Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
Has reason ever been a big part of politics? If reason ruled all, we would be ran by technocrats- industry and technical specialists. Rightly or wrongly, a huge part of politics is winning people over emotionally with some grandiose vision. We then act disappointed when for whatever reason, the dream doesn't come to fruition. Disillusionment sets in and the tide changes, we boot them out of office and a new arrangement forms, with slightly different ideals from before.

I think the fundamental thing is that we all want different outcomes, and have different visions for the society we'd like to see. There are usually injustices whichever direction is chosen, which generate emotional responses, which someone claims to have a cure for. The cycle repeats.

A theoretical ideal would be if our goals were more aligned, and we were in agreement about what was, and wasn't desirable. This is done for many subjects such as free speech, property rights etc (there are elements which oppose these, but generally speaking they are minor in significance in Britain). But we struggle to get past fundamental disagreement about the role of the state in important areas such as welfare, industry, taxes, and so on. The emotional pleas result from friction and conflict in these, and other areas.
I wish I could disagree!
There seems to be little to no hierarchy when information is presented via media, C4 news purposefully had a 'debate' on drugs policy between Peter hitchens and someone who leads an international ngo studying world health in the field!

One side of the 'debate' is from someone who works for an organisation that has made a living out of selling emotive stories regularly shown to be lies!
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
Yes, do you? As your suggestion is rather misplaced. Ditto to the use of the word 'theory'.
Oh good so you know, Peer review is not restricted to scientific published papers and understand that I (and very few others) would lend what roff has said the word theory a scientific meaning but may offer it in the more general usage.

Frankly if the 'theory' he offers continues to be used to spread fud and isn't presented to those he believes wilfully misrepresent data I'd push the word towards the conspiracy end of it's meaning!
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Not really wanting to go around in circles but he's not proposed a theory and has simply made a criticism re: how some data has been presented. To go off on one about peer review etc.. is misplaced that's all. I thought the point was obvious but seemingly not, no doubt you could pick a fight over this for the next two pages but I'm not particularly interested.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
Not really wanting to go around in circles but he's not proposed a theory and has simply made a criticism re: how some data has been presented. To go off on one about peer review etc.. is misplaced that's all. I thought the point was obvious but seemingly not, no doubt you could pick a fight over this for the next two pages but I'm not particularly interested.
Traditional post FUD run away, the presenters facebook is right there, publish away, he might learn something about data collection of the earth average temperature over the last few hundred years or change the discourse who knows!
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
On that facebook page is a long discussion on exactly this topic, it really wouldn't be difficult to express a valid point and get feedback on it.
Obviously on the Senators outlandish NASA "corrupted" the data statements responses are more like this:
I suspect a less outlandish and more considered point will be treated with less disdain.

giphy.gif
 
Man of Honour
Joined
15 Jan 2006
Posts
32,369
Location
Tosche Station
In this thread, OP posts asking whether or not we're entering an "age of unreason" and then lays down an incredible display of "unreason" when someone points out that - although they agree with the OPs point - some of his opening argument has some obvious flaws. I realise that isn't what you mean by "age of unreason" but the irony is amusing.

Moving to GD as this is far from SC material.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
In this thread, OP posts asking whether or not we're entering an "age of unreason" and then lays down an incredible display of "unreason" when someone points out that - although they agree with the OPs point - some of his opening argument has some obvious flaws. I realise that isn't what you mean by "age of unreason" but the irony is amusing.

Moving to GD as this is far from SC material.
Your position is, asking someone who has an issue with a scientific presenter 'shutting down debate' with a person who believes NASA faked data on climate change to post their issues to the presenter's open web pages for review and right to reply, is not of a high enough standard for 'Speakers Corner' on OCuk? Wow.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
In this thread, OP posts asking whether or not we're entering an "age of unreason" and then lays down an incredible display of "unreason" when someone points out that - although they agree with the OPs point - some of his opening argument has some obvious flaws. I realise that isn't what you mean by "age of unreason" but the irony is amusing.

Moving to GD as this is far from SC material.
If you are moving this based on the above, you can at least explain what you or roff believed/stated the 'obvious flaws' in my post are, that would be reasonable no?
Specifically what rules of SC is this not worthy of?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
As Dowie says its as much a data visualisation issue - if you zoom out a little more from the data used in that first graph he uses it looks something like:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EIKE_2.gif

Zoom out a bit more and its a blip downwards quite a bit from the long term average.

The dip is ascribed to natural factors connected to the period of the "little ice age" and subsequent solar minimums + volcanic activity - but the rising edge - which doesn't cross the average until about 75% of the way along the graph is often used to illustrate a trend in climate change usually in the context of anthropogenic forcing as if climate change starts at the bottom of that dip onwards.

