An excellent historical overview of this escalating clash of cultures.
I am finally getting a chance to respond to Adam's August 2nd post.
Adam is still concerned over his internal conflict between free will and determinism. He boils it down in the following sentence: "my intuition that I control my own fate is so strong that I cannot really believe that I am actually not making decisions, with full intellectual honesty" (emphasis original). Essentially, he feels that his personal "experience of consciousness" and the external, factual evidence of the deterministic nature of the universe are irreconcilable.
I think this is an unfortunate turn of argument for someone who declares himself to be concerned with holding beliefs for rational reasons. In the end, either this is his personal problem of reconciling his own intuition with reason, to which no external argument can resolve, or this is a bad argument.
In the first case, Adam's discussion can be seen as a purely personal problem in the sense that he is not trying to make a rational argument that he would advise rational people to adopt, but rather that he is making a statement about his personal difficulties. Evidence towards this reading can be found in his final sentence, where he says: "All I'm saying is that it's impossible for me to fully incorporate a belief that directly contradicts my own experience of consciousness into my belief system" (emphasis added). As the italicised words point out, he is making a personal statement--perhaps he doesn't mean it to apply generally. In the end, under this interpretation, Adam is basically saying that he doesn't feel like believing in determinism. Ok, fine.
However, what I expected to find were arguments which pointed out why it is rational in general for a person to be conflicted about these two issues. If we take Adam's words as an attempt to make a general statement about free will and determinism, then we find an unfortunate impasse. Rational argument cannot apply to the realm of personal intuitions, given the way he has defined them. He implies that his intuitions are on a level qualitatively distinct and separate from rational argument with his statement that, in light of his intuitions, he can't "really believe" that he is not self determined. What exactly is Adam's underlying model of his mental process here? Perhaps his "intuition center" and his "rational center" are separate parts of his brain which cannot communicate? Why is it that the personal experience of consciousness blocks belief of the external evidence of determinsm? Can people in general not consciously begin to believe facts based on evidence? Adam never provides an answer to these important questions.
What he really has to do in order to prop his argument up from a rational perspective is explain 1) what is the intuitive/rational model of the mind he's using and why does he think it is appropriate, and 2) what is it about his personal experience of consciousness that is SO compelling that it outweighs rational argument? I mean, I can believe the Tooth Fairy exists because I experience teeth vanishing from under my pillow when I'm 6 years old.. that doesn't outweigh the other evidence I have to the contrary.
I have recently signed up as a volunteer for your campaign, and previously contributed $100 to your party. I want to direct your attention to the recent publication from the Gallup organization concerning the issue of Iraq, and the public perception of the Presidential candidates' views on it.
The basic idea behind this survey is summarized in a sentence which says: "The majority of the public does not favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, nor does it favor sending in more troops. Thus, using public opinion as a guide, Kerry is left with the challenge of advocating more subtle policy distinctions vis-à-vis Bush -- making it harder for him to use Iraq as a major election differentiator."
This report ought to inspire this campaign to confront some tough issues head-on. It appears that the Bush/Cheney campaign is going to continue to use the vote to authorize power to go into Iraq and the vote to withhold resources to the troops in Iraq against the Kerry/Edwards campaign. I think a cogent, unqualified response to this criticism is needed quickly and publicly. I believe the case that needs to be made is suggested in an excellent Slate article from April that articulates how Bush has trapped politicians with their records while he changes previously agreed upon understandings. The justification for those two votes needs to be made plain enough to fit on a headline.
Given the recent events in Najaf, the opportunity is at hand to apply more pressure to the Bush administration for bad planning in Iraq. Much of the ills going on in Iraq can be chalked up to our unilateral actions and poor pre-war planning there. Fewer of the lost lives in Iraq would have American if we had not been such an overwhelming percentage of the fighting force. Less animosity would have been aimed at America had we not been as unilateralist as we were. The situation in front of the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf, which puts America at severe risk of angering Shi'ite Muslims around the world, might have been avoided had Americans been able to bring along some Muslim allies in the fight for the peace of Iraq.
The Gallup article as well as a recent BBC article both suggest that the public cannot tell the difference between the candidates' plans for Iraq. However, a brief comparison of the websites of the two candidates shows that the Bush/Cheney Campaign has practically no references to any future plans for the situation in Iraq. The Kerry/Edwards site is much more clear on what changes the new administration would make. And yet, in the perception of those who I regularly interact with, it appears that the Kerry/Edwards plan is a well-kept secret. I think the time has come to take a bold, public stance which truly differentiates this campaign.
As I saw it, one of the most masterful strokes towards the end of the primaries for the Democratic nomination was the Kerry campaign's ability to downplay the differences between Kerry and Edwards on the issues, leaving voters only experience in office as a differentiator. I hope that the Kerry/Edwards campaign does not allow the Bush/Cheney Campaign to pull the same maneuver on them with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Stephen Larson
New York City, NY
Raj pointed me to this gem of a link, as close to a debate between Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore as the world is ever going to get. For those of you who haven't been following the Fox News issue, as far as I understand, the Fox news network is consciously trying to "balance out" the news playing field by keeping a conservative slant to their reporting. This is in response to the perceived liberal bias in most other news sources, most notably the New York Times.
Recent occurances have included the production of a movie called Outfoxed which makes the case that what Fox news is doing is evil. Additionally, the New York Times recently wrote an editorial confronting the question of liberal bias in their publication (their conclusion was yes there was, and that it reflected the liberal values of the city they are based in).
In truth, I am pretty happy about what is happening. I'm not sure if the Internet is fully responsible, but being able to compare the headlines of major publications at the click of a button must make it easier to compare the different slants of major news. What I would like to see happen as the result is that some news source uses the different slants on news as a selling point, by keeping staff writers who hold opposing biases, are open about their perspectives, and who will provide point and counterpoint with their fellow staff members on major news. For example: a pair of writers, a liberal and a conservative, would each report on Kerry's nomination acceptance speech, and be able to argue back and forth about points of controversy. This would be a truly exciting development, as I feel there is so much more to be learned from discussion of an issue in a dialectic, rather than as a monologue of a single perspective. Currently, Slate's coverage of the major newspaper's each morning is the closest thing on the internet, but I think it could go even farther. Here's to hoping for a more deliberative future of news!