the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Harbal »

Walker wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:36 am No witnessed evidence of this happening, either.
Do we have any witnessed evidence of God creating things?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Walker »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:42 am
Walker wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:36 am No witnessed evidence of this happening, either.
Do we have any witnessed evidence of God creating things?
I don’t think there is any evidence in the fossil record, or witnessed evidence, that God transformed one species into another, either.

There is evidence of species adapting through change, such as moths that turn white or dark, depending on environmental conditions.

Science has laws and theories. Evolution has traditionally been called a theory, by scientists.
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Walker wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:21 pm The danger of democracy is tyranny of the majority, made even more possible these days by technology.

In actuality, a million guesses at the number of jelly-beans in the big jar, averaged together, will most times be the correct count. Does this translate into the proper course for a nation? Before technology, no. This is why a Republic with democratically elected representatives has thrived. The fear of pure democracy was the tyranny of the masses, an aspect of human nature which should still extend to the more efficient gathering of consensus and averages. However, interpretation of the data is always ripe for abuse of inserting bias into more nuanced interpretations that require training and judgment, beyond counting jelly beans.
Good Morning, Walker

Is it possible that you haven't read all of the material you are commenting on? Have you missed the exchange between Gustav and myself regarding the ambiguity of the term 'democracy'? If you've read that material, you know that seeking a practical way for the people to select, from among themselves, the best advocates of the common interest, and raise them to public office, is in no way related to "tyranny of the masses".

When you say, "This is why a Republic with democratically elected representatives has thrived.", are you referring to the United States? If so, I disagree. There is nothing democratic about vested interests telling the people who they can vote for. Gustav and I also touched on that topic. Perhaps you'd enjoy reading our comments.

I'm not sure the attempt to reason our way to a more rational political infrastructure will continue on this thread. Neither am I sure you would want to participate in what is sure to be an arduous process. If you do, I hope you will help identify the basics before jumping to conclusions about the result.

Please critique the points made in the following post to Science Fan and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.

Fred Gohlke
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Science Fan wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:27 pm Fred: No wonder you admire Gustav so much --- you are both science deniers. Evolution is a fact. Since you are in denial over this basic fact of science, there is no way that you are in a position to tell anyone else what they should or should not believe about science. You don't even know what science consists of because you claim it can make value judgments, when it most definitely cannot do so. This is basic science 101 stuff, along with evolution being basic biology 101 stuff as well.

Scientific illiteracy is a major part of the problem. Too bad you are siding with those who deny science.
Good Morning, Science Fan

Your evaluation of me is as may be, but it does not suggest ways to create a more rational political system. I'd like to proceed with that effort. I'm not sure you're interested, but, just in case you are, here are a few things that have been mentioned on this thread in recent days that bear on the topic of creating a more democratic political process - what Abraham Lincoln called, "government by the people":

* the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas.

* the exchange of ideas must have a purpose relating to the government.

* the exchange of ideas must take place in an environment conducive to thoughtful discourse.

* citizens must be encouraged to deliberate on their political concerns with their peers.

* a well-designed deliberation can help to address and remedy one of the most basic barriers to constructive discourse - knowledge inequality.

* (also, if you checked the link to Esterling, Fung and Lee's work, deliberation in small groups raises both the knowledge level of the participants and their satisfaction with the results of their deliberations.)

* all politics is local.

* the evolution of democracy is a slow process.

* the evils of democracy (so-called) cannot be corrected by introducing more machinery of the kind that already exists.

* to be democratic, the political process must be bottom-up.

* a bottom-up structure is possible and practical.

* a democratic political system must accommodate people as they are, not as we would have them be.

* democracy is a political system in which every member of the community can participate to the full extent of each individual's desire and ability.

* democracy is a political system in which the people seek out the best advocates of the common interest and raise them to public office.

* in terms of democracy, the points people agree on are more important than the points they disagree on.

You may disagree with any or all of these points, Science Fan. If you do, please provide a rationale for your dissent so we can hone these points. Can you offer suggestions leading to a practical way for the people to conduct their government.

Fred Gohlke
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Good Morning, Gustav

Please critique the points made in the post to Science Fan (above) and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.

Fred Gohlke
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Good Morning, Harbal

Please critique the points made in the post to Science Fan (above) and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.

Fred Gohlke
Fred Gohlke
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:57 pm
Contact:

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Fred Gohlke »

Good Morning, vegetariantaxidermy

Please critique the points made in the post to Science Fan (above) and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.

Fred Gohlke
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Please critique the points made in the post to Science Fan (above) and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.
As I said before I am not sure I can be of much use in the project of 'improving public participation in the political process'. If I cannot be of use in that, then in what can I be useful? This is the only area (aside from writing out thoughts on various fora) where I have made concrete choices. My choice is to assist in educational projects and elevate the capacity of people to think in rational categories.

I would comment on the first item and say that it is not so much the free exchange of ideas, but rather the free exchange of a certain group of specific ideas that might help people make commitments to participate in political processes in a productive and rational way. (And of course the following items point in this direction).

I would add as well that I think that beginning to think in terms of participation in political and any other process of relationship to society requires getting clear about what one values and what is to be valued. In a social circumstance, and a political circumstance, of tremendous confusion --- as our present seems to me to be --- some part of the process must be that of detoxification or purification. In order to be able to be active, one has to be clear about what one is active about and in relation to. Therefor, a great deal of emphasis is placed on self-education.

If you read anything else that I write you will glean out of it a group of concerns and observations about the present, about people and about perception, but in essence this all has to be with 'how one structures one's perception about who one is and what is going on not only in human culture but in this very realm of existence' (to put it sententiously). How could one make decisions until that is clear?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Walker »

Fred Gohlke wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 4:46 pm Please critique the points made in the following post to Science Fan and offer additional thoughts on improving public participation in the political process. If you do not think this line of thought worth your time, ignore it and accept my apology for bothering you.

Fred Gohlke
Hello Fred.

Land ownership would give everyone an interest and a say, and would bend the trend away from centralization which seems to have become sacrosanct to political thought in the centuries past and present.
- This covers many of your points pointed at SF.
- The details about what determines the size of the interest and loudness of the voice could be ironed out.
- Since a country isn’t a corportation, it’s not a good idea for loudness of the voice to be determined by the number of parcels owned.
- However no land, no say.
- One can own mountaintop or parts of Manhattan. The land value does not determine the voice, only the deed does that.
- The federalies would need to relinquish much of the Western Lands that have been seized, so everyone can buy their little spot of heaven on earth and have a say in society.
- When money is on the line and skin in the game, interest is self-arising and participation naturally happens.

The Legal Status of Women, 1776–1830
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-b ... -1776–1830
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Science Fan »

Fred: My assessment of you is based on your actual writings, which denied one of the most well-established scientific facts of all time ---- evolution. My assessment of you does go to the heart of your argument. Anyone who cannot accept well-established scientific facts is not in a position to tell us how to assess political issues. One cannot even begin having a rational discussion regarding public policy without first admitting to the actual scientific facts pertaining to such discussions. So, for example, since you deny evolution, you may very well advocate for allowing creationism to be taught in a science classroom, which will result in making kids ignorant and stupid.

I'll stand by science, while you and your allies can attack it, but there is no way any of you can then claim to be intellectually honest and interested in the truth.
User avatar
Gustav Bjornstrand
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Gustav Bjornstrand »

Science Fan wrote:Anyone who cannot accept well-established scientific facts is not in a position to tell us how to assess political issues.
I wish to suggest that this is a false statement. You can certainly assert that if someone disagrees with a well-established science-fact that it is conceivable, likely or probable that they might assess political issues similarly, and incorrectly, but it is not certain.

One could for various reasons deny the science of evolution arguments and yet be very adept at making rational and sound judgments in many other categories.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Walker »

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:23 pm
Science Fan wrote:Anyone who cannot accept well-established scientific facts is not in a position to tell us how to assess political issues.
I wish to suggest that this is a false statement. You can certainly assert that if someone disagrees with a well-established science-fact that it is conceivable, likely or probable that they might assess political issues similarly, and incorrectly, but it is not certain.

One could for various reasons deny the science of evolution arguments and yet be very adept at making rational and sound judgments in many other categories.
As theory, current notions of evolution are not yet the absolute around which the universe revolves.

“Epigenetics is the most vivid reason why the popular understanding of evolution might need revising, but it's not the only one. We've learned that huge proportions of the human genome consist of viruses, or virus-like materials, raising the notion that they got there through infection – meaning that natural selection acts not just on random mutations, but on new stuff that's introduced from elsewhere. Relatedly, there is growing evidence, at the level of microbes, of genes being transferred not just vertically, from ancestors to parents to offspring, but also horizontally, between organisms. The researchers Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfield conclude that, on average, a bacterium may have obtained 10% of its genes from other organisms in its environment.”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... enes-wrong
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Science Fan »

Epigenetics does not in any way refute evolution. Not even close. In fact, it adds to it. The same is true for the other issues you mentioned. Evolution is a well-established fact, and anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant of one of the most basic facts of science there is. Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

Here's my suggestion for improving the political process: Give potential voters a test on basic science. Those who deny evolution, and other basic facts of science, are banned from being able to vote that year, until they can pass.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Walker »

:D

So that’s how it is. Well, as the article indicates, this new-fangled theory does highlight that random mutation and natural selection were once thought to be the facts of evolution. Now, a more complete understanding has challenged the old 19th century theory of species propagation and adaptation. Who knows, an even more complete understanding may lead to the discovery of new facts that yet again supplant what is declared to be, the scientific facts.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: the success of a democracy depends on the free exchange of ideas

Post by Science Fan »

You have no idea what you are claiming. Basic biology books, in describing evolution, mention everything you discussed. The lateral transmission of genes is precisely why instead of references to a tree of life, textbooks have been referencing a web of life, for decades now. You are under the mistaken impression that as science uncovers more details about evolution that this somehow undermines the claim of evolution itself. It most definitely does not. You are simply reading an article while lacking the contextual knowledge to evaluate the information properly.
Post Reply