Jon, Clark, List, For now just a quick response to a couple points Jon made. He wrote:
Part of the challenge is that we all tend to spend most of our time in echo chambers where our own views are just obvious to everyone, and we cannot imagine how or why someone would see things differently. I am talking about myself as much as anyone else. Persuasion is becoming a lost art, mostly because we are too busy talking (or yelling) to listen and consider carefully what "the other side" has to say. I agree "that we all tend to spend most of our time in echo chambers," and I will, of course, include myself as inhabiting such a communication bubble. While I try to expose myself to views different from my own--that is, I occasionally make a special effort to do so--I don't do this very often, and I tend toward an immediate critique of such opposing views which, in effect, cancels them out. Perhaps if we could get out of our "echo chambers" we'd find that we *could* reach consensus on what consitutes 'wicked problems'--I believe that there *may* truly be some--and even how we might approach solutions to them. But, especially social media makes this consensus building seem less and less likely. To clarify--in the context of an off-List discussion, I was talking about how the courts short-circuited the democratic process on those two matters. I think that it is much more legitimate within our form of government for major social changes like these to come about by persuasion of the majority to revise laws, rather than judicial imposition of "constitutional rights" that have no clear basis in the actual text. Yes, thanks for the clarification. I knew you were speaking of the courts and should have chosen a better example. As for what constitutes certain "constitutional rights" having no clear basis in the actual text of the Constitution, I think that that is a matter of interpretation which I, personally, do not feel qualified to make. In other words, I favor bottom-up solutions over top-down ones. I suspect (but cannot prove) that Peirce would have, as well. I prefer to find a value in the 'tension' between bottom-up and top-down solutions which Clark hinted at. I'm not at all sure what Peirce's preferences would be in this matter. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: When, as in the USA, the federal government is unable, for example, > over a long period of time to enact laws which clearly address what is > rapidly coming to be seen by many of all political persuasions as a > critical need for investment in the upgrading of the country's antiquated > infrastructure (e.g. bridges, electrical grids, water supply systems, > public transportation systems, etc.), many of which are interstate issues > and so simply *can't* be addressed by states alone), this presents a > threat to the welfare of the citizenry generally. > > > As an engineer, I am very much a proponent of the notion that > infrastructure investment is essential to overall economic well-being. The > problem is figuring out how to pay for such needed improvements, given that > the federal government has already been spending more than it receives by a > very large margin over a very long period of time. I also think that there > is a legitimate question about how much of this should be handled at the > national level vs. the state and local level. There really are no obvious > or easy answers to any of these issues, hence the polarization and > paralysis. Doing nothing is the least costly solution in the short term; > i.e., between now and the next election. We claim to want courageous > leadership, but then punish those who dare to tell us the truth and ask us > to make sacrifices accordingly. > > GR: But Peirce wrote this in the 19th century, while in the 21st we have > "wicked problems" in this country and in the world which (like, say, the > displacement of workers by internet technolgies and robotics, etc.--but > there are several) need *urgent* attention. > > > There is *not* widespread consensus about which problems are truly > "wicked" and "need urgent attention," nor that government-imposed solutions > are appropriate and effective. Part of the challenge is that we all tend > to spend most of our time in echo chambers where our own views are just > obvious to everyone, and we cannot imagine how or why someone would see > things differently. I am talking about myself as much as anyone else. > Persuasion is becoming a lost art, mostly because we are too busy talking > (or yelling) to listen and consider carefully what "the other side" has to > say. > > GR: On the other hand, it is surely possible for the federal government > to move too quickly, as Jon (off-list) has suggested that we may have as > regards abortion and gay rights ... > > > To clarify--in the context of an off-List discussion, I was talking about > how the courts short-circuited the democratic process on those two matters. > I think that it is much more legitimate within our form of government > for major social changes like these to come about by persuasion of the > majority to revise laws, rather than judicial imposition of "constitutional > rights" that have no clear basis in the actual text. In other words, I > favor bottom-up solutions over top-down ones. I suspect (but cannot prove) > that Peirce would have, as well. