Can we save our planet by reasoning together?

The risk/reward of what, Chumly? Air conditioning? This is precisely the problem with Coberst's rants--they are uniformly insufficiently specific for any such discussion as you propose, no matter how worthy the nature of the discussion for which you call.

Sure thing, he did not say.

It would not be that hard to do, if I was to propose a thread I would say something to the effect that the risks (at the extremes mind you) would be the extinction of man via (future) eco-global decimation of his own making, versus the (present) rewards of the eco-unfriendly aspects of our technological / material / high-population state of affairs.

You'd still need to be specific, because otherwise you beg the question. The air conditioning example from Coberst is a perfect example. What would be the point of such a discussion unless you either stipulate in advance that a set of specific conditions endanger the earth, or you alleged that specific conditions endanger the earth, and stipulate why you say so.

For example, with air conditioning, i can think of absolutely no inherent aspect of air conditioning which would make it dangerous to the earth, unless one were to demonstrate with reasonable support that it contributes significantly to global warming (a doubtful proposition, vis-a-vis proving that were so). Otherwise, one could stipulate that it does endanger the earth, but one would still need to at least outline why. I would respond by pointing out that air conditioning saves lives in the case of those with respiratory conditions and the elderly in times of "heat emergencies," and that this is especially so in cities in which air quality is poor to begin with. Do we want Coberst deciding who gets to use AC and who doesn't?

Alternatively, one could argue that air conditioning endangers the earth because of the "dangers" of electrical generation. Then an entire discussion could be crafted on the topic of "earth-friendly" electrical generation.

Sure, start a thread, although i doubt that i would participate unless it were particularly specific.

It's true I did not flesh out the specifics of the present and future risks as per "eco-global decimation of his own making". Outside of doing so (which as suggested is quite do-able) my point had more to do with
than quantifying / qualifying / extrapolating perceived survival risks. Why?

Because I've noted posters whom appear to be reasonably well versed on the concerns, can view the specifics in quite different ways. So it seems to me that such perceptions may have a strong bias in arbitrary risk assessment / perceptions, even if the posters in question would be unlikely to see it, and would thus carry on quoting and interpreting their sources referring to other individualistic rationales outside of arbitrary risk assessment / perceptions.

That is not to say that fleshing out the specifics of the present and future risks as per "eco-global decimation of his own making" is not relevant.

Admittedly no analogy is perfect but give this consideration:

Think of the general in the battlefield, in the heat of the moment, preparing to make a pivotal command decision, does he have the time and resources to assess and flesh out all the implications of every action / counter action? No.

How does he rationalize his command decision, which could affect the turn of the war and millions of lives, and perhaps man's survival? I suggest at some point, if he is a rational and honest man, he will have to admit that he applied an arbitrary perception of the risk reward / equation.

Actually, that is an inapt analogy, because it does not take into consideration the nature of discussions such as this (we're not under the kind of pressure to which a battlefield commander is subjected); and it shows a far too simplistic view of what it is that military commanders do.

With regard to discussions such as this, you write: So it seems to me that such perceptions may have a strong bias in arbitrary risk assessment / perceptions, even if the posters in question would be unlikely to see it, and would thus carry on quoting and interpreting their sources referring to other individualistic rationales outside of arbitrary risk assessment / perceptions. This is precisely why one needs to review the specifics, so that those in the discussion can make a reasonable judgment about the assessments offered by others. Making absolute statements without explaining how one comes to such a conclusion is no different than what Coberst has done here, when he invites you to agree or be damned.

As for military commanders, they know, and have long known, that the hierarchy of command determines success in an engagement. A commander of a corps or an army gathers as much information as possible on the terrain, the condition and equipment of his own forces, the condition and equipment of his opponents, the imperatives of the strategic situation, and the likely imperatives the situation imposes on his opponent. He then decides upon an operation plan, and it has been literally centuries since any commander made an operation plan "all by himself." Having determined upon an operational plan, as the opposing forces engage, the high-ranking commander becomes increasingly irrelevant to the outcome. When the corps commander has committed his divisions, the only significant effect he can subsequently exert on the outcome is by committing any reserves he may have held back. The division commander commits his regiments, and the course of his division's battle is out of his hands, and into the hands of the colonels. The battalions are committed, then the companies, the platoons, the squads, the files. At each level of engagement, the high-ranking commanders become increasingly irrelevant, and the local commanders become increasingly crucial to the success of the effort. Robert Lee once told an observer from England with regard to the course of a campaign that he delivered the army to the point at which he wished them to fight, and that thereafter the outcome was out of his hands. As for "risk/reward" equations, the general will have done his best to give them careful consideration before engaging in battle--men's lives are at stake. After battle is joined, there is little to nothing that general can do to alter the outcome; he had better have done it before a shot is fired.

