15
   

Can an intellectual still believe absurd things?

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:06 am
Paul Ryan has been described by nearly everyone in the media as an intellectual. Even his opponents will often concede that he's a smart guy. But, if his economic policies are any indication, he believes that cutting taxes will increase revenues. He thinks that private insurers, through the miracle of free market competition, will be able to replace Medicare with affordable health insurance for people over 55, even though such savings have never been produced by our current free-market in health insurance. He thinks he's a budget hawk, but he voted for every budget-busting initiative during the eight years of GWB's reign of terror, including two wars, two tax giveaways, and Medicare Part D. Given all of that, can we honestly say that he's an "intellectual?"

Let me offer a more prosaic example. I know someone who is a very well-respected medical doctor, a leader in her profession, beloved by her patients. She also believes in ghosts, UFOs, mental telepathy, and other paranormal phenomena. Given what I know about her idiotic beliefs regarding the supernatural, I don't think we can fairly call her an "intellectual," even though, in all other respects, she holds perfectly reasonable, intelligent positions.

Is there a point at which we can segregate one's intelligently held beliefs from those that are completely absurd, such that we can excuse the latter as mere aberrations? Or is there some level beyond which we must conclude that the absurd beliefs negate the sound ones?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 5,291 • Replies: 80

 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:15 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Is there a point at which we can segregate one's intelligently held beliefs from those that are completely absurd,
Evidently not, in perfect accord with the general principle that nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else. Apparently the humanoid can be brought to believe literally anything. However I’d agree that for practical purposes we can establish some seemingly reasonable guidelines

Seemingly to you and me
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:24 am
@dalehileman,
If they choose to believe something despite mountains of counter- evidence, Id kinda begin doubting the "intellectual" thingy
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:26 am
Quote:
Op-Ed Columnist
An Unserious Man
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/09/16/opinion/Krugman_New/Krugman_New-articleInline.jpg

Published: August 19, 2012

Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate led to a wave of pundit accolades. Now, declared writer after writer, we’re going to have a real debate about the nation’s fiscal future. This was predictable: never mind the Tea Party, Mr. Ryan’s true constituency is the commentariat, which years ago decided that he was the Honest, Serious Conservative, whose proposals deserve respect even if you don’t like him.

But he isn’t and they don’t. Ryanomics is and always has been a con game, although to be fair, it has become even more of a con since Mr. Ryan joined the ticket.

Let’s talk about what’s actually in the Ryan plan, and let’s distinguish in particular between actual, specific policy proposals and unsupported assertions. To focus things a bit more, let’s talk — as most budget discussions do — about what’s supposed to happen over the next 10 years.

On the tax side, Mr. Ryan proposes big cuts in tax rates on top income brackets and corporations. He has tried to dodge the normal process in which tax proposals are “scored” by independent auditors, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has done the math, and the revenue loss from these cuts comes to $4.3 trillion over the next decade.

On the spending side, Mr. Ryan proposes huge cuts in Medicaid, turning it over to the states while sharply reducing funding relative to projections under current policy. That saves around $800 billion. He proposes similar harsh cuts in food stamps, saving a further $130 billion or so, plus a grab-bag of other cuts, such as reduced aid to college students. Let’s be generous and say that all these cuts would save $1 trillion.

On top of this, Mr. Ryan includes the $716 billion in Medicare savings that are part of Obamacare, even though he wants to scrap everything else in that act. Despite this, Mr. Ryan has now joined Mr. Romney in denouncing President Obama for “cutting Medicare”; more on that in a minute.

So if we add up Mr. Ryan’s specific proposals, we have $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, partially offset by around $1.7 trillion in spending cuts — with the tax cuts, surprise, disproportionately benefiting the top 1 percent, while the spending cuts would primarily come at the expense of low-income families. Over all, the effect would be to increase the deficit by around two and a half trillion dollars.

Yet Mr. Ryan claims to be a deficit hawk. What’s the basis for that claim?

Well, he says that he would offset his tax cuts by “base broadening,” eliminating enough tax deductions to make up the lost revenue. Which deductions would he eliminate? He refuses to say — and realistically, revenue gain on the scale he claims would be virtually impossible.

At the same time, he asserts that he would make huge further cuts in spending. What would he cut? He refuses to say.

What Mr. Ryan actually offers, then, are specific proposals that would sharply increase the deficit, plus an assertion that he has secret tax and spending plans that he refuses to share with us, but which will turn his overall plan into deficit reduction.

If this sounds like a joke, that’s because it is. Yet Mr. Ryan’s “plan” has been treated with great respect in Washington. He even received an award for fiscal responsibility from three of the leading deficit-scold pressure groups. What’s going on?