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Clark, Jon S, List, >> >> Clark wrote: >> >> >> It would seem that Peirce would be concerned about too strong a central >> government in that he wants to maximize inquiry and thus possible solutions >> to a problem rather than a single line of inquiry. This would mean a trust >> in federalism of a sort. A federalism where each state and ideally each >> county/city within that state would be free to try solutions to problems. >> Only after seeing success in other locals would solutions be adopted more >> widely and then via each state/county. >> >> The problem otherwise, from a Peircean perspective, would be the danger >> of too quickly abandoning common sense (the tried experiential solutions of >> a community) as well as imposing a single hypothesis on society with no way >> to really test it well. That is there would be a large danger of abduction >> not being sufficiently tested in terms of it being the best of possible >> solutions. >> >> I’m not sure if anyone else would agree here. >> >> >> My first impression is that you may be on to something here, Clark, that >> Peirce's understanding would tend toward a kind of federalism as needed to >> ensure that no single hypothesis be adopted too quickly for the country as >> a whole. While it is probably not the best example, I immediately thought >> of the fairly recent remarks by Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado >> concerning his state's two year experiment in legalizing cannabis and what >> the data (etc.) surrounding the results of that experiment might mean for >> other states considering legalization. He said, in effect, that he thought >> it important to move slowly in such matters, suggesting that other states >> wait at least a "couple of years" more allow his (and several other) states >> to further amass data. Indeed, one NYU researcher studying the Colorado >> data as it comes in suggested that maybe a decade wouldn't be too long. >> >> “There are no conclusions available about how it’s going,” said Mark >> A.R. Kleiman <http://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/people/mark-a.-r.-kleiman>, >> a New York University professor who is one of the nation’s foremost experts >> on marijuana legalization and its consequences. “None of the bad things >> that are likely to happen if this thing goes badly would have happened >> yet.” (from an article in the Denver Post, Oct., 2016). >> >> Clark continued: >> >> >> There are of course strong arguments against federalism in preference to >> a stronger central government. That is the problem of getting solutions >> implemented when there are countering movements in individual states where >> particular powers are able to unduly control government. (This was of >> course the argument of the classic progressives of the Teddy Roosevelt era) >> >> >> >> There are indeed "strong arguments against federalism in preference to a >> stronger central government." When, as in the USA, the federal government >> is unable, for example, over a long period of time to enact laws which >> clearly address what is rapidly coming to be seen by many of all political >> persuasions as a critical need for investment in the upgrading of the >> country's antiquated infrastructure (e.g. bridges, electrical grids, water >> supply systems, public transportation systems, etc.), many of which are >> interstate issues and so simply *can't* be addressed by states alone), >> this presents a threat to the welfare of the citizenry generally. That some >> conservatives--as in the USA and England, for example--can make of the >> several important, nay, *essential* tasks of central government >> something of a 'dirty word' is not, as I see it, in the country's interest. >> We *all*, for example, need potable water. >> >> Jon S. wrote: >> >> That strikes me as a sensible application of Peirce's self-proclaimed >> "sentimental conservatism" (CP 1.661). If "philosophical science" should >> be allowed to "influence religion and morality ... only with secular >> slowness and the most conservative caution" (CP 1.620), then it seems like >> the same is true of proposed political solutions to perceived societal >> problems. >> >> >> Yes, "secular slowness." But Peirce wrote this in the 19th century, while >> in the 21st we have "wicked problems" in this country and in the world >> which (like, say, the displacement of workers by internet technolgies and >> robotics, etc.