Dear John Letter #7 pramatism is an ideology

I’m sorry to burst your bubble John, but all we adopt theories (which is another way to say ideologies) to understand the world.  there is no way around it.  

You (and progressive comrades) pretend you don’t have an ideology or a theory about the world that prevents you from coming to objective conclusions.

That is total bunk. 

I am not saying there is no such thing as objective facts.  Yes, we can measure and observe certain objective facts about the world.  the speed of light, how far the moon is from the sun, e=mc2, etc etc.   There are certain things we know are true about the world and we can agree about these so called “facts”. 

But I also know that just because science can “objectively” measure how far the moon is from earth, this does not mean the world is made up exclusively of objective facts that can be uncovered given enough time and smart people.

 It is NOT the case that given enough time and resources, science will probe the depths of the fundamental mysteries of the universe (including the design of human civilization).

The progressive world view necessitates the idea that science is the ultimate arbiter of Objective Truth.

Science can uncover small truths, but it cannot uncover Truth.  This might sound like an impractical silly point, but it is not.

If I can prove that your world view rests on a dubious assumption, I can prove that anything you say is subject to fallacious logic.   

Progressives hide their world view (that is they hide their theory of the world) and pretend that they don’t need a theory or ideology because they only use "objective facts."  Of course, this assumption is a theory and it is bogus. 

it is a bogus idea that progressives are objective while conservatives are ideological.  Both are ideological.   Ideology is just a way to explain the way we assume the world works. 

What I know for sure is that Objective Truth is a fiction.  Science will not and cannot plumb the depths of Truth.

Science can help us get our arms around the mysteries of life, but will never provide an “objective” answer for what is Truth.  This doesn’t mean God provides ultimate Truth.  Man invented God and Science as means to pretending we could know Ultimate Truth. 

LEts start with the idea that man cannot achieve Ultimate Truth either through science or through revelealed word of God.

My theory assumes that there is no such thing as Ultimate Truth not from God or Science.  My theory assumes god and science and literature and movies and culture can help us make sense of an inherently mysterious world, and we can figure out truths about different corners of the universe, but we cannot know overarching Truth.  the only thing we know for sure is that we can’t know Ultimate Truth.

So my starting point is radical uncertainty of what Ultimate Truth is.  Progressives assume that religious nuts are wrong to believe in God as Ultimate Truth.  I believe progressives are right about that.  But I also believe Progressives are just as misguided as Fundamentalist Christians for believing we humans have the ability with tools of modern science to uncover “Truth” or the fundamental mysteries of the universe.  Darwinian Evolution is an important scientific THEORY, but it only explains a small piece of the story of “human evolution.”  Progressives claim that anyone who questions Evolution is a bible thumper.  There is a third option.  That is the idea that Darwinian evolution is true, but only PART of the story of human evolution.  Progressives can’t admit the Darwinian evolution isn’t the whole story or it will open the door to Creationism. 

We are left with a false choice between God and Science.  I say neither is capable of providing ultimate Truth, to think otherwise is foolish.   To think man can uncover fundamental mysteries of nature by uncovering objective facts about the world is a myth.    We can understand truths in small corners of the world, but “Nature” and ultimatel Truth and “Meaning of life” are all beyond man’s understanding.   

Take for example, the FACT, that we cannot prove scientific laws.  this is because we don’t know if the laws are the same on the other side of the universe. We can only attempt to falsify laws – and when we fail to falisify them we assume – provisionally -- they are “true.”  We never have absolute Truth about any of the so called laws of the universe.   The law of gravitation was originally assumed to be “universal”; when Einstein came along we discovered that the law of gravity DID NOT HOLD in the quantum realm.

 

Putting objective truths together to make a story (or an argument) does not lead necessarily to Objective Truth.  Progressives erroneously assume that one can start with objective facts and put them together and get a purely objective conclusion. 

Assuming you can string objective truths together and end up with an objective conclusion is being guilty of one of the most basic logical fallacies everyone learns in Logic 101:  i.e the fallacy of composition.  The whole does not necessarily entail the qualities of the parts!!! (I even remember this from Logic `101 at Colgate with prof. Balmuth who hated me because I used to fall asleep in his class.)

You erroneously assume that if you start with just the facts, that this gives you the ability to put the facts together to reach an objective conclusion not influenced by “ideology.” 

I’ve studied enough philosophy to know that everything we say is based on an underlying premise or theory.  Everyone has a theory about how the world works and this theory (or world view) necessarily influences EVERYTHING we say.

I show my ideology / theory right up front – and I challenge you to find flaws in it.  You pretend you don’t have a theory or you assume you don’t need one because you only use the “facts.”  As soon as you open your mouth and utter words, in order for those words to make sense, they must be embedded in some theory about how the world works.  you can pretend you don’t have ideology or theory, but it is there – and it infects every single last “objective truth” you claim about Democrats and Republicans, or about global warming or about taxes or fiscal policy, or about the latest episode of Jon Stewart.

