Seasons

Ever since my frustrating experience with discussing Quantum Mechanics a few weeks back, I have been intrigued by the process of discussion as it appears here (and presumably elsewhere). I had (rather naively) thought that the purpose of such discussions was to reveal truth, or some fragment of approximate truth, or at least to build consensus. Instead, I found that, in spite of the fact that Psimagus and I are both quite intelligent and fairly polite, and in spite of the fact that we had the resources of the entire net at our fingertips, including numberless articles on Quantum Mechanics, we were unable to achieve any consensus at all about even the most basic principles of the discipline.

This was very striking to me. It was as if two able-bodied adults had been unable to lift a table fork.

Is there perhaps a centrifugal force in our culture, or perhaps in human nature generally, that leads people away from consensus, instead of guiding them towards it? At times it seems to me that we are each following a program something like this:

1.    Find something to disagree about and make your position known.
2A. If others disagree with you, then argue with them.
2B. If others agree with you, goto 1.

Yes, it seems strange to me that you can't get a consensus, 'that it's wrong to torture babies'. I know that rabbits eat their young, but most rabbits pull out their own hair to keep the young warm. I know that man has always tortured babies, but The fact that we are here shows it wasn't the norm. I also know during the times that man was torturing babies, someone came in and tried to save one (baby). I think that it is easy to talk about it academically, but I wonder if any of us could look at such a thing and not vomit. I don't apologize for my beliefs. I don't expect anyone to believe as I do. When It comes to the psycho guy going to let the many live for the one I torture. I am sorry, I woundn't do deals, I wouldn't pity him. I would fight him tooth and nail until he killed me. (which he no doubt had planned anyway).With luck I will take him by surprise, and rip his heart out. Yes, this is killing, if I succeed, but I will claim self defense, and go eat a Big Extra with cheese.

The tendency to debate rather than agree may be cultural, but I think there is more to it. Remember when we were talking about building hand held lie detectors and I said I preferred teaching critical thinking and healthy debate skills (or some such). It's a good thing to have healthy and vigorous debate when you honestly have different views.

Critical analysis is probably a habit from my academic background. I don't pick at things to pick at things, but I think about what I read and present different views and analysis. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I think doing anything else would be dishonest of me. Also, as I mentioned, I have been bored and unable to upload for a while, so I tend to post more and get caught in what I see as a debate.

Group-think can be dangerous and dissent is important if you value "truth". That assertion rests on my philosophy that we all have limits and can never actually attain the "Truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". I think everything we learn is "true until further notice", and can be adjusted later, and it's good to test what you know and debate it every so often. A consensus is too much like being done learning, though there are time I agree because some things seem obvious at a certain point.

Please understand, I'm not arguing with you for the sake of arguing. I debate because this board seems like it's intelligent and educated and it seems to be a good place to discuss ideas. There are times I build on what I agree with in others' posts, it's just that I have my own thoughts and opinions.

We all have pieces of the truth, but no one has "The Truth". Maybe I should look harder to say "What about what this person just said could be true, and in what circumstances is it useful?" There is a value to that too.

Prob,

I'll agree that I am against torturing babies, and that most people are and should be against torturing babies. I just don't think that proves morals are objective or universal. If you want agreement, I'll agree that I don't like torturing babies for fun, and that I would try to stop such an act.

I am thinking of books by Konrad Lorenz. His theory about built in inhibitions in animals..Humans were sorely lacking in most, but I think he had a point, there are some universal norms found in life. Whether you want to think of evolution or the hand of God.

Sounds interesting Prob. :-)

What sort of "universal norms"?

(Warning: there is a good chance I will disagree with him, because the minute I hear "universal" it raised red flags in my head, but then again, you may have to consider tha possibility that I am evil )

Prob,

Sorry to pester, all I have of his right now is on imprinting. Should I be reading "On Aggression" http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415283205&id=rIVK7wuY3kIC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=bR6gS1lGp2&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=rLyUkQOWyY5F9DfVmvSMCkJ4-U8,

Man Meets Dog http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0415267447&id=qHUH2fj1dy0C&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=Ve0Hsh-UYa&dq=inauthor:lorenz+inauthor:konrad&sig=z8MxT5oXbCSNDMfdAHEvotdHjgE

Or something else? I'll try to be nice and let you teach me what you read. Just tell me what to read so I can keep up.

(Warning: there is a good chance I will disagree with him, because the minute I hear "universal" it raised red flags in my head,

It is worth remembering that universal is not synonymous with absolute. I would say there are qualities to evil that may be validly described as absolute within the bounds of humanity. But in the absence of humanity, its morality doesn't exist - it isn't "universal" in that sense (any more than numbers do without minds to conceive them.)

If the primates hadn't won out, and the dominant intelligent lifeform on the planet had evolved from felines instead, then cruelty might quite possibly not be an evil thing at all, within the bounds of felinity.

