Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Monday, October 18, 2021

Reflections on faith, and a question or even a challenge.

We recently explored "The Limits of Knowledge" and it covered some very important ground that is precursor to this brief essay.


One of the things it makes clear, is that we all must hold faith based positions in order to operate.


"I think therefore I am" is a faith based position. There is no way to prove that statement without infinite regress or circular reasoning. Anything you build off of such a proposition will be in part, faith based due to it.

Same with any of Aristotle's "First Principles" - they are all faith based, which even he acknowledged.

So we all, in order to operate, must believe some things we can't know to be true. It's simply faith based.

Faith is how we navigate the problems of Munchausen's Trilemma moment to moment. We can't function without faith. We'd be completely paralyzed intellectually.

The practical problem with putting your faith in something that other people can also put their faith in is it means you've created a honeypot for manipulation. Basically, let's say millions of people put their faith in Trump's words. Whoops, Trump turned out to be a liar. Bad idea to put your faith in men and their words. Even good men fuck up, and most of us aren't all that "good" to begin with. We could put our faith in religion (another of man's creation) but we see how that turns out. We could put our faith in something material, but that creates a market for that material, and the opportunists will come knocking just as soon as soon as you hang that shingle. You can put your faith in ideas, but all ideas have an expiration date. There is nothing --- NOTHING -- of this world that is free from corruption and the forces of entropy. Not ideas, not people, not things, not places, nothing.

That is so important to understand.

So when you put your faith in worldly things, and those things eventually fall apart, get outdated, break down, or get corrupted, what then? Changing grounding assumptions is like remodeling your mind. Very few people can do that on a whim.

What about putting your faith in something deeply personal, and to a large degree unknowable even to you? Something not of this world. Something that resists comparison to anything else? Something that is always "other", and is timeless?


Could it be advantageous to construct a theoretical entity that cannot be precisely and positively described and build faith into that?

Unraveling of American society: Public health and COVID tear Americans apart

Radical, enraged, ignorant people savaging and threatening public health officials 
for crimes against humanity, imposing communist tyranny, etc., for the crime 
of trying to mitigate illness, deaths and damage from COVID


I have frequently asserted here that, for the most part, the polarization and unraveling of American society and decreased social trust reflects a fundamentally but intentionally anti-democratic effect of dark free speech (DFS).[1] This poison has been flowing copiously from America's authoritarian radical right for decades. Toxic, divisive DFS has effectively fomented extreme political polarization and massive distrust in, among other things, the MSM, government, now including the Supreme Court, democracy and fellow citizens. The New York Times writes on the loss of fact-based reason and degeneration of public trust in sincere efforts to protect public health in the face of COVID:
PORT ANGELES, Wash. — As she leaves work, Dr. Allison Berry keeps a vigilant eye on her rearview mirror, watching the vehicles around her, weighing if she needs to take a more circuitous route home. She must make sure nobody finds out where she lives.

When the pandemic first hit the northern edge of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula, Dr. Berry was a popular family physician and local health officer, trained in biostatistics and epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. She processed Covid-19 test kits in her garage and delivered supplies to people in quarantine, leading a mobilization that kept her counties with some of the fewest deaths in the nation.

But this summer, as a Delta variant wave pushed case numbers to alarming levels, Dr. Berry announced a mask mandate. In September, she ordered vaccination requirements for indoor dining.

By then, to many in the community, the enemy was not the virus. It was her.

Dr. Berry should be attacked “on sight,” one resident wrote online. Someone else suggested bringing back public hangings. “Dr. Berry, we are coming for you,” a man warned at a public meeting. An angry crowd swarmed into the courthouse during a briefing on the Covid-19 response one day, looking for her, and protesters also showed up at her house, until they learned that Dr. Berry was no longer living there.

“The places where it is most needed to put in more stringent measures, it’s the least possible to do it,” Dr. Berry said. “Either because you’re afraid you’re going to get fired, or you’re afraid you’re going to get killed. Or both.”