To illustrate it another way the same kind of data and presentation of it is used here to show the effect on glaciers - as if the start is in 1862 and climate change has progressively stripped it back in a dramatic fashion:

https://youtu.be/7Ra1qugDXsU?t=120

But when you look at the actual raw numbers the data doesn't have a linear regression like the video illustrates - and infact the 300 year average is much further up with the 1862 an unprecedented extent of glaciation in modern history (my annotations in red):

http://i.imgur.com/6UWRE6O.jpg

The point being in this context if we want to see an age lead by reason then it comes from both sides of the fence - things like this don't help to forward the case for reason when they mostly seem to be utilised to shut down debate and silence dissent using what has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture.

To be clear I'm not denying climate change here - if you look at the last part of the data - since 2010 especially there has been a worrying change that certainly shouldn't be ignored.

Back to the context of government I think one of the problems is you can manipulate statistics to support almost any argument or position and this has eroded people's trust in facts and reason.

The implication of the above post is that Dr Cox and others who represent Science via the media have/are wilfully misrepresenting climate data, apparently requesting the person making this serious claim (about Dr Cox) gives him (Dr Cox) the right to reply, rather than spreading unsubstantiated FUD is not worthy of speakers corner. This is in fact the entire point of this thread!
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
Politically it appears increasingly popular to deny reason and push emotion above evidence!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts

After Grenfell I proposed the most important question is "What evidence and reasoning was a large budget given to clad tower blocks", people have suggested insulation as a reason, I can find no evidence/calculations that in energy/financially cladding tower blocks over housing was efficient and the debate hasn't seemed to even consider the wider problem that perhaps unreason has been part of government for sometime, are lessons really learned by leaders?

Dr Cox has been vocal over concerns that people seem to increasingly discount experts and evidence in political debate, have we entered an increasingly unreasonable period or alternatively has this approach always been dominant in politics and government, the third option that evidence and reason are well handled by government seems unlikely at this point, but what do others think?

We have entered a period of anti intellectualism and replaced intellectualism with emotions and feelings.

Where you have the Alt Left holding majority of public opinion, on such nonsense like Black Lives Matter, Feminism and Social Justice. These issues are given such large coverage, others start to believe its the right action and then have this cognitive dissonance effect, where they are exposed to other opinions (Like Right wing ones) and rather then investigate further, they retreat to their echo chambers (Facebook, Twitter), where they are reassured that their beliefs are fine and everyone else is insane.

The above has allowed the rise of such utter ********, like White Privilege, where White people are expected to pay reparations on past events they weren't even born to take part in, nor believe.

Where women are seen as oppressed by a secret cabal of men, just trying their best to keep women from succeeding.

Where you are meant to "punch a nazi", which is code word for punching anyone who doesn't conform to the Alt Left doctrine of acceptable thought.

Its pure insanity and the only thing i can think about, is the Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation documentary. Specifically about the non linear political war that Putin engaged in within Russia, where he would support Neo Nazi's, while also supporting civil rights movements. In a world where the landscape is forever changing, its impossible to get a foothold on what is normal.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
27 May 2008
Posts
399
There is a whole mass of information from unverified sources these days. Seemingly there is so much of it, that people have difficulty identifying what is genuine or not. You can spout out anything and if it's forceful enough, or argued well enough, someone will believe it, even if they can't provide any credible evidence.
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2004
Posts
3,691

Reason and unreason...... No it has always been that way and always will, if anything it will only get worse. Think about why the words themselves even exists, like yourself people reconised the problem to the extent that they named it. Reason comes out of chaos as it is a necessity and unreason comes out of order, as in an ordered system unreasonablity can be afforded.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
There is a whole mass of information from unverified sources these days. Seemingly there is so much of it, that people have difficulty identifying what is genuine or not. You can spout out anything and if it's forceful enough, or argued well enough, someone will believe it, even if they can't provide any credible evidence.
It is an interesting point, the development of the world wide web was effectively motivated by a need to make academic publishing/discussion more widely available and to provide hyperlinks for referencing.

Take the case in point on this thread, someone has a position regarding the intellectual rigour of Dr Cox's presented data and even puts the effort to detail those issues whilst suggesting a wider problem of 'shutting down' debate from science in the media (supposedly "it works both ways" with no description of what the posited "both ways" are). When asked to simply follow a hyperlink to the source of his issue (in this context) and state/defend their case, they disappear. Making the Suggestion that giving Dr Cox and others the right to comment/review what is a theory in the popular not scientific sense (that science and the media are wilfully misrepresenting climate data) is also deemed unreason on this forum by a 'mod'.

Now lets take a quick look at the quality of discussion across the rest of SC!
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
12 Nov 2015
Posts
4,010
It will be interesting to see if the decision to move this thread out of SC (whilst numerous other dubious threads persist) is overturned, through collective reasoning...
 
Back
Top Bottom