The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance. Over the longer term, the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it — and in Washington, “fiscal responsibility” is often equated with willingness to slash Medicare and Social Security, even if the purported savings would be used to cut taxes on the rich rather than to reduce deficits. Also, self-proclaimed centrists are always looking for conservatives they can praise to showcase their centrism, and Mr. Ryan has skillfully played into that weakness, talking a good game even if his numbers don’t add up.

The question now is whether Mr. Ryan’s undeserved reputation for honesty and fiscal responsibility can survive his participation in a deeply dishonest and irresponsible presidential campaign.

The first sign of trouble has already surfaced over the issue of Medicare. Mr. Romney, in an attempt to repeat the G.O.P.’s successful “death panels” strategy of the 2010 midterms, has been busily attacking the president for the same Medicare savings that are part of the Ryan plan. And Mr. Ryan’s response when this was pointed out was incredibly lame: he only included those cuts, he says, because the president put them “in the baseline,” whatever that means. Of course, whatever Mr. Ryan’s excuse, the fact is that without those savings his budget becomes even more of a plan to increase, not reduce, the deficit.

So will the choice of Mr. Ryan mean a serious campaign? No, because Mr. Ryan isn’t a serious man — he just plays one on TV.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=2&smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:28 am
@joefromchicago,
Is IQ supposed to indicate some level of common sense?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:45 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
Is there a point at which we can segregate one's intelligently held beliefs from those that are completely absurd, such that we can excuse the latter as mere aberrations? Or is there some level beyond which we must conclude that the absurd beliefs negate the sound ones?


I think the point is that point at which the individual subverts their own intellect in favor of superstition, ideology, religious adherence, or any other form of essentially anti-intellectual mental activity. For example, Alfred Russell Wallace was one of the only two people who deduced the action of natural selection on the morphology of plants and animals (Charles Darwin being the other--of course, anyone with the intellectual equipment and the data to have done so subsequent to the joint publication of the theory by Darwin and Wallace was denied any credit, as the theory had already been articulated). More than that Wallace showed a healthy skepticism all his life, and spoke out against what he saw as superstition and fraud. For example, he denied Lowell's contention about Martian canals on the scientific basis of spectroscopic analysis which very strongly suggested that there was no water in the Martian atmosphere.

But Wallace also supported some very dubious ideas such as the anti-vaccination campaign (he alleged a scientific basis), phrenology and finally, spiritualism. His support for spiritualism and for notorious (notorious in the neutral sense) mediums eventually lead many of his former supporters to abandon him, even leading to a break with Darwin. It became such an acute subject for Wallace that he was attacked in the scientific and intellectual press for his position.

I would say that at the point at which Wallace's reputation as a careful and skeptical scientist was ruined by his support for spiritualism, he had crossed the ine. The case with Mr. Ryan is much, much easier. For as intelligent as anyone may allege him to be, his unwavering adherence to conservative economic ideology, as well as his hypocrisy in his voting record marginalize any claims about the level of his intellectual attainment.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:58 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Is IQ supposed to indicate some level of common sense?

I don't view this as a distinction between "book smarts" and "street smarts." I can vouch for numerous encounters with the stereotypical "absent-minded professor," but I don't think a lack of common sense necessarily negates "intelligence." It's more a case of someone with two firmly held beliefs: one of them is perfectly rational , and would incline us to believe that the person is an "intellectual," and the other that is patently absurd, and would incline us to believe that the person is an idiot.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I would say that at the point at which Wallace's reputation as a careful and skeptical scientist was ruined by his support for spiritualism, he had crossed the ine.

The same could be said of Arthur Conan Doyle's belief in fairies or Henry Ford's vicious anti-Semitism or any Hollywood star's belief in Scientology. There are a lot of seemingly intelligent people out there who nevertheless believe in a lot of crackpot things.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:18 am
Quote:
Paul Ryan's Zombie Reaganomics

I don't share some Obama-supporters' contempt for Paul Ryan. That's in part because he comes across as a sincere, decent, fine fellow - whose Randian worldview has produced a reformist zeal known most intimately to an adolescent male. Indeed, he reminds me most of all of myself in my teens - dreaming of how to cut government in half, relishing schemes to slash taxes and slash spending and unleash revolutionary growth which, in itself, would render all other problems more manageable. There is no libertarian quite as convinced as a teenage libertarian. And it's the adolescent conviction of Ryan that shines so brightly.

One can call it courage or arrested development. But he is, in some ways, a pellucidly bright plant bred in the conservative movement's hydroponic greenhouse. Barely exposed to natural light, these young fertile saplings are fed with a constant drip of Koch money, sprayed with SMUGRYANanti-liberal pesticides and brought eventually into the political marketplace with joyful children, a lovely wife and a set of abs Aaron Schock would die for (and probably has). He has no life or experience outside the greenhouse - which is why he glows with its certainties. Most important, he has that quintessential characteristic of the modern conservative - total denial of the recent past. Ryan was instrumental and supportive of the most fiscally reckless administration in modern times. He gave us a massive new unfunded entitlement, two off-budget wars and was key to ensuring that the Bowles-Simpson plan was dead-on-arrival. This alleged fire-fighter - whose credentials are perceived as impeccable in Washington - just quit being an arsonist.

