Today I have another guest blogger that writes about what it means to be a moderate.
I want to describe two ways to be a moderate in politics. The first, what I'll refer to as the political centrist, believes that the right solution to problems is found in the middle of extreme views. This idea goes as far back as Epicuris in Ancient Greece who taught that the best way to live was a life of moderation. This was later refined into a moral theory by Aristotle who wrote that morally correct actions are those performed by a person whose disposition or character trait falls in the middle of two extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a moderate disposition between the two extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness.
In the US, the political centrist adopts a similar stance for political solutions. A political centrist argues something like, "The correct solution to problem x is to find the middle ground between the liberal and conservative and adopt that position since either extreme is, by their nature, incorrect."
The other way to be a moderate is to recognize that joining political parties or embracing their claimed ideologies are not the way to decide social, economic, and diplomatic issues. Rather, this moderate examines the specific situation, examines the political views, and adopts the position that has the most weight of reason behind it. I will refer to the adopter of this position as a rational moderate.
The first view of being a moderate, the political centrist view, is fallacious. It succumbs to what is known as the "fallacy of the mean". Stated simply: just because a presented conclusion is in the middle of two extremes does not make it the correct conclusion.
For example, the seemingly never ending debate between teaching intelligent design and evolution in public school science classes across the country can be seen as two extreme positions. On the one extreme are the creationists, gussied up in the smarter clothes of intelligent design, arguing that evolutionary theory is incorrect. On the other extreme are Darwinists who think that intelligent design is pseduo-science at best and religious propaganda in public schools at worst. The centrist position would adopt a compromise view, such as either teaching both extremes, "teaching the controversy", or allowing some formal announcement deriding evolution as "just a theory" by administrators or stickers in textbooks. The problem with the centrist view in this situation is that it is wrong. The weight of the evidence that gives us the fact of natural selection based on biological research as well as the explanatory and predictive power of evolutionary theory coupled with the weight of reason that shows us that science should be taught in science classes and religion should be kept out makes the centrist conclusion the wrong conclusion. It doesn't help the centrist that every claim that intelligent design proponents make has been thoroughly dismissed and debunked by the scientific community. (Just Google "Project Steve" to see what I mean.)
The rational moderate would look at this and be swayed by the weight of logic and evidence on one side over the other. Some might argue that this shows a an inherent bias that a rational moderate is attempting to hide. Like our romanticized ideal of journalism, a true moderate should keep an open mind and remain impartial to both sides. Truth, however, is biased. Some positions are objectively better than others. And so rather than pull out our college football pennants with "Republican" or "Democrat" printed in large block letters and wave them wildly in the air for the current political speech regardless of the content of the message but simply because they're on our team, the rational moderate actually listens to what the speaker is saying and makes a rational choice based on logic and evidence.
The country could use a lot more of them. And the ones that are here should be really, really angry.
The Rational Moderate
7 comments:
I have to say that both camps when it comes to the study of Evolution "bug me." So that puts me in to the "moderate" camp on this subject without taking the "mean" position.
I don't think I will take the space here to rant on any anti-evolutionists, the camp I have the least sympathy with. But I do want to point out some things about the pro-evolution camp that can really bother me:
*they often fall into the same language usage as the other camp, saying they "believe in Evolution" as readily as the foe says they "don't believe" in it. Sorry, this is not about belief systems.
*in their ranks are many radicals, thus the unfortunate development of "social Darwinism" and other eugenics evils.
*they have often employed dishonest arguments and been duped by hoaxes. The best examples of this are the infamous "evolution of the horse" canard and "Piltdown Man" hoax.
