site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34456 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I defy you to describe an actual philosophical issue raised by science or the modern world generally.

"Is the scientific method a useful tool for uncovering reliable knowledge about the physical world?"

Religions generally make claims about moral truths and historical truths, and the scientific method isn't competent at measuring either. But philosophy covers all types of knowledge and claims to truth, and both science and religion fall under its broad sweep, if in significantly different sub-areas.

"Is the scientific method a useful tool for uncovering reliable knowledge about the physical world?"

That's a fact, not an issue, I'd say. There never has been significant disagreement over it from any side.

Religions generally make claims about moral truths and historical truths, and the scientific method isn't competent at measuring either.

Modernism disagreed, and claimed that since the material was all that exists, nothing in the cosmos fell outside its purview. It claimed that Science, properly applied, could engineer away the problems inherent to the human condition. Christianity claimed it would not, in fact, be able to do that. A century later, it's pretty clear Christianity was correct and the modernists were wrong, and it only took murdering a hundred million humans and enslaving and immiserating a few billion more to establish that.

But philosophy covers all types of knowledge and claims to truth, and both science and religion fall under its broad sweep, if in significantly different sub-areas.

Hypothetically, sure. In practice, it doesn't seem to me that philosophy as a formal discipline actually delivers much in the way of actionable insight, certainly does not do so better than the best of religion, and in fact seems to converge on religion when it is operating well.

It claimed that Science, properly applied, could engineer away the problems inherent to the human condition. Christianity claimed it would not, in fact, be able to do that. A century later, it's pretty clear Christianity was correct and the modernists were wrong

In some cases, yes. In others, no. Death by childbirth has been a plague on humanity since forever; in Genesis, a painful and dangerous birth is listed as one of the common curses of humankind up there with mortality itself and the need to work to eat. Yet, while this particular plague is not yet fully healed, I daresay we have been making some good progress on that front. There was a time, not so long ago, when it was completely normal and unremarkable for most parents to have to bury most of their children, and even a young and perfectly healthy woman had to seriously fear death every time one was born. In wealthy parts of the world, that is now virtually forgotten. So that's one.

it only took murdering a hundred million humans and enslaving and immiserating a few billion more to establish that.

Are you taking Communism, specifically, as sole representative of Modernism as a whole? Because I'd argue that the Green Revolution and smallpox eradication have at least as good a claim of representing the application of science and rationality to society, and the number of lives those saved far outstrips the number taken by the most murderous regimes.

It claimed that Science, properly applied, could engineer away the problems inherent to the human condition.

Certain people claimed that we could engineer away certain problems inherent to the human condition. Some of them were right on certain matters (e.g., certain diseases), and others were wrong (various utopians). Why is that such an indictment of materialism or the Enlightement or science or Science or whatever? I don't understand why you tar them all with the same brush.

The basic idea of the Enlightenment is that the scientific method is a reliable way to discover truths about material reality, and we can use those discoveries along with reason to try and improve our lives and solve problems. That seems straightforwardly obvious to me. I also don't think there's a bailey concealed under that anywhere. The fact that some people said "Hey, using my reason, and using what I think are some facts I think I learned from science, I believe I can engineer human nature to excise the nasty bits like greed and jealousy and perfect us" is no more an indictment of science/materialism than "Hey, I think these cardboard arm flaps will make me fly" is an indictment of aeronautics, or, for that matter, that, "Hey, I think the good Christian thing to do is burn witches and kill baby Native Americans so their innocent souls will go to Heaven before their society misleads them" is an indictment of Christianity.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats