I think I would probably combine several of those since 2 and 3 are very similar, as are 4, 5 and 6. I would add an additional : "Strive to be aware of your own stupidity."
A bit too idealistic for my tastes, but definitely pointing in the right direction. Some criticism from a rather more cynical idealist (if that makes sense):
Some justifications should be more nuanced: Depending on the subject, the evidence is not sure to come to light, and it is not always more inconvenient to conceal it. Truth, alas, doesn't always prevail. A laudable principle in, say, theoretical science, certainly, but not so much in forensics. A victory dependent upon authority is, alas, all too often real. Dictators or office dictators are an unfortunately common example of it.
But let's only take the authority as in "appeal to authority". As such, it can sometimes still be justified, for example if time is limited or there is danger. If the fire-fighter tells me that no, splashing water on that fire will only make it worse (however contrived it sounds to me), it's not a good idea to start an experimental study on the effects of water on phosphorus or electrical fire.
In a less dramatic and more common case, children need to respect the authority of their tutors - this is not optional, education demands rules and limits to be fixed. Particularly in the case of small children, they simply don't have the mental pathways to argument with anyway, and it's actually your job as a tutor to help them develop those. So having no respect for the authority of others is an unfortunate (and in some cases, dangerous) extreme of what would otherwise be a good thing to keep in mind.
Also, in a fool's paradise, the fool is indeed happy. The point is not to be happy but to be satisfied by what we do. The fool's paradise is, to us, deeply unsatisfying, because, well, doing nothing but consume and unthink, doing nothing with their lives, isn't generally something we consider worthwhile for our lives.
All in all, a B- Good efforts and interesting ideas - can be simplistic, but definitive progress. With more nuances, can definitely achieve a solid A in the future. Of course, feel free to counter-argument.
Elie Thorne I agree, the image is rather over-simplified.
My take would be that some subjects, like fire-fighting, do have authorities. It is 100% certain (or near as damn it) that a fire-fighter's advice will be correct, because they have actual experience dealing with fires. They have knowledge about the subject which is as close to certain as is possible. Fire is hot and burns things, there is no room for ifs and buts. They can legitimately be considered to be an authority - the situation is simple and well-tested enough that their status as a fire-fighter alone is enough to justify following their advice.
This doesn't work at all when it comes to the forefront of theoretical physics research. Here, anyone thinking themselves an authority when they are in fact merely experts is deluded. Being an expert does give one more clout than being an ignorant bystander, but is different from being an authority. One should never use the, "I'm an expert" argument to justify a controversial argument (especially to another expert !). One should use one's expertise to justify one's position, not insist that everyone else tows the line based on status. http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/12/because-i-said-so.html
Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.
I think Tjaart Blignaut started this one.
ReplyDeleteI think I would probably combine several of those since 2 and 3 are very similar, as are 4, 5 and 6. I would add an additional : "Strive to be aware of your own stupidity."
ReplyDeleteChris Blackmore if you share +1s it's almost like you shared it. :)
ReplyDeleteAccording to the post it was originally Atheist Republic. I give credit to whoever caused me to see it my stream.
ReplyDeleteI chuckled, because it was written in the perspective of a woman, if not by a woman.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor Tjaart Blignaut I had seen it before and was happy to see it again.
ReplyDeleteA bit too idealistic for my tastes, but definitely pointing in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteSome criticism from a rather more cynical idealist (if that makes sense):
Some justifications should be more nuanced:
Depending on the subject, the evidence is not sure to come to light, and it is not always more inconvenient to conceal it. Truth, alas, doesn't always prevail. A laudable principle in, say, theoretical science, certainly, but not so much in forensics.
A victory dependent upon authority is, alas, all too often real. Dictators or office dictators are an unfortunately common example of it.
But let's only take the authority as in "appeal to authority". As such, it can sometimes still be justified, for example if time is limited or there is danger. If the fire-fighter tells me that no, splashing water on that fire will only make it worse (however contrived it sounds to me), it's not a good idea to start an experimental study on the effects of water on phosphorus or electrical fire.
In a less dramatic and more common case, children need to respect the authority of their tutors - this is not optional, education demands rules and limits to be fixed. Particularly in the case of small children, they simply don't have the mental pathways to argument with anyway, and it's actually your job as a tutor to help them develop those.
So having no respect for the authority of others is an unfortunate (and in some cases, dangerous) extreme of what would otherwise be a good thing to keep in mind.
Also, in a fool's paradise, the fool is indeed happy. The point is not to be happy but to be satisfied by what we do. The fool's paradise is, to us, deeply unsatisfying, because, well, doing nothing but consume and unthink, doing nothing with their lives, isn't generally something we consider worthwhile for our lives.
All in all, a B-
Good efforts and interesting ideas - can be simplistic, but definitive progress. With more nuances, can definitely achieve a solid A in the future.
Of course, feel free to counter-argument.
Elie Thorne I agree, the image is rather over-simplified.
ReplyDeleteMy take would be that some subjects, like fire-fighting, do have authorities. It is 100% certain (or near as damn it) that a fire-fighter's advice will be correct, because they have actual experience dealing with fires. They have knowledge about the subject which is as close to certain as is possible. Fire is hot and burns things, there is no room for ifs and buts. They can legitimately be considered to be an authority - the situation is simple and well-tested enough that their status as a fire-fighter alone is enough to justify following their advice.
This doesn't work at all when it comes to the forefront of theoretical physics research. Here, anyone thinking themselves an authority when they are in fact merely experts is deluded. Being an expert does give one more clout than being an ignorant bystander, but is different from being an authority. One should never use the, "I'm an expert" argument to justify a controversial argument (especially to another expert !). One should use one's expertise to justify one's position, not insist that everyone else tows the line based on status.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/12/because-i-said-so.html
Rhys Taylor I think the post should be left in the context of politics, then it makes more sense and no contradictions about firefighters arise.
ReplyDeleteThat said, if a firefighter has a controversial position it should be seen as no less open to doubt than that of a theoretical physicist.
Rhys Taylor Actually, you shouldn't tow a line, as it will get caught in the propellor. You should toe a line.
ReplyDeleteChris Blackmore Well, I never knew that.
ReplyDelete