Progs are somewhat biased in neglecting the combined possibilities that
1 the fence was placed there for a reason
2 it was well optimized for the reason
3 the reason is still valid
4 it is still well optimized
....but the NRs are much more biased, because they are assuming that all of 1..4 are correct. The odds are strongly in favour of the prog assumption that one went wrong.
Also, the reactionary right tends toward nostalgic fantasies and invented traditions. The fence might not be as old as it seems. It might even be quite recently put into place but made to look old or look like what some think an old fence looks like. And even if there were original reasons (though there may not have been), the reasons claimed for the supposed old fence might be modern inventions or else highly skewed. The past is treated as serving the present and so the past can be altered as needed.
The non-reactionary left, on the other hand, tends to think the past has to be studied scientifically and so understood on its own terms, that the past is a foreign land. As best we can we should resist anachronistically projecting our biases and beliefs onto the past. Then based on the best evidence, research, and theory, the different positions should be scientifically debated. The past is treated as an object of study, only afterward to be applied to understanding and improving the present.
I’m thinking of scholarship like Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse, Agner Fog’s Warlike and Peaceful Societies, James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State, David Graeber & David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, etc. Sure, everyone has their biases and I’m sure these scholars would admit to it. But they’re the kind of intellectual who, in likely measuring higher on ‘openness to experience’, is more willing to challenge and change their own biases with new insights and ideas, evidence and views.
Progs are somewhat biased in neglecting the combined possibilities that
1 the fence was placed there for a reason
2 it was well optimized for the reason
3 the reason is still valid
4 it is still well optimized
....but the NRs are much more biased, because they are assuming that all of 1..4 are correct. The odds are strongly in favour of the prog assumption that one went wrong.
Also, the reactionary right tends toward nostalgic fantasies and invented traditions. The fence might not be as old as it seems. It might even be quite recently put into place but made to look old or look like what some think an old fence looks like. And even if there were original reasons (though there may not have been), the reasons claimed for the supposed old fence might be modern inventions or else highly skewed. The past is treated as serving the present and so the past can be altered as needed.
The non-reactionary left, on the other hand, tends to think the past has to be studied scientifically and so understood on its own terms, that the past is a foreign land. As best we can we should resist anachronistically projecting our biases and beliefs onto the past. Then based on the best evidence, research, and theory, the different positions should be scientifically debated. The past is treated as an object of study, only afterward to be applied to understanding and improving the present.
I’m thinking of scholarship like Luke Kemp’s Goliath’s Curse, Agner Fog’s Warlike and Peaceful Societies, James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State, David Graeber & David Wengrow’s The Dawn of Everything, etc. Sure, everyone has their biases and I’m sure these scholars would admit to it. But they’re the kind of intellectual who, in likely measuring higher on ‘openness to experience’, is more willing to challenge and change their own biases with new insights and ideas, evidence and views.