Trivia Question (not for those wanting to put Scientists on a pedestal): How many years did the Piltdown Man hoax stand as factual until it finally was acknowledged to be a fallacy?
also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson
I think the example of teaching evolution or intelligent design certainly does not lend itself well to this argument. In my mind, when you have an issue where the sides are diametrically opposed, it is not possible for a neutral party to listen to both sides and find the compromised position. In fact, the Board of Ed in the county in PA (sorry, I forget which one), where this issue was occurring, was not neutral, nor were they looking for compromise. The Board was dominated by religious conservatives who dictated that stickers be placed on science text books and forced teachers to read a statement that evolution is a "theory" only because they felt that was the furthest they could get away with under the law. Turns out they were wrong, but I would not consider that the act of a centrist trying to split the baby. I agree that a moderate in this case should listen to both sides and then choose the option that is most rational. I do not believe in this example that there are people trying to find a compromise position, nor do I think that they should.
Alternatively, I think there are many (most?) issues where one can find a compromise position. Take No Child Left Behind. There is a problem that I think most people can agree on. Schools are failing too many children (not in the literal sense), particularly though not exclusively, in urban school districts. The Bush administration designed a law to help measure schools progress and keep schools and teachers accountable. Again, I think most people would agree on the goals. Accountability and stronger educational goals for students. The fact is with this law, everybody was unhappy with the outcome. Now both right and left are coming together to figure out how to modify the law to better work. This is how the process should work. I commend the Bush administration for getting the ball rolling by coming together with people on the other side, like Ted Kennedy and working out a solution. I also think it's highly appropriate to adjust the law when things aren't working in the real world.
The problem in the last 20 years is that both sides are unwilling to compromise. Compromise has become a dirty word. It lends credibility to your opponents' way of thinking and seeing the world. If the end game in politics is a zero sum game, then why compromise? The reality is if you do not compromise, you end up with nothing but inaction and decay. Is compromise always appropriate? No. But if we always see people who think about the world differently as our enemies, we will never get anywhere. If you have common goals with your opponent, it is not only possible to compromise, it is imperative to do so before the art is lost.
I think that this analysis is too simplistic in terms of moderation and compromise. When it comes to black and white factual issues, such as science, specifically evolution, I do not for one moment believe that "moderates" compromise with stickers. Moderates do as you say, engage in rational thought. But there are many issues for which the answer is not black and white--emotional issues, issues of judgment where the results sought are influenced by subjective goals, attitudes, feelings etc. In this case, there is room for compromise on most issues. But it comes not from rational thought but a willingness to see the basis for your opponents beliefs and make an effort to honor them to some degree. For example, moderates believe in free speech and freedom of religion. That does not mean they are willing to put the Ten Commandments on every corner if asked. But they also do not begrudge advocates the right to make their case and to perhaps find a way to allow the expression without an extreme position--such as temporary displays, or sometimes PC kinds of actions like the menorah with the Xmas tree. What does it hurt really to be inclusive? But this sort of compromise pisses off people who feel very strongly about a Christian Nation blah blah blah. That is no reason not to compromise
We may not get the same compromise from them and it may not make everyone happy but it is just enough. That is the art of compromise. I am not sure that is an issue of being a "moderate."
I agree that this is not a good subject to use to illustrate the point, and I think by letting Merriam Webster speak for me we might all see this is a self defeating discussion. First let me say if moderates and centrists are going to be a force to reckon with we cannot be distracted by this kind of argument. We should as a group understand diversity and complexity. Only if we unite with that as a foundation will we matter. Otherwise we will be sniped and picked apart, abandoning ourselves to one of the two parties, lost among their idealogues.
From Merriam Webster on line:
Main Entry: 3mod•er•ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-d(ə-)rət\
Function: noun
Date: 1794
: one who holds moderate views or who belongs to a group favoring a moderate course or program
Main Entry: 1mod•er•ate
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-d(ə-)rət\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin moderatus, from past participle of moderare to moderate; akin to Latin modus measure
Date: 15th century
1 a: avoiding extremes of behavior or expression : observing reasonable limits (a moderate drinker) b: CALM, TEMPERATE2 a: tending toward the mean or average amount or dimension b: having average or less than average quality : MEDIOCRE3: professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme4: limited in scope or effect5: not expensive : reasonable or low in price6of a color : of medium lightness and medium chroma
Main Entry: cen•trist
Pronunciation: \ˈsen-trist\
Function: noun
Date: 1872
1often capitalized : a member of a center party2: a person who holds moderate views
looks like the danger for the moderate is to be defined as 'mediocre'
BTW, the answer to the trivia question [how long did the Piltdown Man hoax stand] ...
over 40 years!