I interpreted this as a thread about co-operation. Ba-da-da-ching!

Set, I'll respond soon I'm still thinking about it!

At the UN climate conference the report is just about ready. I read in a Norwegian newspaper that during the talks, several countries, including USA, China and Saudi Arabia, pressed for the use of milder words.

It shocks me that even now, when the report is a result of the research of 2500 scientsts, and the results are unmistakable, some nations try to trivialize it. China wanted, among other things, to remove a paragraph in which the experts state that there is "a very high probability" that the environmental changes are human made.

So can we save the world by reasoning together? I think that so long as politicians are supposed to do the reasoning this will never happen...

Global capitalism is the road to perdition.

It seems to me that the logic of capitalism leads us to the destruction of the planet, at least to the extent as to make it uninhabitable to humans. I understand that cockroaches thrive on radiation.

The logic of capitalism is to maximize production and consumption. To follow this logic is to destroy the planetary ecosystem in order to feed the need for raw materials required to maintain this drive to maximize production and consumption.

Constantly increasing the degree of automation, which is another aspect of the logic of capitalism, constantly pushes humans into a more alienating life style. As automation increases the meaning for existence for humans becomes an ever increasingly difficult illusion to maintain because work is the principal means for developing self-esteem.

I agree with that. We have to start putting the emphasis on what is needed instead of what we want.

Before we address the question Can we save our planet by reasoning together? we must answer the question Can we reason together?

No, it is too boring.

Sorry, but I can't read Coberst threads much less work to saving the planet with him or her.... fond as I am of the planet.


I answered this one since sometimes I do read the titles, if not the threads.

let me repeat.... the planet is fine. we are f**ked....

Three points,

1. It is certainly the case that coberst comes up with some catchy thread titles even though he seems incapable of debate.
2. The analagy with English "stewardship" is flawed when applied globally even though it still operates in limited cases out of local self interest.*
3. The question of whether we can "save" the planet by "reasoning" is predicated on the premises (a) that the planet needs "saving" and (b) human actions can or do play a significant role in such a popularist catastrophe scenario. Irrespective of the views on (a) or (b) I would argue that "logical reasoning" is futile because the complex systems on which ecology operates are non-linear in form and do not yield to simplistic "causality" arguments at a global level. This point overrides any sub-problems about the politics and psychology of implementation of proposed "remedies".
____________________________________________________________
* (Some areas of British countryside for example are "protected" by local family landowners who hold sway on town councils. The net effect is to push up property prices and replace the local population by the nouveau riche)

fresco says--" I would argue that "logical reasoning" is futile because the complex systems on which ecology operates are non-linear in form and do not yield to simplistic "causality" arguments at a global level. This point overrides any sub-problems about the politics and psychology of implementation of proposed "remedies".

Critical Thinking provides the means for engaginging in a dialogue wherein multilogical problems can be brought into focus. Our problem is that Americans, and I assume most other nations, have never prepared their citizens to dialogue.

Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

Facts also include systems of discreet steps designed to accomplish a task. For example, the step by step processes for adding a column of numbers, or subtracting two numbers, or the multiplication or division of numbers. These step by step processes are called algorithms. Algorithms are used to program computers to perform tasks and algorithms are used to define the logic for building bridges, or doing bookkeeping tasks, or removing the appendix from a patient, or filling a decayed tooth, etc. Algorithms are the logical steps for accomplishing almost any task relating to the interaction between humans and matter. Algorithms define the patterns humans use to solve many of the problems encountered in life.

It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

William Graham Sumner, a distinguished anthropologist states the ideal:

"The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade all its mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life."


There are no paradigms for multilogical problems. Perhaps we might use the phrase 'frame of reference' instead. A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails. The example of jury trial is useful but is a snapshot of experience and details agents in a one-time sort of experience.

Socratic dialogue is a technique for attempting to solve multilogical problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multilogical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multilogical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis, a new thesis is developed.

When we are dealing with monological problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multilogical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.
When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawns on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns. This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch it's tail?

Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialogue.//

Why say the same thing here?

Dialogue requires much preparation

coberst,

Your diatribe about the state of US (Western) "critical thinking" is peripheral to the question you ask. Alas, all you do is illustrate your own point...the paucity of your own critical thinking !

Think it out ! .....You did not ask "Can we reason ?" but "Can we use reasoning to solve a specific problem ?"

Most importantly here is that CT teaches us about dialogical thinking.

Okay coberst... so specifically which "ego and social centric forces" are impeding your rational thinking in this instance such that you start a dialogue focused on "saving the planet" and then immediately wander off that point ?