My theory is this.  A culture based on Free exchange, respect for private property rights and common law (= law ought to be revealed by precedent and discovered by judges/legislators, not invented by “lawmakers”) maximizes individual and collective welfare in society.   

Macro outcomes in the economy cannot be planned or designed or engineered by government bureaucrats or experts.  Sustainable, dynamic and productive economies/societies cannot be designed; they must be allowed to emerge (warts and all) naturally.   

SOMEDAY I WILL “PROVE” THIS POINT based on “pure science.”  Ironically, we will someday use hard-core science to prove that the government cannot control or engineer or inject certain preferred macro outcomes in society without sowing dangerous systemic risk in the economy and financial markets!!!  

For example, what we’ve seen since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, is that the Fed not only CANNOT reduce cyclical fluctuation in the economy BUT worse than that, it also inevitably sows seeds of periodic systemic crisis in the economy.

HUBRIS

Progressives erroneously assume that science will eventually get it right --after much trial and error and study and effort and analysis– and that the experts will be able to design and develop the tools needed to control macro outcomes in society (as well as in the whole earth system via climate engineering.) 

A  culture that is organized around free exchange and respect for private property rights will NOT be perfect, but it also cannot be “improved” at least in terms of macro outcomes.  We can help each other and reduce suffering, but only through local efforts.  As soon as the government tries to reduce all poverty via some national plan, the plan itself will be self defeating.   If you take this “theory” to its logical end point, it leads necessarily to peace and prosperity and the golden rule and volunteerism and innovation and creativity and dynamism and sustainability. 

you claim you don’t have a theory, but underneath all of your so called objective facts (which not coincidentally you get exclusively from hyper-progressive sources:  Rolling Stone, Esquire, Michael Lewis, NY Times, Matt Taibi, Huffington Post, Jon Stewart, Bill Marher, etc. etc) is a theory that you pretend isn’t there.

I realized about 15 years ago it was impossible to debate progressives / (called liberals “back then”) without first starting off with theory, because it is impossible to engage in debate based on so called “objective facts” with someone convinced he has the facts on his side.  You say the US postal service is fine and does a fine job because you find a data point supplied by Matt Taibi in Rolling Stone magazine, and that is your fact and you stick by it.  I claim the USPS is a dinosaur and symbolizes everything that is bad with handing our lives over to nanny-state government control, and I have my so called facts, including basic observation that the USPS is predictably inefficient and expensive, like all bureaucratic entities.  That observation is not a GOP conspiracy.  It is a fact (according to my eyes)!  We are left at an impasse.

Progressives try to pretend they don’t have a theory or ideology or political interests; they claim they look at the issues pragmatically and clinically and objectively and make the best decision given the data. 

This is complete and utter rubbish.  Pragmatism IS an ideology!!!  If you practice “pragmatism” as a rule, that is your ideology, your theory of how the world works.  Once you admit that, all of your erroneous assertions about using objective facts and objective non-ideological arguments goes out the window.  and we back where I always return:  back to debating theory again!!!

You cannot run away from theory or ideology.  We all have one.  To pretend you don’t have an ideology is self delusion.  The progressive practice of putting strings of objective facts together and pretending this is an objective argument is a quintiscential “intellectual circle j—“.    

Ps… John, I don’t blame you for pretending you don’t have a theory. The logic embedded in my theory leads to an imperfect society filled with income inequality, pollution, industrial accidents, evil individuals, business cycles and creative destruction.  But at a macro level,  it is peaceful (trade is voluntary), dynamic and inherently sustainability.  

But, if you take your theory to the extreme, some of the problems listed above may be mitigated (or maybe made even worse) but for sure we know that the macro outcomes will be compromised.  Peace, dynamism and sustainability under my theory turns  to war, stagnation and systemic collapse under your theory.  Your theory requires a “might makes right” and “ends justify the means logic” because the government is charged with deciding who wins and loses.  Coercion (and violence -- hidden behind Orwellian language like collective sacrifice and social welfare and the will of the people) is required to achieve what government decides is best for society -- and then necessarily implements using state tools of compliance, e.g. police, courts, etc.   
Progressives claim the free market is a mean spirited race to the bottom, the biggest wins, but this is totally erroneous.  In a system based on free exchange, the biggest company must provide a service freely desired by customers or it loses business to a smaller guy who does.   Monopolies only survive and “might makes right” in a "statist" system like yours that uses government to ensure and run monopolies enforced by THE STATE.  if you take your pragmatic theory to the extreme, what you end up with is democratic fascism just like Germany in the 1930s.  Democracy is a false God of Ultimate Truth, just like Jesus, just like your Science, just like pragmatism or progressivism.