Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[The Brain]

You have to remember that this was at a time when councils didn't have to be about anything.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art.  Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?

[The Brain]

Anything does.

[Barrister]

I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).

Edit: this was in response to Beeb.

Well ultimately the point of Christian theology isn't to determine what the Bible says, but rather what God says.

And who on earth said that Protestant theology was incompatible with science?  And who ever described science as "atheistic"?

[Oexmelin]

Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits.  Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.

You are treating Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics as receipe books to plunder, the equivalent to self-help books, offering simple causal schemes and easily applicable social blueprints. No wonder you think them obsolete. We produce - and no doubt the Greeks produced - tons of ephemeral blueprints, which do not survive the passing of time and the changes in social conditions, and milieu, and mores - that is the essence of politics, not of political philosophy. Plato, and Machiavelli, and Hobbes's times are long gone, and no doubt the material suggestions they offered (i.e., how to organize a Greek city, how to conduct war in the Italian peninsula, how to avoid conflict due to religious strife) - but the underlying ideas on justice, power, society, drive at much deeper, unresolved question which still shape our understanding of the politics.  "Modern political scientists" - at least those who are concerned about philosophy rather than quantitative analysis of public policies - ask variants of the same questions which were asked before: what is just? what is the best City (i.e., mode of government), what is the basis of social life? how should we understand the nature of power?

[HVC]

I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art.  Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?

Mona lisa is only famous becasue it was stolen. Not much to do with teh thread, i just wanted to point it out.

[Viking]

How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong?  And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong?  Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?

Are you really trying to be serious? Sophistry? Proving Foucault wrong on the topic X means we don't have to take his views on X seriously. Please try to be serious.

[Viking]

Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.

Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Do you have any particular support for this rather surprising assertion.

I refer you to the Analytical Tradition in Philosophy.

[Viking]

Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits.  Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.

You are treating Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics as receipe books to plunder, the equivalent to self-help books, offering simple causal schemes and easily applicable social blueprints. No wonder you think them obsolete. We produce - and no doubt the Greeks produced - tons of ephemeral blueprints, which do not survive the passing of time and the changes in social conditions, and milieu, and mores - that is the essence of politics, not of political philosophy. Plato, and Machiavelli, and Hobbes's times are long gone, and no doubt the material suggestions they offered (i.e., how to organize a Greek city, how to conduct war in the Italian peninsula, how to avoid conflict due to religious strife) - but the underlying ideas on justice, power, society, drive at much deeper, unresolved question which still shape our understanding of the politics.  "Modern political scientists" - at least those who are concerned about philosophy rather than quantitative analysis of public policies - ask variants of the same questions which were asked before: what is just? what is the best City (i.e., mode of government), what is the basis of social life? how should we understand the nature of power?

No. I'm saying that if you want to know about politics you don't read a 2300 year old book on the topic. There have been developments in the field in the intervening years. The same applies to morality and ethics. If we want to know the best knowledge of morality and ethics we don't want to refer to a 2400 or 1700 year old book (Babylonian Exile and Council of Nicea), we want the cutting edge on the topic.

What Kant, Dewey and Stuart Mill said about morality and ethics is much more developed and relevant to any human than what Plato, Epicurus and Aristotle may have said about morality and ethics; if only because Kant, Dewey and Stuart Mill have read Plato, Epicurus and Aristotle and not the other way round.

The Ancients did have insights into the nature of power. What I will assert is that the Moderns have the same insights, at least they have Plato and Aristotle to read to help them get there. They also have the ability to draw on more history, knowledge and experience to approach the issues and they have centuries of thought to support them in analyzing the failures of the Ancients and to solve problems they could not resolve.

This is self evident in the "hard" sciences, easy to prove in the "soft" sciences and untrue in the purely subjective fields of art. It should be clear to any honest observer that in any objective or testable field that modern knowledge is superior to ancient knowledge. Today we (in the secular west) live in a society with greater happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth than any other society in history or geography. We do know from objective sources that the less likely your society is to draw it's morals and ethics from The Bible the greater the happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth your society is.

However. If you agree with the following statements then we agree on the topic up for discussion (as far as I see it)

1 - There is no non-material source for the Bible.
2 - The philosophy of morality and ethics has progressed in the last 2000 years.

If you agree with these two statements then we agree on the basics.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.

Agreed

[Razgovory]

<backs away slowly>

[Viking]

Yes and no.  Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there.  But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.

Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.

The salvation of your eternal soul is "really obscure and arcane" and only relevant to "history and theology nerds"?

[Martinus]

I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art.  Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?

Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.

[crazy canuck]

Yes and no.  Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there.  But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.

Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.

The salvation of your eternal soul is "really obscure and arcane" and only relevant to "history and theology nerds"?

I am beginning to realize you have no idea what the Councils - there were more than one btw - discussed during that period in history.  Here is a hint - it had nothing to do with salvation of the soul.

[crazy canuck]

I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art.  Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?

Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.

The reason you are so bad at analogies is you have trouble recognizing when one is apt.