tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post6576178543712905193..comments2024-03-21T03:55:51.565-07:00Comments on Omniorthogonal: The Quest for Intelligent Trump Supportersmtravenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-20342334335160782782016-10-04T14:26:10.475-07:002016-10-04T14:26:10.475-07:00"If you are repelled by violence, the choice ..."If you are repelled by violence, the choice is obvious."<br /><br />The weird thing here is that for all the talk of Trump's winking at violence, it's Clinton who has overtly aligned herself (by seeking an endorsement) with an organization - a race-based one at that - that is at the center of multiple violent conflagrations in major cities across the US. You know who I'm talking about. Trump has online commenters who say mean things; Clinton has meatheads in meatspace who smash things up. If the stoking of a resentful race war makes you wince, Clinton should too.<br /><br />Based on precisely the values YOU appear to hold dear, Hillary comes out worse. As for overseas violence, that's indeed another matter...Dainhttp://dryhyphenolympics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-77615934318197685202016-10-03T00:26:17.503-07:002016-10-03T00:26:17.503-07:00"If your primary values are reason and fact-b..."If your primary values are reason and fact-based decision making, the choice is obvious." <br />Unless we're talking about ethnic/racial facts, for example, which your side ignores religiously.<br /><br />"If you are repelled by violence, the choice is obvious."<br />What type of violence are we talking about? <br />International violence/war: I see no indication whatsoever that Hillary is a better choice. You could easily argue the opposite.<br />For domestic violence: I don't see it either, other than Trump calling people names (which is, indeed, deplorable). If you mean ethnic conflicts because the "racists" will gain power... Well, I'm pretty sure violence and crime in general was lower in the US pre-civil rights and that likely includes the black communities themselves. And I am sure that most, if not all, people you call racist simply want peaceful segregation and living in decent communities, not violence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-41805025025417973022016-10-02T21:38:31.824-07:002016-10-02T21:38:31.824-07:00Thanks for the comment!
Of course, there is nothi...Thanks for the comment!<br /><br />Of course, there is nothing wrong with epistemic virtue and humility, and I appreciate the work Scott and others do to promote them. And you are right, they don՚t have to be tied to any sort of objectivist view of reality.<br /><br />I am not sure, however, they are the right tool to apply to politics, which sort of requires an almost antithetical attitude. Politics is about contests of strength, and the winning side gets the power to inflict their version of reality on everybody else. That is, they not only get to have effects on the world (the crude form of power) but they control to some extent the interpretation of the world we use to navigate it. Think of the election not just as a contest between two people or parties, but between explanatory frameworks.<br /><br />Rationalists hate the idea that power can be determinative of truth (See <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">Bruno Latour</a> will give you the flavor if you are interested).<br /><br />Scott bends over backwards to be fair to Trump, to neoreactionaries, and other deplorables. There՚s something admirable about that, and I guess it is rooted in epistemic humility. <br /><br />The un-admirable aspect of such careful balancing of sides is that it seems also to be rooted in a horror of conflict. But make no mistake, politics is a war of conflicting values, and in the present circumstances an honorable neutrality is less and less tenable. Sometimes you have to pick your side and join the fight.mtravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02356162954308418556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15644559.post-78804933076932005922016-10-02T18:14:16.049-07:002016-10-02T18:14:16.049-07:00I don't think Scott implied "accessible o...I don't think Scott implied "accessible objective reality" by saying "epistemic vice."<br /><br />Instead I think for him (and anyway for me) epistemic virtue requires a reasonable level of epistemic humility in the face of a complex world. Or, as Cromwell said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." <br /><br />Beyond that we could argue. "Rationality" would be nice if we could pin it down, but has been weaponized by Economics and other political movements. <br /><br />Maybe the step we can take beyond epistemic humility is a set of practices for recognizing better and worse arguments, and moving away from the worse and toward the better. I'm pretty sure Scott would find this formulation congenial. <br /><br />Anyway, I'm quite comfortable calling epistemic arrogance plus a tendency toward bad arguments "epistemic vice", and epistemic humility plus a desire and practices for moving toward good arguments "epistemic virtue." <br /><br />I hope we can agree that this perspective doesn't necessarily rely on "objective reality" whatever that might mean. <br /><br />If you still find this objectionable please let me know why. jedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11258416181053973027noreply@blogger.com