And it’s also an example of moderates refusing to give the real reasons—the delicate balance you refer to—when responding to radicals. My point is that this is typical, and it’s not typical for proponents of the status quo—even the most expert—to know about that delicate balance.
No disagreement here, but note that it’s also true of most people who don’t agree with the status quo.
(Also, by “expert”, I mean “someone who knows enough about the subject”, not “someone who speaks with authority about the subject and is widely listened-to and respected”, so I would expect that by definition, experts should know about the balance. However it is possible that those the public considers are experts are in fact a bunch of clowns.)
But then it’s kind of logically rude to expect radicals to refute an argument that their opponents aren’t even aware of (as a good reason to support the status quo), isn’t it?
(This is going a bit on a tangent) Well, if you’re arguing with someone who doesn’t know that much about an issue, I’m not sure what result you’re expecting to get. There are cases where he would be justified in not changing his mind much. Maybe he’ll tell you he trusts the opinion of person X or institution Y who is more knowledgeable (probably the position I’d take if you tried to convince me of some frine position in physics or mathematics), or that he’ll research the subject a bit more himself.
No disagreement here, but note that it’s also true of most people who don’t agree with the status quo.
I agree, but there’s also a critical asymmetry: In cases where a policy a) is a major, widely-discussed issue; b) conflicts strongly with another value the general public holds; and c) has been presented with a strong counterargument from radicals, then it’s the moderate’s obligation to identify the critical balance—yet this is clearly not what we see.
Those three criteria prevent moderates from having to justify every tiny aspect of life that someone, somewhere, doesn’t understand. If something has become a major issue, then by that point the best arguments for it should have been picked up by the widely-read commentators. Yet on issue after issue, no one seems to want to articulate this defense, which leaves radicals justifiably believing that moderates are being logically rude and selfish.
(Also, by “expert”, I mean “someone who knows enough about the subject”, not “someone who speaks with authority about the subject and is widely listened-to and respected”, so I would expect that by definition, experts should know about the balance.
Well, defining a set doesn’t mean anything must satisfy the definition. On many issues, such experts don’t seem to exist, and moderates too often don’t even act like they care about the existence of such experts or arguments—a change in policy would hurt their narrow, short-sighted interests, so they’ll vote against such changes, and no amount of argument can undo their naked grip on power.
However it is possible that those the public considers are experts are in fact a bunch of clowns.)
Like I said above in this comment, it’s hard to undersstand why those people would not reliably be aware of the best arguments.
No disagreement here, but note that it’s also true of most people who don’t agree with the status quo.
(Also, by “expert”, I mean “someone who knows enough about the subject”, not “someone who speaks with authority about the subject and is widely listened-to and respected”, so I would expect that by definition, experts should know about the balance. However it is possible that those the public considers are experts are in fact a bunch of clowns.)
(This is going a bit on a tangent) Well, if you’re arguing with someone who doesn’t know that much about an issue, I’m not sure what result you’re expecting to get. There are cases where he would be justified in not changing his mind much. Maybe he’ll tell you he trusts the opinion of person X or institution Y who is more knowledgeable (probably the position I’d take if you tried to convince me of some frine position in physics or mathematics), or that he’ll research the subject a bit more himself.
Radicals / moderates mix-up has been fixed.
I agree, but there’s also a critical asymmetry: In cases where a policy a) is a major, widely-discussed issue; b) conflicts strongly with another value the general public holds; and c) has been presented with a strong counterargument from radicals, then it’s the moderate’s obligation to identify the critical balance—yet this is clearly not what we see.
Those three criteria prevent moderates from having to justify every tiny aspect of life that someone, somewhere, doesn’t understand. If something has become a major issue, then by that point the best arguments for it should have been picked up by the widely-read commentators. Yet on issue after issue, no one seems to want to articulate this defense, which leaves radicals justifiably believing that moderates are being logically rude and selfish.
Well, defining a set doesn’t mean anything must satisfy the definition. On many issues, such experts don’t seem to exist, and moderates too often don’t even act like they care about the existence of such experts or arguments—a change in policy would hurt their narrow, short-sighted interests, so they’ll vote against such changes, and no amount of argument can undo their naked grip on power.
Like I said above in this comment, it’s hard to undersstand why those people would not reliably be aware of the best arguments.