And, BTW, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread and make it all about Evolution, but just wanted to reply to the portion that interested me.
I'm not sure if I should respond to comments about essays I've written in these types of forums, but what the hell...
I see two problems
1) The distinction between facts and values
2) The distinction between politicians and voters.
I'll address them as the come up.
The first commenter argued that the model of evolution was not a good way to describe the situation since Evolution proponents are just as quick to claim belief in evolution as their religious counterparts. The question is: Evolution - fact or faith?
Stating that Evolution proponents believe in evolution as a critique of their position can't be simply because they believe something that is true. Of course they believe something that is true, just as much as I believe that when I jump in the air I will come back down. So, the critique must be belief in the terms of faith. For that I would like to see the evolutionary biologist who actually claims that her belief in evolution is based solely on faith and not the decades of research, explanatory power and predictability that evolution has. The argument that evolutionary theory is as much a religion as, well, religion, comes solely from anti-evolutionary sources.
I suppose the reason why some make this mistake is because religio-speak is based in terms of truth. It's true that Moses talked to a burning bush (Not so much the problem as the bush talking back). It's true that Jesus walked on water. It's true that a UFO will take our spirits away to the next level (Heavens Gate). The difference between these "truths" and scientific truths is that scientific ones are testable and so can be proven false. Just because they both use the terms "true" and "belief" doesn't mean they mean the same thing.
Secondly, science does have one unfortunate problem: It's filled to the brim with scientists who are people. Can you believe it? Actual living homo sapiens. No wonder we don't know everything. And people are often prone to all kinds of errors in reasoning, despite being fairly intelligent and able to get by just fine in the world. Stating that some of the folk who hold evolution as fact and then adopt a value system based on that is a non sequitur to the original distinction I was making in the essay. Moreover, just because they have values that you disagree with does not mean that the facts they adopt are wrong. Bush sucks, but if he truthfully said that he believed that the earth revolved around the sun, his sucking is not a reason to deny the facts of that claim. And as far as the piltdown man hoax, being wrong about things is sign that science is working correctly. Scientific claims are falsifiable, which means that a lot of them end up being false. What would be a problem for scientists is if after critical examination and rigorous study they still held that the piltdown man is real as much as some of faith cling to the notion that the Shroud of Turin is really the burial cloth of Christ.
The confusion of facts and values also shows up in the next few comments which argue for compromise in contrast to my argument that truth is biased and trumps a "mean" position. Facts are in the realm of truth and those are biased. So a situation such as compromising on whether or not the earth is flat, or the moon revolves around the earth, or that the universe s 14 billion years old, or that life on this planet shares a common ancestor are not open to compromise in the same way that judging whether or not we should take money from citizens and use it to build homeless shelters or pass a law to raise the speed limits in states. Certain facts in these situations are not ultimately open to compromise. If lowering speed limits saves lives but hurts the economy, that is not something that you compromise about. However what you do next is open to compromise, such as one side wanting to lower it because they value lives more and the other valuing the economy more than the loss of a few more lives. Somewhere in the middle of those options of value might be necessary to make any sort of progress between these two groups.
But we, as moderates, don't have to compromise.
We're voters not politicians. And so we don't have to compromise when deciding who we want in office, but rather can take a look at the candidates and see if they are who we think can 1) actually recognize facts and 2) shares at least some of our values. Part of the problem with the craptastic politicians we get is because voters play the compromise game rather than vote for those they actually want in power.
This is not to say that a politicians ability to compromise should not be a consideration in our casting our vote. Since compromise can get things that we like done (and with our being angry has the added benefit of pissing off the other side too) this could be a trait we admire in our politicians. But it is not a trait that we as voters need adopt.
