the left wing think tank Apollo Alliance. By their own admission.
How in the world are Republicans suppose to vote across the aisle when proposed legislation transforms the country into something radically different from what it was founded upon?
Ralph Waldo Emerson said something to the effect that there are only two parties in politics, the Establishment and the Movement.
And Isaac Newton is famous for his laws of physics, of which his second law neatly transfers into politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The harder the the Movement pushes, the harder the Establishment will resist.
The Partisan Industrial Complex
Shared via AddThis
Friday, September 25, 2009
If I could teach the world, one thing...
Julian Baggini is a living British philosopher who when asked if he could teach the world only one thing what would he teach. He answered that it would be the "under-determination of theory by evidence." The following is my attempt to explain it.
The principle of the "under-determination of theory by evidence" says that no matter how much evidence there is to support a theory, the theory can still be dead wrong. Conversely, no matter how little evidence there is to support a theory, the theory may still be accurate and true.
Somewhere on this planet, there may be a spot wherein apples rise from the earth. It may exist, it is possible, after all anything is possible. But if I insisted that the law of gravity is bunk on the basis that anything is possible, I may rightfully be ignored and thought insane. To butcher the quote from Stephen Jay Gould who said that in science, fact means proven to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold assent. One may posit that apples rise from the ground, but it doesn't warrant equal time in the classroom.
Thus, whenever one hears, learns, or is told a theory or explanation, about some event or phenomenon, it does that person well to remember the principle that theories cannot be totally determined by evidence.
It is the obligation of the proponent of a theory to provide a "preponderance of evidence" to support their theory. Amazingly, should the proponent meet or fail to meet their burden, it hasn't any bearing on the validity of the theory. All evidence does is provide us sensory stimulated human beings a means by which to arrive at a conclusion. And yet, it would be wise for one to acknowledge, that one's conclusion may be wrong.
And this is why I believe Socrates, who is regarded as possibly the smartest man in Western Civilization said,
"All I know is the fact of my own ignorance." (aka "All I know is that I know nothing.")
The principle of the "under-determination of theory by evidence" says that no matter how much evidence there is to support a theory, the theory can still be dead wrong. Conversely, no matter how little evidence there is to support a theory, the theory may still be accurate and true.
Somewhere on this planet, there may be a spot wherein apples rise from the earth. It may exist, it is possible, after all anything is possible. But if I insisted that the law of gravity is bunk on the basis that anything is possible, I may rightfully be ignored and thought insane. To butcher the quote from Stephen Jay Gould who said that in science, fact means proven to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold assent. One may posit that apples rise from the ground, but it doesn't warrant equal time in the classroom.
Thus, whenever one hears, learns, or is told a theory or explanation, about some event or phenomenon, it does that person well to remember the principle that theories cannot be totally determined by evidence.
It is the obligation of the proponent of a theory to provide a "preponderance of evidence" to support their theory. Amazingly, should the proponent meet or fail to meet their burden, it hasn't any bearing on the validity of the theory. All evidence does is provide us sensory stimulated human beings a means by which to arrive at a conclusion. And yet, it would be wise for one to acknowledge, that one's conclusion may be wrong.
And this is why I believe Socrates, who is regarded as possibly the smartest man in Western Civilization said,
"All I know is the fact of my own ignorance." (aka "All I know is that I know nothing.")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
