I'm realizing more and more the approach and structure I use/apply to political issues. First I have stolen or creatively appropriated the thought of many... most specifically Dean Baker, Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, and David Pacini.
I believe that everything is restricted to biological nature of the human animal--which due to being a social animal--is hugely complex and we can't really claim that we have a strong understanding of this biological construct. Although I would make the case that we are very quickly growing more and more confident in many of these biological structures.
I believe that empirical facts/arguments are secondary to ones construct of the world and the frames that one uses to discuss things in the world. Data tends to follow... hence conservatives from my experience are on the wrong end of the way the world actually works...
For the most part I don't believe in "philosophical disagreement." Most people agree to wanting a strong economy, agree to feeding the homeless, good schools... they disagree on the approaches. this is not a Philosophical disagreement... but it is the catch-all phrase which means... I don't care to have to do the leg work in this conversation.
Quite often a moderate Republican is better than a conservative Democrat.
The word Christian, Muslim, Jew... these are political terms. Not only that they are ONLY political terms...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I believe that empirical facts/arguments are secondary to ones construct of the world and the frames that one uses to discuss things in the world. Data tends to follow... hence conservatives from my experience are on the wrong end of the way the world actually works...
I might understand your meaning, yet I am unsure. Since we are engaged in philosophical discourse, I wish to understand your meaning. Are you asserting some or perhaps most Republicans are guilty of slothful evidence/confirming evidence (defined as making up one's mind despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) or confirmation bias (the seeking of information to justify one's beliefs, and the convenient ignoring of contrary information), or some other fallacy?
I apologize, I misspoke. I meant "arguing" in place of "asserting," as an assertion is defined as the bold, unsupported statement that a thing is true. I meant no disrespect to either yourself or our discourse.
Post a Comment