"Conservative Studies" causes liberal outrage at C

Check out the story yourself:

www.thecampuspress.com/media/storage/paper1098/news/2008/12/11/News/Cu.Looking.To.Hire.Chair.Of.Conservative.Thought-3577327.shtml]CU Looking to Hire Chair of Conservative Thought[/url]

The idea that the university might hire a conservative to teach conservative studies has the campus in hysterics. Kinda funny, especially if you're aware of how liberal the typical faculty are at most U. S. universities. Academicians are some of the least open-minded folks on the planet which is a sorry state of affairs when those very folks are supposed to be "pushing the boundaries of new knowledge" with their research and scholarship.

In terms of full disclosure, my own political views are best described as libertarian, and I did not vote for either major party's candidates in the most recent national elections (senate, congress, president). I did vote mainly Republican in local elections, but that's 'cuz I live in Georgia and most of them ran unopposed apparently because they couldn't find any Democrats around to run against them.

Having different view points is always a good thing...but is there a Chair of Liberal Thought already there or will this position be filled at the same time?

Universities regularly do not engage in political affiliation, so hiring somebody due to political affiliation is neg

Considering professional academics as among the most biased is a mistake. Part of the problem for why some people think this is simply a misunderstanding of epistemology and bias. Creationists accuse biologists of being biased towards evolution; this should be self-explanatory as to why creationists are the ones making the mistake and the bias. If it is not, I would love to expound since evolution is one of my favorite subjects

The majority of educated people in not just the country, but the world, are liberal or some other similar position. There is a very legitimate reason for this. Formal education is where we find some of the best gathering of knowledge on social sciences and epistemology. Political science is just as much a science as is biology, and it makes loads of sense that those who are educated in social sciences come to similar consensuses just like they do in all other sciences.

As for the US, conservatism has moved so far to the right that 'liberal' can easily mean center/right, and an analysis of political histories and social sciences very strongly suggests that the correct political position is substantially closer to US liberal than US conservative.

"Hi, I'm Bigred"

Good post

I'm surprised anyone would suggest there exists something such as "the correct political viewpoint," much less either major U. S. party being anywhere near it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

I'm surprised anyone would suggest there exists something such as "the correct political viewpoint," much less either major U. S. party being anywhere near it.

---

You disagree with me, and therefore I am offended. Shame on you for hurting my feelings.

Would you say there exists a correct biological viewpoint? Yes? Well, social sciences are no different. It's just that social issues are heavily public, and that makes correct scientific application amazingly difficult, as well as consequences are not immediately apparent as they are with a few other sciences.

You would not suggest that there is no thigh bone in the human body because all we have to do is cut open the thigh (or just look in an anatomy textbook endorsed by the entire biological community) and you'll see your mistake. However, it is easy to suggest that something like say 'trickle down economics' is a good economic policy. It's not, it's terrible actually, but because humans are so good at being irrational when consequences are not apparent and not immediate we're economically irrational, despite the fact that there exists correct economics just like there exists correct anatomy.

In my experience working at a university and with faculty around the country, professor-types are typically not great thinkers outside of their disciplines, often more susceptible to endorsing "prevailing opinion" mindlessly than the plumbers, poker players, engineers or pharmacists I know. When I said lots of professors are closed-minded, I meant both conservatives and liberals as well as the non-politically-active. They tend to endorse the prevailing "group think" of others who, on similar issues, mainly agree with them. The academicians quoted in the article show many signs of this typically mindless reaction to life's events. Their reactions and thoughts are woefully predictable.

Academia is insular and protected (academic freedom, tenure system, etc) and tends to attract a high proportion of risk-averse folks. Sort of the polar opposite of poker. Certainly some of the most delightful people I've met are creative, risk-loving, free-thinking faculty. Sadly, they are an extreme minority at my university and some others I'm familiar with.

