When Rorty says post-Galilean science has no metaphysical implications, he’s probably closer to the truth than you think (though I don’t think he’s actually there). Niels Bohr and his whole set of followers definitely seemed to agree with this, and that’s what gave us the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, on which there are no particles or waves, and just waveforms that collapse when observed. I personally think it’s because Bohr hung out with the positivists too much (or perhaps the influence went the other way), but it’s certainly been a trend in modern physics. Of course, there’s still the many-worlds interpretation, which is empirically equivalent and very metaphysically oriented, and thus perhaps more appealing for Quineans (perhaps like myself?) who want science to be committed to the entities it quantifies over. I think both strands are present in contemporary physics.

And as for people eating each other in North Korea because of Marx’s mistakes, I think that’s a fairly ridiculous idea (though I know you were just exagerrating to make a point). It’s probably fair to blame high European unemployment rates on problems of socialism (though there are plenty of people willing to debate this point). Maybe it’s fair to blame the failings of the USSR on Marxism, though I think that it’s far more accurate to blame them on the misapplications arising when Lenin tried to apply it to a non-industrialized society, compounded by Stalin’s dictatorship. But as far as I can tell, North Korea hasn’t really been Communist basically ever, and has instead been a cruel and despotic tyranny. Many people like to believe that’s what communism is, but it clearly isn’t, when actually attempted.

And I think “ought implies can” is potentially controversial, though not in any serious way. (Of course, to a consequentialist, it’s trivially true.)

But otherwise, everything was spot on, like Rorty with the sock-puppets (I remember his lecture to one of my freshman classes where he argued that Nietzsche was a pragmatist). And of course sociobiological experiments are useful, even if they can’t answer ultimate philosophical questions – they at least help us frame our discussion and ask the right questions, and give some constraints on the answers for some of them. And why exactly he thinks a theory of human nature should be normative is beyond me (though that seems to be the lesson vulgar social darwinism seems to be based on, taking Rorty’s modus tollens as a modus ponens).

I think the Theory of Evolution is a good, but flawed explanation of how living thing got to where they are now. I think it’s the best explanation we’ve got right now, so I’m in favor of it being taught in our schools.

That said, I wouldn’t mind if a teacher threw out the possibility that some super-being made us exactly how we find ourselves today. It certainly is a possible, no matter how unlikely, explanation, too.

Are you kidding me? Now Darwin is as responsible for the Nazis as Marx is for Communism?????

beep, wrong answer, try again. seriously you sound like a f***ing creationist.

If Darwin had seen a Concentration Camp in operation, would he have put a few codicils in his writings on evolution?

Cato is to be commended for sticking by its plan, but they should also consider the enviroment they are pitching it.

If the United States had a bipartisan government, an active press core and an engaged citizenry, trying out their plan might be worth a shot.

Currently, we have a one party system run by leaders who don’t even bother to hide their greed, a press core that is little more than a bunch of paid mouthpieces for the whatever party or company that writes their paychecks and a confused citizenry constantly bombarded by ‘information’ provided by said press.

Introducing Cato SS plan in this country now would simply result in people turning in a guaranteed retirement benefit for shares in whatever future Enrons the wealthy can cobble together to absorb theier funds.

Good scientists publish, along with their theories, the exact conditions that will prove their theories wrong. People who come up with schemes to modify government programs should do the same. I would argue that the primary consideration of any such plans should be, “Can this be corrupted?”

Really? On the personal responsibility axis? On the private property axis? On the people-should-have-the-right-to-make-their-own-investment-decisions-even -if-they-may-make-bad-choices axis?

For those who truly believe that there are too many stupid Americans who cannot be trusted to provide for their own retirement security, there is a very simple solution: means test social security benefits so that only those who are truly poor at the age of retirement are allowed to collect. In other words, turn Social Security into what it pretends not to be: a redistributionist social welfare program. Instead of taking a fixed percentage from everyone’s wages, thus giving the illusion that everyone has an equal interest in maintaining the current system, use general revenues to fund retirement benefits for poor people, as we already do for housing, food, and medical care. The stigma of depending upon charity would attach, and taxpayers would recognize income redistribution for what it really is and decide whether or not it is something they wish to support. While we’re at it, we should do the same for education.

