Re: n, non-U

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

What is this brutal formatting that you use on your posts?

Calhoun wrote:

Dan, all,

Over the last weeks and going back to the Democratic primary race, I've

had several discussions about the nature of experience. As you well know

given your background, psychologists who specialize in expert and

decision-making behavior and cognitive performance view experience as a

feature of behavior that integrates with other features and factors.

That could be said about all "features of behavior," couldn't it?

The question, 'who is more experienced?' will evoke a 'folk

psychological'

answer that substantially, if not completely, departs from what the

researchers have noted. Still, the bottom line is what do we need to

know

to have confidence in predicting whether future decisions will be good

ones?

We need a track record - and the record is skimpy in the cases of both

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Palin.

And this leads to regarding other features and factors.

So, I see you wanting to pull the wool over my eyes on this.

Not a bit of it. What wool?

Luckily, the

inchoate and ill-informed views necessarily predominate in politics. I

would say we don't really know if Mrs. Palin is, in the cognitive sense,

very capable. However, one rule of thumb we can employ is that her

decision making will correspond to an inflexible set of rules, call this

ideology, and, in this respect, it might not matter whether she is

capable

or not.

Mrs. Palin is of high but not extraordinary intelligence. I would like

to know her (pre-1995) SAT scores, because then I could estimate an IQ

score. Call it 125-135. In general, her "ideology" will lead to good

decisions insofar as it corresponds to a tradition, and tradition, like

evolution, is cleverer than we are - most of the time. Regarding the

situations that require genuine prudence, however, at this point I have

no read on her ability.

***

It seems to me Barry Goldwater was the last principled Conservative.

A massive loser, if memory serves. People call their opponents

"principled," in my observation, as a sort of consolation compliment

when they are no longer a threat.

How

it is that Conservatism is still offered today as a kind of

traditionalism, and, at the same times, the political tactics

deploy the

modern version of the Big Lie*, seems to lead to a dissonant

proposition:

'gain power at all costs and then revert to decency and principle.'

The "big lie?' What big lie? I can't see that conservative politicians

lie any more than do others. There is no big, overriding lie. I

It is true that, without power, you can accomplish nothing.

>This doesn't strike me as a trustworthy position. Makes me think

of Carl

>Schmitt more than Russsell Kirk.

>But a sucker is born every minute. Probably the Democratic brand is

in

>worse shape.

"Well, it's a very strange political campaign. I mean, out on the

campaign

trail, McCain and Palin are talking about how they stood up

to

the Republican party, they fought the Republican establishment, and they

battled Republicans. Their message: vote Republican."

---Jay Leno

***

>>inorganic matter just sorta *organized itself* into primitive

life

>Generally, AG Pentacostals are young earth creationists.

>The actuality was: inorganic matter organized into primitive life

Ah, you can't trick me with grammar, Mr. Darrow. If inorganic matter

organized into primitive life, it either organized itself, or it was

organized by something else. If that something else was also inorganic

matter, then we are back to inorganic matter organizing itself. If it

was not inorganic matter, then it was organic matter (of some kind),

i.e. life. Life creates life - nothing extraordinary about that,

"intelligent" or not. It may be that nature itself is alive or

"pro-life." Non-life creating life - that is extraordinary, and bears

the burden of proof.

>Scientists don't know much at all about how this came about.

By "not much at all" I assume you mean "nothing." Yet they assert

that it did. Why? "Must have done - after all, here we are, aren't we?"

Pure petitio principii.

>Whereas

>creationists entertain a wide range of beliefs that go from the

young

>earthers to the--so far--discredited attempts to infer a

supernatural

>hidden hand behind many mechanisms of biological generativity.

>There is also the perspective that God created the mechanisms of

>evolution. Ask yourself why this doesn't sit well with creationists

of any

>stripe?

What? This is the very essence of Roman Catholic teaching on the

matter. Are Roman Catholics not creationists of a stripe? They would be

surprised to learn that they are not.

>Palin wants to teach the controversy. There is no controversy,

And yet there is undeniably conflict - people fight about it. But if

there is conflict, there must be controversy. That's what controversy

is. I assume that what you mean is that there is no controversy on the

matter among scientists, except for the few that disagree. Or, that

there is no controversy among the scientists who agree. Of course

there is no controversy among those who agree - agreement is the

opposite of controversy. I'm sorry - overruled.

"There is no controversy" means, "trust me, I'm a doctor." Not good

enough. I do note that many scientists seem flummoxed that so many of

the public are not willing to take their pronouncements on faith.

Despite the fact that there is no controversy, I want to hear all

about the controversy, and so do many of our fellow citizens.

>but to want

>to teach it anyway simply means Mrs. Palin has been indoctrinated

and,

>very likely, wouldn't be able to articulate in rational terms why

>Intelligent Design should be raised to the level of a scientific

>competitor to evolution. Of course nobody else has articulated this

>rationally, so this isn't a big knock on Palin! But the agenda is

to, in a

>sense, "overrule" both science and evolution, and have it defer to a

>Christian cosmological scheme.

That's really the issue for the left, isn't it? It's not fear of a

scientific discussion of the problems with the theory of evolution,

which are legion and no doubt discussed by scientists among

themselves. It's political fear of the many, and what they will make

of it all. It is fear that science will be limited or curtailed

through the political order. It is fear, even, of the loss of the

"enlightenment."

I doubt that there is reason for such fear in a general sense - all

the demons are already out of the box, and won't go back in (now,

individual scientists might fear for their own individual careers and

"freedom of inquiry," but that is a different matter). As you know, imo

Enlightenment will put paid to itself, and probably sooner rather than

later. No need for any futile political scheming on that score.

I have no doubt that Mrs. Palin could recount the ID questions and

arguments at least as well as the enxt guy.

>Your analogy about dealing out royal flushes doesn't make sense

because,

>at a minimum, you have to also make sense of the less patterned

deal that

>comes after your amazing string.

My amazing string is unlikely to the point of utter implausibility -

that was the point. The "less patterned" deal which comes later is

covered by the known laws of probablity and causality. It corresponds

to "natural selection," which does occur and does make sense.

>And, you don't actually make any >account

>for your amazing string;

Precisely - you can't account for the amazing string. The

"pro-life" explanation (I decline to call it supernatural, in part

because that term does not seem to mean anything) is indeed the most

parsimonious. The "matter in motion interacting by blind chance"

hypothesis requires one to believe six impossible things before

breakfast, whereas true parsimony entails believing in no more than two.

>you sound here like the creationist sociologist

>Steve Fuller, who thinks the supernatural explanation is the most

>'parsimonious.'

regards,

* and the Big Lies are stacking up into an impressive edifice of

mendacity.

I love the phrase "impressive edifice of mendacity" and will steal

it for my own use, if you don't mind, or even if you do. Are you sure

you weren't Jennings in a past life?

best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

You'd have to send me a screencap of my formatting. It goes out as plaintext.

I don't think Mrs. Palin is very smart in any substantial sense of

cognitive complexity and cognitive capability. (In the scheme of campaigns

this doesn't matter.) I have no evidence of her possessing any great

intelligence. The Gibson interview adds to this impression that she is

also ignorant, albeit she is being actively programmed to spout stuff.

And, she is a serial liar. Isn't that a sin for a Christian fundy? FGunny

stuff too: Mrs. Palin and McCain lawyers haved moved to shut down the

Troopergate investigation of Mrs. " Transparency. "

I'm not buying your slim rationale that where controversy exists it should

be taught. The thing with an articulation of ID, for example, is that it

has to rationalize it's agenda by appealing to research that has not yet

been found credible. So it's not controversial because it makes a strong

case, it's controversial because its clothing a Christian designer with

pseudo-science.

***

But the tradition you usually speak of is the superior ruling the

inferior. This isn't really captured in Mrs. Palin's nomination to the

ticket, is it?

Still, the small town gunners may beat the cosmopolitan sippers. I doubt

Mrs. Palin will be the first ignorant hick to reach such a high spot and

higher calling.

regards,