Generally speaking, the good poker players at FTR whose opinions I hear elucidated think much better about most things than typical faculty I know, likely because poker requires mental agility and flexibility and is fraught with risk. Taking bold action in a high risk scenario sharpens the mind.

The "correct political position" based on what criteria exactly? The differences in political opinion have their fundamental origin in the different criteria people choose to evaluate the success of their government. This is a philosophical and moral question, not a scientific one. Wufwugy, it seems you think that your idea of a successful government is so obviously correct that any policy that has the proven consequence of advancing this success is inherently correct as well. The disagreement is more basic than that.

As for the question of "Conservative Studies," as long as the professor teaches a course that takes an historical, objective analytical approach to the subject, it doesn't matter that he himself is a conservative. It just means that he has more passion for the subject he is teaching. For liberals to be outraged over this is for male chauvinists to be outraged that females teach Women's Studies courses.

I realize that this is an ideal that this professor may not meet, but his appointment cannot be attacked solely because of his personal beliefs. I also realize that there is a difference between being born a woman and choosing to be a conservative, but the analogy remains valid because both bring their own interest into the classroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parasurama

The "correct political position" based on what criteria exactly?

---

Optimal well-being for all/most and all/most to come is as good a criteria as we need right now. The criteria is debatable, but it's not anything radically different than that.

Quote:

---

The differences in political opinion have their fundamental origin in the different criteria people choose to evaluate the success of their government. This is a philosophical and moral question, not a scientific one.

---

Yes and no. It's about populations, not individuals. Just because somebody thinks a certain policy is best and that policy is enacted doesn't give them the means to purport that that policy actually is best. What matters is the demonstrable and reasoned effects the policy has overall.

An example: warmongering foreign policy vs peacefully diplomatic foreign policy. I do not know what correct foreign policy is, however, I am positive that warmongering is NOT correct. History has shown us time and time again that hearts do not change and societies do not progress optimally when war is the answer. War can be effective, but it's not that effective. A foreign policy based in diplomacy has been shown to be more effective, therefore it is more correct. Just like how General Relativity better explains gravity than Newtonian Gravity, therefore GR is more correct.

And science and philosophy are not that different. Philosophy is simply science that we do not yet understand how to evaluate empirically. Or I could say that science is simply empirical philosophy. Either way they're both about the acquisition of knowledge, and therefore reliant upon reasoning and fact.

Quote:

---

Wufwugy, it seems you think that your idea of a successful government is so obviously correct that any policy that has the proven consequence of advancing this success is inherently correct as well. The disagreement is more basic than that.

---

I don't think I said much about my analysis of what is correct policy, and that's not at all what I think. I acknowledge that the social sciences (sociology, economics, political science, etc) are in fact science, and therefore must be treated like science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robb

In my experience working at a university and with faculty around the country, professor-types are typically not great thinkers outside of their disciplines, often more susceptible to endorsing "prevailing opinion" mindlessly than the plumbers, poker players, engineers or pharmacists I know. When I said lots of professors are closed-minded, I meant both conservatives and liberals as well as the non-politically-active. They tend to endorse the prevailing "group think" of others who, on similar issues, mainly agree with them. The academicians quoted in the article show many signs of this typically mindless reaction to life's events. Their reactions and thoughts are woefully predictable.

Academia is insular and protected (academic freedom, tenure system, etc) and tends to attract a high proportion of risk-averse folks. Sort of the polar opposite of poker. Certainly some of the most delightful people I've met are creative, risk-loving, free-thinking faculty. Sadly, they are an extreme minority at my university and some others I'm familiar with.

Generally speaking, the good poker players at FTR whose opinions I hear elucidated think much better about most things than typical faculty I know, likely because poker requires mental agility and flexibility and is fraught with risk. Taking bold action in a high risk scenario sharpens the mind.

---

Although I agree that there are a large number of people who are irrational outside of their field of expertise, I am reluctant to accept the notion that academia is like this to a greater degree than just about any other profession.