State and local public health departments across the country have endured not only the public’s fury, but widespread staff defections, burnout, firings, unpredictable funding and a significant erosion in their authority to impose the health orders that were critical to America’s early response to the pandemic.  
The Times interviewed more than 140 local health officials, public health experts and lawmakers, reviewed new state laws, analyzed local government documents and sent a survey to every county health department in the country. Almost 300 departments responded, discussing their concerns over long-term funding, staffing, authority and community support. The examination showed that:
  • Public health agencies have seen a staggering exodus of personnel, many exhausted and demoralized, in part because of abuse and threats. Dozens of departments reported that they had not staffed up at all, but actually lost employees. About 130 said they did not have enough people to do contact tracing, one of the most important tools for limiting the spread of a virus. The Times identified more than 500 top health officials who left their jobs in the past 19 months.
  • Legislators have approved more than 100 new laws — with hundreds more under consideration — that limit state and local health powers. That overhaul of public health gives governors, lawmakers and county commissioners more power to undo health decisions and undermines everything from flu vaccination campaigns to quarantine protocols for measles. 
  • Large segments of the public have also turned against agencies, voting in new local government leaders who ran on pledges to rein in public health departments. In Idaho, commissioners last month appointed a new physician representative to the health board in the Boise region who advocates unapproved treatments for Covid-19 and refers to coronavirus vaccinations as “needle rape.” “We have heard from the voters,” Ryan Davidson, one of the commissioners, said.
More than 220 departments told The Times they had to temporarily or permanently abandon other public health functions to respond to the pandemic, leading to a spike in drug overdoses and a disturbing drop in reports of child abuse. Several health officials pointed to runaway infections of sexually transmitted diseases, with gonorrhea cases doubling and syphilis on pace to triple in one county in Pennsylvania. Oswego County, N.Y., recorded a surge in lead poisoning. In Texas, requests for exemptions to the usual suite of required childhood immunizations have risen sharply.  
Many, particularly in conservative circles, have increasingly embraced individual rights over collective responsibilities, a trend that Dr. Rosner said is undercutting the notion of a social contract in which people work together to achieve a greater good.

“It’s a depressing moment,” he said. “What makes a society if you can’t even get together around keeping your people healthy?” (emphasis added)

Is this really about needle rape, medical tyranny or something about like that? Most or nearly all of this crackpottery, lies, hate and threats of violence is explicitly or tacitly supported by America's toxic, fascist Republican Party, its supporters and the gigantic propaganda and lies DFS machine that keeps stupidity like this alive. 

Experts who study democracy and tyranny uniformly assert that public trust in democracy, a free press, fellow citizens, government and the like is what helps keep democracy alive and vibrant.[2] When trust significantly fades, as has happened in America, a real and significant opportunity arises for demagogic dictators, autocrats, fascists, kleptocrats, crooks, liars and the like. That is where America is today. 

In my opinion, the evidence is now overwhelming to the point that debating matters like this COVID backlash is futile. It amounts to false balancing or bothsidesism, which is arguably more detrimental than helpful to society and democracy. A significant slice of our society has degenerated to the point that reasonable debate about COVID is akin to trying to rationally debate with climate science deniers, anti-vaxx crackpots, QAnon freaks, radical fundamentalist Christian nationalist ideologues and elites, or laissez faire capitalist ideologues, elites and plutocrats. 

Rational, evidence-based debate is no longer possible. Irrational fear, rage, hate, distrust and etc., have poisoned the minds of tens of millions of deceived, manipulated and betrayed American citizens. That state of affairs is intentionally and knowingly fomented by radical right elites and their propaganda Leviathan whose main goals are building an anti-democratic authoritarian government and accumulating more power and wealth than they already have.


Questions: 
1. Is there enough evidence to argue that for a significant plurality of Americans, rational, evidence-based debate is no longer possible? For example, look at the anger and hate on the faces of the people in the image at the top of this blog post -- can they be rational? 

2. Are experts wrong to look to trust or lack thereof as a key indicator of the health or sickness of a democracy?

3. Is it unreasonable or inaccurate to argue that radical right elites rely heavily on DFS to (i) divide Americans to help them to build an anti-democratic authoritarian government, and/or (ii) accumulate more power and wealth than they already have?