And it is perfectly natural behaviour for male lions to kill cubs they have not sired - it makes good evolutionary sense for a species that lives in a structure of prides balanced by a dominance hierarchy of largely itinerant males.
So for a lion, torturing cubs to death is a positively good thing (so long as it's not their own) - it enhances their genes' impact on the genepool by freeing up a female lion to mate with (they won't come on heat while they're rearing young,) as well as providing practice in keeping their instincts and claws keen. The benefits extend to the wellbeing of the whole species.
I'm glad I'm not a lion, but I imagine an intelligent lion might well say much the same about being human.

but then again, you may have to consider tha possibility that I am evil )

Perhaps we all have evil twins out there, like antiparticles. Best to avoid seeking them out though - you know what happens when you mix matter and antimatter!

I'm not sure that Evolution, or biology in general, has that much to say about human beings. Evolution is a trial-and-error process, and we are so new, and so different from other species, that no significant 'trial' period has yet taken place.

Oh, yes, "When our ancestors were evolving on the East African plain, those who were capable of writng Impressionist tone-poems, formulating theories of Quantum Gravity, playing electric guitars, driving cars, answering telephones, using desktop computers, and programming bots had a greater chance of survival than the others, and that is why we have these abilities." Yeah, sure. To the convinced, all things are convincing!

. . . and when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Going back to the arguing about arguing argument (re-reads that line to make sure it makes sense, tries to say fast three times and sprains tongue) I am reminded of Edward de Bono and his Six Hats method, which works on the idea of parallel thinking (admittedly it is more of a problem solving strategy and not necessarily relevant to the concept of arguing philosophically).

De Bono argued (and I realise that that too is funny as the opening to a statement) that the foundation of Western thinking (mostly thanks to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) is argument. However in 80% of the dialogues that Socrates figures in (as written down or made up by Plato) there is not a constructive outcome.
De Bono also mentioned Plato's cave, a metaphor which suggested one can only perceive certain layers of the truth (much as many of us here have suggested).

Basically, de Bono's conclusion was that as a result of this, Western thinking is concerned with 'what is' rather than 'what can be' which is intended to design a way forward.

I guess what that amounts to is argument for argument's sake. In the end it isn't about who is right, but who can dress up their points in the spiffiest clothes, just like in High School debating. Anyone who has sat through yet another unproductive staff meeting where the same people steer the discussion to their own hang-ups, issues, agendas and grievances and bog things down in riding the merry-go-round of pointing out why "we shouldn't have to deal with this problem" or "isn't this typical of management/the department/the government to saddle us with all the work and not offer any solution" etc, etc will know what I mean.

This is all intended more as observation. I'm not thinking clearly enough to be able to get in the same orbit as a point, and like I said, when one is arguing philosophy or morality, that's all one can do; argue. Because like QM, moral dilemmas and the like, it's all largely theoretical, and therefore right (and let's not get into a semantic argument over what I mean by right) answers don't generally exist. It's just a case of taking a stance and doing your best to back up your position. It's kind of like politics, except we don't throw as much mud around here.

I wonder to what extent the apparently widespread feeling that "right answers don't generally exist" is the result of the failure to achieve consensus on such answers. Such failure might be due to the nonexistence of such answers, but it could also be due to the debater's mentality described by Corwin.

I might add that if I were exploiting a bunch of people and didn't want them to organize themselves, I could hardly do better than encourage them to resist coming to consensus on anything.

I guess what that amounts to is argument for argument's sake. In the end it isn't about who is right, but who can dress up their points in the spiffiest clothes, just like in High School debating

You may have a point there, Corwin. While I stand behind everything I said, and posted what I think is "right", I'll admit I enjoy the debate aspect of articulating my thoughts and analysis the evidence and counter arguments. I think there is some value in that process, but I will admit there is a point where it becomes less valuable.

Anyone who has sat through yet another unproductive staff meeting where the same people steer the discussion to their own hang-ups, issues, agendas and grievances and bog things down in riding the merry-go-round of pointing out why "we shouldn't have to deal with this problem" or "isn't this typical of management/the department/the government to saddle us with all the work and not offer any solution" etc, etc will know what I mean.

When I taught high school, I used to think of those people as helpfully diverting the department chair's attention so I could grade papers until it was time to go. Was that wrong?

Basically, de Bono's conclusion was that as a result of this, Western thinking is concerned with 'what is' rather than 'what can be' which is intended to design a way forward.

That's a very interesting perspective. So what would a way forward look like in this context?

I could support and promote a "universal" bill of human rights, regardless of what everyone thought those rights were based on. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter to me whether they are based on natural law, principals that we have evoloved or created, or a subjective desrire to promote human dignity. The fact is, for whatever reason, I do want to promote human dignity.

What could such a declaration of rights include and how would we spread it? If the declaration is not a good idea, what else could we do?