Also, confirmation bias can be very secretive and seductive

BTW, I used quite a few syllogisms. If any are invalid be sure to point that out. An endless goal of mine is to never commit logical fallacies. Eliminating unsound logic from my arguments is an entirely different matter, and pretty much humanly impossible

I would like to oppose Robb's notion to some extent, but in my experience, limited though it may be up till this point, most university faculty are pretty dense.

I'd like to be able to argue that people from the sciences are above these dregs as the core of their discipline REQUIRES it, but while I've met several people that are brilliant and thoughtful in nearly every aspect of their lives.. by-and-large even physics faculty members seem unable to apply basic scientific reasoning beyond their lab. Included in this are areas such as education, religion, parenting, and, yes, even the concept of poker as a skill game.

It's embarrassing quite frankly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingnat

I would like to oppose Robb's notion to some extent, but in my experience, limited though it may be up till this point, most university faculty are pretty dense.

I'd like to be able to argue that people from the sciences are above these dregs as the core of their discipline REQUIRES it, but while I've met several people that are brilliant and thoughtful in nearly every aspect of their lives.. by-and-large even physics faculty members seem unable to apply basic scientific reasoning beyond their lab. Included in this are areas such as education, religion, parenting, and, yes, even the concept of poker as a skill game.

It's embarrassing quite frankly...

---

This made me LoL.

By the way, one of the great things about my poker experience is that it keeps me humble. There are tons of folks more adept at poker than I am, even though I should be good at it. I like the fact that learning to win consistently at successively higher levels requires flexible thinking. And there are lots of folks on FTR specifically who have proven that they are much better at it than me. So let me take my lumps as one of the embarrassingly dense faculty, albeit one who is trying to stay mentally agile in real-world pursuits. With mixed success. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parasurama

The "correct political position" based on what criteria exactly?

---

Optimal well-being for all/most and all/most to come is as good a criteria as we need right now. The criteria is debatable, but it's not anything radically different than that.

---

Personally I buy that, but it's not universal: c.f. deontological libertarianism.

If we could all agree on ethics then I think political theory would be a science, but we can't...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parasurama

Wufwugy, it seems you think that your idea of a successful government is so obviously correct that any policy that has the proven consequence of advancing this success is inherently correct as well. The disagreement is more basic than that.

---

I don't think I said much about my analysis of what is correct policy, and that's not at all what I think.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wufwugy

Optimal well-being for all/most and all/most to come is as good a criteria as we need right now. The criteria is debatable, but it's not anything radically different than that.

---

True, I admit that I made a guess based on limited information, a skill that I have honed in recent years, but you have validated my guess with this second statement. I agree completely that the “correct” political position, using your criteria, is much closer to US liberal than US conservative. However, I identify myself as a libertarian, and my conception of a successful government is radically different from yours. The only function of a government in my opinion is to protect the individual and group right of property, and to protect the right to conduct this property in any way that is desired so long as it does not interfere with the right of property of another. I use the word property loosely, and it does not include only material possessions.

As an example of why I think my criteria are superior to yours I will use an issue that I believe we both care deeply about: online poker. It would be completely in the power of your government to ban online poker. There are far fewer winners than losers, and those with the intelligence and determination to succeed at it would likely be able to succeed in another field. The losers sometimes blow all of their savings, borrowing money, straining relationships. Winners and losers alike can become obsessed with the grind, spending hours and hours, days and days in front of a computer screen, losing their passion for other elements of life, losing contact with friends and family, and doing poorly in school. It would be imperative on your government to step in and ban online poker (and possibly all gambling), or at least severely limit the number of people allowed to play, if it was proven that it contributes negatively to the well-being of most/all of the population. On the other hand, it would be imperative on my government that online poker be kept legal regardless of its effect on overall well-being, for a ban would be an infringement on an individual’s right to conduct his property (money) in any way that he chooses. Note: I am not trying to convert you but to show you why another perspective can be valid, so that there is no “correct” political opinion.