But on one key subject, the ineluctably rising costs of healthcare for the elderly, Ryan has in the past proffered a real solution. At some point, seniors would be cut off from the funds they would require for the kind of comprehensive treatment many now expect. This is a rather blunt way of putting it - and Ryan may hope somehow to bring costs down with some kind of competition among private plans for Medicare recipients to ease the pain. But that hope is no more credible at this point than Obama's ACA hope for lower costs - except Obama has initiated several specific cost-control pilot projects, while Ryan is relying on the increasingly tenuous hope that competition within Medicare really will lower costs - i.e. that the sick elderly will act like twenty-somethings seeking a bargain on a smartphone. I doubt it - probably more than I do the ACA experiments. In the latest iteration of his plan, however, Ryan has made the premium support option voluntary - thereby effectively tabling its fiscal potential, and shunted off all the pain onto the post-boomers. Ryan doesn't reverse this generational warfare; he intensifies it by siding with today's seniors over tomorrow's.

I'll be frank, though, and say that some kind of premium support in Medicare seems to me the only solid way I can see right now to save us from fiscal catastrophe. If I had my druthers, I'd give the ACA a decade to make real progress on cost-cutting and then, if it failed, I'd move to premium support. Ryan's right on the unsustainability of the current program and has made cutting it a campaign promise. We owe him thanks for that.

But, no, he is not a serious fiscal conservative. Not even close. In 2012, decades after supply-side economics was proven not to add more revenues than it gave back, Ryan is still a true-believer. His view is that if you cut taxes massively, you will decrease the debt. But this is the primary reason we currently have the massive debt that began its ascent under Reagan, was arrested by Bush and Clinton and then exploded under Bush and Ryan. Worse, Ryan believes that you can cut taxes drastically, increase defense spending massively and still cut the debt. This, to put it mildly, is Zombie-Reaganomics. Tax rates are already far lower than they were in 1980 - and can't be cut still further and have the same impact. Besides, our problem right now is obviously lack of demand, rather than enervated supply. Companies are sitting on piles of cash. Interest rates are very very low. And yet we struggle under a debt burden Ryan would immediately drastically increase, with a promise to get to a balanced budget somewhere near the middle of the century. It makes zero sense to me.

But in many ways, it helps frame this election constructively. We all know we have a debt and a growth problem. Obama favors raising taxes on the wealthy, cutting defense and controlling costs in the ACA. He's also open to serious Medicare reforms if the GOP would join in. Bowles-Simpson was much more of a reach for a Democrat than for a Republican on entitlement reform. And I firmly believe that Obama would sign a Bowles-Simpson type deal in his second term if the GOP were to cooperate. I think he'd sign one this December if he could. Ryan never ever would. Obama's reason for ducking Bowles-Simpson was that the GOP wouldn't bite. Ryan's reason for ducking Bowles-Simson is that he is still a supply side fanatic.

On the Republican side, we now have a debt-reduction plan that actually cuts tax rates for the very rich along with everyone else, vastly increases defense spending, and "balances" the entire thing on gutting care for the old, the poor and the sick (the Medicaid proposal is truly Darwinian) and ending loopholes (which Ryan refuses to specify). I'm all for ending loopholes but even then, we wouldn't get a balanced budget for three decades because of all the defense spending and tax cutting.

This isn't conservatism. It's rightist theology. In a fiscal emergency, the Republicans are proposing not clear remedies but ideological fantasies that were already disproven in 1990. They have learned nothing. And the immense damage they inflicted on this country's fiscal health in the last decade would be nothing compared to what would come under a Ryan-Romney administration.

Because it compounds the errors that came before it.


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-vs-fiscal-conservatism.html

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:18 am
@joefromchicago,
The human brain is basically designed to be irrational

The Evolution Of Superstitious And Superstition-Like Behaviour

Quote:
Superstitions often seem irrational, even stupid, but they a widespread and pervasive part of human life. Why is this?

Using a mathematical model, we investigated whether superstitious behaviours are a predicted product of evolution by natural selection.

The results are clear: superstitions are a part of adaptive behaviour in all organisms as they attempt to make sense of an uncertain world. Humans are heavily affected by culture as well as evolution.

Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that cultural effects are shaped by an evolved tendency to readily associate events, so readily that individuals often make superstitious mistakes
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 11:35 am
@joefromchicago,
I agree up to the point of Hollywood actors. I saw John Ford interviewed by Johnny Carson one night, and Ford stated and underlined that actors are essentially stupid, and that the more stupid they are, the easier it is to direct them and get the performance one wants.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 12:17 pm
@DrewDad,
This is one of those examples (of which there are all too many) in which scientists make a facile remark immediately before firmly lodging their feet in their respective mouths. Anthropologists have recognized the value of pattern thinking and associative thinking in early humans for literally generations. None of this is news. However, the implication of this remark is that humans can't help themselves, and that's just nonsense. Humans learned that there are fruits that are ripe even though they are green, they learned that there are ripe fruits which smell rotten (the durian is an example, that molds do not necessary mean that food is spoiled (think green cheese). Anyone who lives near a sea or the ocean knows that there is a very visible curvature to the horizon and at least as long as 3,000 years ago, mariners in the Med decided that the earth is an orb (and probably long before that). The tomato is not just a member of the same family as deadly nightshade, it is obviously a member of that family, yet it has been eaten for centuries. (In English speaking countries, the plant was treated as an ornamental, and it was not commonly eaten until well into the 19th century.)

In fact, the entire history of human cultural development gives the lie to any contention that humans are hag-ridden by superstition. Ceratinly superstition was and remains a powerful force in human affairs--but we are just as "hard-wifed" to challenge and overcome received wisdom as we are to bow to it.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 12:40 pm
@Setanta,
And yet I still see athletes with little superstitious rituals....

We're wired to see patterns, even where patterns don't exist.

We're wired to see faces.

Michael Shermer: Why people believe weird things

Quote:
Why do people see the Virgin Mary on a cheese sandwich or hear demonic lyrics in "Stairway to Heaven"? Using video and music, skeptic Michael Shermer shows how we convince ourselves to believe -- and overlook the facts.

Michael Shermer debunks myths, superstitions and urban legends, and explains why we believe them. Along with publishing Skeptic Magazine, he's author of Why People Believe Weird Things and The Mind of the Market.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 12:53 pm
@DrewDad,
I haven't denied any of that--in fact, i pointed it out, and that this is not news (at least to anthropologists and historians). I'm just pointing out that we can overcome that, and that we routinely do. There is a rage recently to attribute this or that behavior to evolution, as though it were carved in stone. As though it were OK to eat lots of fats and sugars because our ancestors did that to survive brutal winters. That's tommyrot. Believe it or not, i have a right to come to a different interpretive and speculative opinion, and to express it. In matters of this kind, scientists who are interpreting and speculating are on no firmer ground than any other student of humanity.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 01:19 pm
@Setanta,
Not sure why you're under the impression I'm arguing with you.

Certainly people work to overcome it, or people wouldn't do "science."

Understanding how people are wired to be irrational is not an attempt to excuse the irrational behaviors, but rather an attempt to describe why such behaviors occur.

Understanding why is an important step in overcoming the behavior, though.

I was not trying to end a conversation, I was trying to continue one.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 02:23 pm
@DrewDad,
It's the very expression "wired to be irrational" to which i object. I'm not arguing with you, i'm arguing with your source. But you seem determined to defend it. There is a very shallow character to an expression such as "wired to be irrational." That, of course, could be the fault of a journalist, rather than a researcher. Pattern recognition and associative thinking do not necessarily lead to irrationality, though. This is a classic case of blaming the tool for the result of the workman's activity.
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 02:46 pm
@Setanta,
Go read Predictably Irrational.

Look at the psychology behind cognitive dissonance.

There is actual, empirical evidence that intelligent, well-educated people make irrational choices all the time.

I'm sorry that you disagree, but you are, in fact, irrationally tossing out evidence that competes with your worldview.
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 02:57 pm
@Setanta,
setanta wrote:
In fact, the entire history of human cultural development gives the lie to any contention that humans are hag-ridden by superstition. Ceratinly superstition was and remains a powerful force in human affairs--but we are just as "hard-wifed" to challenge and overcome received wisdom as we are to bow to it.


That's one of the more interesting Freudian typos we've had here in a long time. Laughing
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 03:27 pm
@joefromchicago,
Is there a point at which we can segregate one's intelligently held beliefs from those that are completely absurd, such that we can excuse the latter as mere aberrations? Or is there some level beyond which we must conclude that the absurd beliefs negate the sound ones?

Well I, for one, would be worried about how we would determine which “beliefs” are “intelligently held” and which are “completely absurd.”

Joe, some people, not you of course, probably would define “intelligently held beliefs” to be “beliefs” with which they are in accord…and “absurd beliefs” to be ones with which they are in opposition.

Is a “belief” that there are gods absurd…or intelligently held?

Is a “belief” that there are no gods absurd…or intelligently held?

That problem seems insurmountable.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 03:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
If you all want a reason to question conservative thinking all you have to do is listen to the radio talk shows in relation to Akins rape statement. They are falling all over themselves to redefine legal rape. He will be elected because Missourians are brain washed into believing republicans can do no wrong.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can an intellectual still believe absurd things?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 09:39:09