Now, one can argue whether or not Cato’s plan is a good second-best solution for reaching this sort of goal. I used to believe so; now I’m not so sure. But what one cannot say is that Cato is dishonest or putting forth its privatization plan in order to ingratiate itself with the current administration. Cato has been pushing the same sort of plan for decades, during both Democratic and Republican presidencies.

“Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.”

Oh, I have no doubt. But you’ve been targeting your hatred at Cato and libertarians, not Republicans. Nice try changing the subject.

“Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep. As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work.”

Work for whom? For what purpose? Compared to what? You cannot determine whether a government program is worth keeping or not until you first answer these sorts of questions. Some government programs work incredibly well, if our metric is increasing the wealth, power, and status of politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups. But if our metric is what benefits all people in society, then government programs–which are all nothing more than various forms of coercive redistribution–fail miserably.

Maybe you just need a little life experience before you can recognize the current crop of Republicans for what they are, greedy little thugs, no different than the cabals that run most third world countries.

The current crop of young conservative/libertarians remind of the doctor who made the news recently when he amputated the wrong leg from his patient. Armed with nothing more than a hatred of government and a few misquotations from the man himself, Thomas Jefferson, they stride into the operating room, eager to hack off anything they can from the body of the government. Hospitals now mark limbs to be removed with a marker to prevent the wrong limbs from being cut off. Someone needs to do the same with government programs to show the rabid anti-govenment people what to keep.

As you get older, you will see that some government programs work. Maybe not as well as they should, but they work. There is nothing wrong with the idea of Social Security. Workers pay in a small percentage of their wages, and when they retire they get a modest retirement income. A few adjustments now and it will continue to work for well beyond our lifetimes. The people crying for drastic changes do so either due to a flawed adherence to dogma or a blatantly obvious desire to loot the system.

Learn to acknowledge where theory breaks down in pratctice when advocating government cuts. It isn’t *always* the right thing to do. Consider the recent move to outsource many support services for the military. Looked great on paper, but the great minds who came up with it failed to take into account we actually go to war once in a while. In addition to costing the government far more for these services than if they had stayed government functions, this policy is getting people killed. That the major beneficiary of this program is a company that pays our current vice-president more than his regular salary is…about what I expected.

If you want to get in a lather over some chunk of government spending, look no further than the most expensive *thing* it has bought over the last few years, Missile Defense. Even its backers admit it doesn’t work now, and has little chance of working in the future. Yet hundreds of billions of dollars will be dumped down this rathole before it is stopped.

It’s easy when your young to thing you are always right. It’s easy to ignore data points that show your pet theories might not work. Consider the words of another great lead, Winston Churchill:

Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.

and another classic:

Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is – the strong horse that pulls the whole cart.

It’s obvious who the milkmaids are these days

Happy Holidays!

Why don’t you try clicking on the link Will provided regarding the “dreams of the socialists.” Then tell us with a straight face that only government can provide security and that free markets are just an excuse for the wealthy to expropriate from and exploit the masses.

Recogonize that trend, bitch.

I hope you are going to share your insights on some of the other papers in the issue, particularly the Pinker, Smith, and Haldt & Joseph ones.

*sulks*

But it’s so hard to be good.

I had never heard of Rorty before, so I did a little digging. Turns out he is a professor at Stanford who thinks psychology and philosophy graduates are social scientists who yearn to be real scientists. I guess I see where the vitriol comes from in Will’s post.

Will’s post on Social Security seems to prove Rorty right, though. The Cato Institute’s plan for Social Security reform looks striking similar to the plan that caused the Savings and Loan crisis.

The S&L; ‘fix’ cost the US government about a trillion bucks. It was a pretty good scam for the Republicans. They made money both creating the crisis AND in the governments ‘clean-up’ of it. Bush brother Neil made some nice loot for his family in that one. For those too young to remember this Libertarian coup, google “Silverado Savings and Loan”. I wonder where this latest plan comes from?

Once again we see the greedy eyeing a flawed, but still sound government program that helps the average American. Once again we see a Libertarian plan to ‘liberate’ funds for risky investments that, in the end, the govenment will have to cover once the money has disappeared into the pockets of the people who proposed the ‘fix’ and their cronies.

Real scientists recognize trends. Seems social scientists just ignore them.