And as far as anonymous - First, put the dictionary away. I defined the terms how I was going to use them. If you didn't like how I used centrist and political moderate, then substitute them with Gorflin and Punshick respectively. Second, I'm not a moderate and independent so I can go and join another party and just fall in line. I don't like political parties and I'm certainly not going to just go along with a new one because they call themselves moderate. The point of being a moderate is the blessing of not being a joiner which means we are going to disagree about things. Deal with it. Or grab your pennant and join the Green Party, Working Families Party, Whig Party or whatever crappy political party you choose and wave that flag while lock-stepping to whatever the other drones in that group march to. No thanks.
Rational Punshick (Moderate)
A Conservative's Viewpoint on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, and Public Education
As a Conservative (don't immediately confuse me with fringe wackos, that just isn't the majority of us), I don't like the fact that morality has been removed from our school system, along with our national holidays (Christmas), patriotism (The Pledge), and the real meanings of our Constitution and laws.
Religion (Christianity) has also been removed from our schools. I'm not totally disagreeing with it, but you must realize the consequences that have come about since. Just take a look at our society today, especially our youth. On the whole, and with exceptions, they have no education, no skills (other than recording their own rap music and shooting their own home-made porn), no morality, no shame, no dignity, no restraint, no decorum, no civility, no respect for authority, and lack the capacity to think rationally. Therefore, they have no future.
I have little understanding of "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design." These came about after my time in school. But from what I do know, it's Creation. So the idea of hiding or disguising it is a little stupid. I mean, what's really the point?
I think the only point is to get it back into the school curriculum. Why not just have classes in religion? Why disguise it? Teach evolution in science class, with all it's flaws and questions, and teach Creation in religion class, with all it's flaws and questions. And if some smart student (or smart-ass student) asks the impending questions "which is right?" or "this says this, and that says that, how can they both be right?" The teacher just as to say this is the theory of evolution, that's the religious text. Delving deeper into the question isn't really necessary. There are some things in this world each person must investigate further for their own interest and decide on which answer works best for them. We're not assembling androids in schools, after all.
Our public school system used to be the envy of the world. Consider how much more eloquent and educated people from previous generations sound when you read their personal correspondence and public speeches. Then compare that to how people write and speak today. Most adults can't construct a proper sentence, or use correct spelling or punctuation. But they sure do feel good about themselves, don't they? They won't let you give them any "attitude" or "diss" them, or they'll bring you to court, or just sucker punch you.
Our school system used to do several things. 1. Educate the kids in matters of the sciences, language/literature, art/cultures, society/government. 2. Teach them to think with logic and reason. 3. Train them to become good, productive members of society through discipline, positive interaction, and by example, and 4. Teach them a skill or trade so they can earn a living. Please tell me how today's public education system fulfills any of those.
We need to get rid of classes like Fashion Merchandising, Fashion Design, Food Service & Hospitality, Video Production (that will cut a LOT of money from the budget right there), Ebonics (if that's still taught anywhere), Film Appreciation, Science Fiction Literature, and many others. That may sound harsh or ridiculous to some, but I think it's more important that graduates are able to read & write English and make change than it is for them to be able to show how well they can draw the cutest, shortest miniskirt or tell you all about the most awesome sci-fi movie they'd love to make; more scientists & engineers, less interior decorators.
And all this insane anger and subversion has to stop. Parents need to take responsibility for their children and their education, and take them to Church instead of hoping the school teaches them about morality. And if a socio-political group wants to indoctrinate people into their ranks, why can't they just wait until the kids are out of school, of consenting age, and supposedly able to make their own decisions as an adult. But, of course, asking for objective and altruistic restraint from 99.999% of people is like asking a gorilla to give us his perspectives on faster than light travel.
Anyway, I guess my eventual point here is that the theory of evolution and Creation should both be taught, not in the same class, and that neither one answers all questions but both of them answer a lot depending on your question, religion shouldn't be removed from our culture or our classrooms, there's room and a necessity for both. And in the process, let's get down to the real job of our public education system, which is to teach.
NoGuff (a friend of ARC)
Post a Comment