= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sophronius comments on Less Wrong’s political bias - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (352)
I notice that you are perfectly happy to say that UFOs, dowsers and theistic religions can be debunked and should not be given credence. On the other hand, you say that political ideas have science behind them and should be debated. Do you really believe that there is zero overlap between "political ideologies" and "Beliefs that have no science behind them and should be given no credence"? Do you really believe we live in that perfectly convenient world?
Or, and here is an alternative explanation: Are you perhaps unwilling to judge political ideologies based on the same standards as any other idea that you perceive to be factually wrong purely because you would insult some members of your community in the process? And if that is the case, how is your objection any different from saying that I shouldn't call a belief in dowsing crazy, because some of the members of Less Wrong believe in dowsing?
(obvious disclaimer: Obviously I'm not saying that factually wrong political beliefs are limited to one "side" of the argument, etcetera etcetera etcetera)
I'd say religion is pretty solidly political, but I admit I did choose my examples a little poorly. I'm sorry if that has led to confusion because it seems this obscured my point.
Of course not. Marxism as an ideology, and most communist/socialist economic policy in practice, go against core principles of economics on which there is strong consensus. Most other advocated forms of theocracy have little theoretical merit either as they are based on easily disproved doctrines, and while they can have solid social organization their inability to adapt technologically leaves them in the dust in the long run. Other utopian societies like the Shakers are not viable as people who don't reproduce will simply not pass on their culture. Examples abound, it is trivially easy to find them.
But most of the ideas you object to debating here don't fall into that category. A realistic view of race or a belief in more limited government is supported by mainstream biology/psychometry and economics respectively, and thus shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. That was a big part of my point; your idea of what is obviously right or obviously wrong is not necessarily accurate, and calling people crazy for believing something without examining the factual basis of that belief is an epistemological mistake.
I hate to do this, but I can't help but notice that the political ideologies that you say have no credence are left wing. I also notice that the political ideology that you say I can't dismiss is right wing. I do not see why it should be allowed to call communism unfounded but not to say the same of objectivism, or Laisez fair capitalism (in extreme forms for the latter at least, before someone complains. There's nothing wrong with moderate socialist policies either, as they work quite well in practice, despite what the US consensus seems to be).
I'd be glad if I could foist theocracies on the left but sadly I think they probably fit better on the right.
Because communism is based on an economic theory which is directly contradicted by the modern economic consensus, and has consistently failed in practice, while the main contention against "Laissez Fair" capitalism from an economic side is where it ignores market failure (which according to mainstream economics happens due to unclear property rights, a major concern of libertarians to say the least).
Essentially, if the issue deals with settled science then the side with the science wins no contest. If there isn't a consensus, or there is ambiguity with which side the science supports, then there is more than enough room for rational debate.