--but there are several) need *urgent* attention. The >> solution to these will not, as I see it, be a kind of universal Toryism. >> Jon continued: >> >> Perhaps with a similar thought in mind, the Founders quite intentionally >> designed an arrangement in which it is very difficult to enact sweeping >> changes at the national level in the absence of broad consensus. When >> public opinion is polarized like it is right now, gridlock in Washington is >> a *feature *of the system, not a *bug*--despite the complaints that it >> routinely engenders from both sides of the aisle. >> >> >> I cannot necessarily agree with Jon that the gridlock we see in >> Washington--which has gone on for much too long in my opinion, for example, >> in consideration of the above mentioned national infrastructure (but there >> are several other essential matters affected by this political >> gridlock)--again, I do not see that this is *necessarily* "a *feature *of >> the system and not a *bug*." On the other hand, it is surely possible >> for the federal government to move too quickly, as Jon (off-list) has >> suggested that we may have as regards abortion and gay rights (I do not >> necessarily agree in these two matters, but my opinion here is not in the >> least relevant to the current, theoretical discussion). >> >> Clark concluded: >> >> That is there will intrinsically be a tension between discovering >> solutions for a problem and whether the majority or at least powerful want >> to solve that problem. >> >> >> I agree that there is this intrinsic tension which involves perhaps even >> more factors: first of all acknowledging particular (especially 'wicked') >> problems, then conceiving of solutions, experimenting locally (e.g. in >> individual states), amassing data, informing the population of the results, >> and finally perhaps applying the lessons learned in working to solve more >> general, that is, national problems. >> >> On the other hand, I would imagine that Clark and Jon are quite correct >> in suggesting that Peirce's position suggests the sort of federalism which >> Clark outlined. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < >> jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Clark, List: >>> >>> That strikes me as a sensible application of Peirce's self-proclaimed >>> "sentimental conservatism" (CP 1.661). If "philosophical science" should >>> be allowed to "influence religion and morality ... only with secular >>> slowness and the most conservative caution" (CP 1.620), then it seems like >>> the same is true of proposed political solutions to perceived societal >>> problems. Perhaps with a similar thought in mind, the Founders quite >>> intentionally designed an arrangement in which it is very difficult to >>> enact sweeping changes at the national level in the absence of broad >>> consensus. When public opinion is polarized like it is right now, gridlock >>> in Washington is a *feature *of the system, not a *bug*--despite the >>> complaints that it routinely engenders from both sides of the aisle. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Nov 26, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, my own sense is that one possible strength of Peirce's >>>> theory lies in his philosophical* summum bonum*, namely, the notion of >>>> our seeking the 'reasonable in itself'. It follows that--and here one >>>> perhaps necessarily goes beyond a consideration of democracy--when this >>>> *summum bonum* is offered in consideration, now not of mere science, >>>> but of what have been called the 'wicked problems' confronting humanity and >>>> the world, that one might hope for approaches (if not exactly solutions) >>>> which appear reasonable for those communities of interest hoping to address >>>> them. >>>> >>>> As I’ve thought more about the comments over the weekend I think I have >>>> come to an implication of Peirce’s thought. This isn’t necessarily >>>> something Peirce himself considered too much. >>>> >>>> It would seem that Peirce would be concerned about too strong a central >>>> government in that he wants to maximize inquiry and thus possible solutions >>>> to a problem rather than a single line of inquiry. This would mean a trust >>>> in federalism of a sort. A federalism where each state and ideally each >>>> county/city within that state would be free to try solutions to problems. >>>> Only after seeing success in other locals would solutions be adopted more >>>> widely and then via each state/county. >>>> >>>> The problem otherwise, from a Peircean perspective, would be the danger >>>> of too quickly abandoning common sense (the tried experiential solutions of >>>> a community) as well as imposing a single hypothesis on society with no way >>>> to really test it well. That is there would be a large danger of abduction >>>> not being sufficiently tested in terms of it being the best of possible >>>> solutions. >>>> >>>> I’m not sure if anyone else would agree here. >>>> >>>> There are of course strong arguments against federalism in preference >>>> to a stronger central government. That is the problem of getting solutions >>>> implemented when there are countering movements in individual states where >>>> particular powers are able to unduly control government. (This was of >>>> course the argument of the classic progressives of the Teddy Roosevelt era) >>>> That is there will intrinsically be a tension between discovering >>>> solutions for a problem and whether the majority or at least powerful want >>>> to solve that problem. For an example of this think of the relative >>>> difference in state policies in a state like Mississippi versus what we >>>> might call a more successful state. >>>> >>>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