I also disagree that philosophy is a science. True, both philosophy and science are about the acquiring of knowledge, and utilize reasoning and fact; however, science uses as its starting point observations, generates testable hypotheses to explain them, and determines the accuracy of these hypotheses by testing them, while philosophy begins with a norm, a statement of how something “should” be, and proceeds to outline the consequences of this norm. It could be true that philosophy is science that “we do not yet understand how to evaluate empirically,” but until we can objectively say how anything “should be,” they are dissimilar fields.

Tunah, thanks for the link, I didn’t know that my beliefs were called “deontological libertarianism.”

Nice post, Para.

I doubt political theory could be termed "correct" because libertarians just have such a different view of what government ought to do than most conservatives and modern liberals (in the U.S.). If a person thinks state or federal "departments of education" should not exist at all, there's not much point in arguing education policy.

We seem to have come to an impasse. Unless we can agree upon the idea that the social sciences should be treated like any science, it will be fruitless to continue.

Having said that, I'll make a few statements that don't depend on that position.

I used to be libertarian, also. Big time. But the more I learned the more I found I was swaying towards something along the lines of social liberalism. I don't much care for political identification since the meanings are and have been across the board. For example, Jefferson 'founded' both US liberalism and conservatism, succinctly defining political terminology is a pretty tall order.

Now our idea that the political spectrum is left-right axis is way wrong. There are many spectrums, some with y axes as well, and often spectrums are used for isolated policy evaluations. For example, one spectrum is Clericalism vs anti-Clericalism, another is Pacifism vs Militancy, the list goes on.

Yet another is Communitarianism vs Individualism, also known as Populism vs Libertarianism. It seems to be common thought that social liberty is polar to individual liberty, but I don't understand how that can be the case. Social liberty IS individual liberty, and vise versa, they're just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Since society is a population, if each individual in that population has individual liberty then they collectively have social liberty. This seems to me to be a big distinction between liberalism and libertarianism that is simply just false, and the reason for that is the ideologies are not thought through, and thus they appear different.

As far as current US libertarian policy goes, I have found that much of it is poor and would not do what it claims it would. If you would like to discuss policy then I'm game, but if not then thanks for the cordial discourse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

I used to be libertarian, also. Big time. But the more I learned the more I found I was swaying towards something along the lines of social liberalism. I don't much care for political identification since the meanings are and have been across the board. For example, Jefferson 'founded' both US liberalism and conservatism, succinctly defining political terminology is a pretty tall order.

---

Agreed. I also try to shy away from political identification but "libertarian" is the best available word for mine, so I used it for convenience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Yet another is Communitarianism vs Individualism, also known as Populism vs Libertarianism. It seems to be common thought that social liberty is polar to individual liberty, but I don't understand how that can be the case. Social liberty IS individual liberty, and vise versa, they're just two different ways of looking at the same thing. Since society is a population, if each individual in that population has individual liberty then they collectively have social liberty. This seems to me to be a big distinction between liberalism and libertarianism that is simply just false, and the reason for that is the ideologies are not thought through, and thus they appear different.

---

It was my understanding that liberalism involves supporting social equality not social liberty, which I agree is equivalent to individual liberty. In my view, there is nothing about liberty that requires optimizing well-being for most/all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

As far as current US libertarian policy goes, I have found that much of it is poor and would not do what it claims it would. If you would like to discuss policy then I'm game, but if not then thanks for the cordial discourse

---

God no, discussing policy is less fun than a LO8 freeroll :roll: . Thank you for the discourse too.

Ted video said it best. Conservatives fight for order at the expensive of the little guy. Liberals fight for the little guy at the risk of chaos.

There's no right answer, just an appropriate scattering of opinions fighting each other, methinks.

edit anytime anyone mentions "liberal" or "conservative" im usually turned off to the conversation (which is to say, i didnt really read this thread). I really couldn't care less about what ideas are right and which are left.