Footnote: 
1. Dark free speech: Constitutionally or legally protected (1) lies and deceit to distract, misinform, confuse, polarize and/or demoralize, (2) unwarranted opacity to hide inconvenient truths, facts and corruption (lies and deceit of omission), (3) unwarranted emotional manipulation (i) to obscure the truth and blind the mind to lies and deceit, and (ii) to provoke irrational, reason-killing emotions and feelings, including fear, hate, anger, disgust, distrust, intolerance, cynicism, pessimism and all kinds of bigotry including racism, and (4) ideologically-driven motivated reasoning and other ideologically-driven biases that unreasonably distort reality and reason. (my label, my definition)

2. One expert, Timothy Snyder, wrote in 2020:
Health care is always political, but the politics can confirm or deny democratic norms and practices. A democratic country that handles a pandemic well generates trust in government, and even national pride. If care is not universal, then the political equation, especially during a pandemic, is entirely different. When citizens cannot imagine security, politics becomes the distribution of insecurity, the allocation of fears and anxieties that push us away from an idea of common citizenship and toward authoritarianism. What is lethal for Americans is also lethal for our democracy.

They stay strong unless they get infected and sick or die
Their concern for the welfare of fellow citizens is apparently low to zero

Sunday, October 17, 2021

The Limits of Knowledge



The Baron lifts himself out of the muck by his own hair...


Not long ago Dcleve and myself started a conversation about the limits of knowledge which I think might be interesting to some of our readers here, and thought this might be a good place to continue it.  It began with Dcleve claiming that there can be no "justified true belief" ( JTB ).  Though this was raised in conversation with someone else, I jumped in and D. provided several interesting comments which hopefully we can expand upon.

First, what is a "justified true belief"?  In a word, knowledge.  Knowledge means broadly that we have certainty of information, that we understand facts.  Here "having" and "understand" refer to the personal conviction we hold, which is a belief, and "facts" refers to truth - to a correlation between our belief and reality.  As we all know, correlation does not imply causation, and hence it is possible to have a belief which is true but for untrue or unsupportable reasons.  A stopped clock is correct twice per day, and all that.  So the final aspect of knowledge is that it is caused by reality, that the reasons we hold that belief to be true leave no room for equally explanatory alternatives.  This justifies the truth of our belief.  A justification in this sense is equivalent to the warrant offered by premises for an argument's conclusion.  Hence, all knowledge - and thus all facts - are the products of reason, of argument and debate, not of transcendent intuition.  Well, almost.

Here's the conversation we started about that:


AN INCLUSIVE TABLE

 

History matters: The other side of the story

By: Eartha Hopkins


The majority of what I know about history was not found in the books I read in a formal classroom.

Instead, I learned about the wide spectrum of culture, traditions, wars and victories of the world from the tender, yet brutally honest approach of my mother who earned a bachelor’s degree in African-American studies from Youngstown State University. It instilled confidence and cultural identity that I still carry with me today.

I learned early the pros and cons of accessing a comprehensive worldview which was in sharp contrast to the lessons I’d be taught in the public school system. I faced reprimands consistently from teachers who did not necessarily agree with the cultural lens that I presented. 

An example that stands out the most is in the fourth grade when my teacher initiated a lesson about Columbus discovering America. When I questioned my teacher about how a man could discover a land that was already inhabited by people, she dismissed my inquiries and described to me and my 20 classmates that they were savages. 

Webster defines "savage" as "not being domesticated or under human control, and/or a beast." This is the framework created in the minds of a group of children expected to accept and trust their teacher. Luckily for me, my mother offered a safe space to discuss a 360-degree-view of history. I can only imagine how my classmates interpreted and internalized this message, particularly my peers of color. 

Throughout my academic journey, I would never be formally introduced to the existence and contributions of Africans before the transatlantic slave trade. Worse, the story of the civil rights movement was rendered incomprehensible because it was filled with the tropes of biased myths portrayed in media.

Omissions of accurate records of my past would create a disconnect that I would fight against to keep my identity intact. If I based my worth and value solely on what was presented to me in public institutions, I would exist in a myriad of confusion, unclear of my role within society.

Education from my perspective seemed one-sided; full of only non-Black protagonists and their viewpoint minus the various multicultural groups I knew to be true. The stories I read reflected perspectives, accomplishments and discoveries of people who rarely shared my culture, or looked like me or my community for that matter.

Even as an adult, I can still see the misguided teachings of what my fourth-grade teacher displayed in the world today.

I am just as perplexed now as I was then at how certain groups of people are dehumanized, displaced and completely omitted from American reverence. This lack of appreciation and dismissal of the full spectrum of humanity can never unite, but only further disconnects communities.

To embrace the full experiences of everyone is to begin a true process of healing and reconciliation; to create a world where we all are seen, heard and validated authentically.