Right, tougher debate moderators could make it clearer what each candidate really believes by reducing deception and vagueness, but probably wouldn’t have any effect on making straightforward dumb-but-popular views any less popular.
mbitton24
Karma: 63
Good point, thanks. Skepticism of specific scientific claims is fully consistent with a “pro-science” outlook. I would maintain that people rejecting legitimate scientific claims often are inconsistent, though. Case in point, Young Earth Creationists that completely trust technology and medication that could only work if the scientific case for YEC is false.
Calling anti-vaccination people “anti-science” is a transparently bad persuasion tactic. Leave a social line of retreat.
Also, it probably isn’t even true that they’re anti-science. It’s more likely their stances on science are inconsistent, trusting it to varying degrees in different situations depending on the political and social implications of declaring belief.
I’m not sure it would lead to better politicians as much as would it lead to politicians adapting their bullshit skills to better fit the new interview set up.
Many of the bullshit explanations politicians give are perceived as perfectly acceptable to the wider public.
MODERATOR: Should gay marriage be legal?
POLITICIAN: Nope.
MODERATOR: Why not?
POLITICIAN: It goes against the teachings of my religion. It says in passage X:YZ of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I refuse to go against the command of God in my time in office.
That answer is fine to many, maybe most, Americans. If the moderator presses the politician on his religious beliefs at this point, he comes off as biased, far too biased to be interviewing presidential candidates.
In general, I do think demanding more of politicians is a safe bet to be a Good Thing though.
“In general, this suggests that we should give relatively more weight to tastes and values that we expect to be more universal among civilizations across the multiverse.”
This is a pretty interesting idea to me, Brian. It makes intuitive sense but when would we apply it? Can it only be used as a tiebreaker? It’s difficult for me to imagine scenarios where this consideration would sway my decision.
Upvoted.
I meant to say that if you believe a scientific claim to be legitimate, there should/are going to be implications of that on other parts of your worldview. When we misjudge what the implications of a belief are, we can believe it while simultaneously rejecting something it implies. (That’s what reductio ad absurdum’s are for.)
I was under the impression that GPS was such a technology. I also don’t see much room for reasonably believing in evolutionary medicine without accepting macro-evolution—but that’s a bit of a stretch from my original point. After struggling to find examples, I’m going to downshift my probability of there being many around.