Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Norm, What Did You Do?
I am appalled at the nature of intellectual attitudes and ideas. You pick the field. Science, philosophy, ethics, politics, economics, and more base their knowledge base in something I call the normative, or Norm. Norm takes a wide variety of experiences, makes an average or finds a middle point, and decides that the average is "the truth." The problem is that Norm can never explain things that happen outside his formula.
This is especially used poorly in the area of ethics. For example,Norm would say "Most people use their right hand to eat; therefore, you should use your right hand to eat." What relationship does Norm establish between "most people" and "should"? To use terms like "ought" and "should" is to assert that all left-handers are in a position of moral compromise. Maybe Norm framed the debate completely from a wrong system of thought. Need I quote Mom to refute Norm? "Just because everybody jumps off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to do it." More appropriately, adultery is still wrong no matter how many people do it or endorse it. Morality is inherently metaphysical (that means it is not biological or physiological). The debate needs to be framed according to its nature.
However, it is really dangerous beyond ethics. Science is filled with statistics like 55% or 82%. The fact that most water on earth is salt water does not mean that water is salt water. Many scientists, to their credit do not frame their results by saying that x% majority equals universal fact. The fact is that .0000000000000001% to the contrary means that one does not have a universal trait. I don't even want to get into the problem of changing scientific conditions from one generation to the next, both atmospheric and philosophically. Needless to say, Norm, you really do not explain anything to me.
Norm, what I really do not like is that you get so much press. Every day, another poll is promoted telling me what I should think because most people think this or that. Norm, truth is not democratic, it is not conventional. Every day some new scientist gets a lot of press because he says "most of the time." Most Christians are out there arguing for this or that with attention to Norm's theory, rather than stating (consistent with their worldview) that they believe something to be true because God made it so. I know, that is an offensive and hated message, but it makes at least as much sense as "most people think this, therefore this is true" or "most dogs weigh that, therefore all dogs should weigh that." In fact, Solomon wrote "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov 1:7). Paul characterizes the thoughts of the ungodly as "futility of their own mind."
When you think about it Norm, you are running around the world getting people all worked up, motivating them to action (sometimes violent action), and keeping them in the dark. Rather than letting them reframe the debate from a more adequate worldview, we are stuck talking about "norms." Norm, you are responsible for stereotypes and ignorance at the same time. Norm, I would rather know what is right and true than what is normal.
This has been a tirade from the Intolerant, Bigoted, Right-wing, Christian, and Evil I Hate Norm Organization.
This is especially used poorly in the area of ethics. For example,Norm would say "Most people use their right hand to eat; therefore, you should use your right hand to eat." What relationship does Norm establish between "most people" and "should"? To use terms like "ought" and "should" is to assert that all left-handers are in a position of moral compromise. Maybe Norm framed the debate completely from a wrong system of thought. Need I quote Mom to refute Norm? "Just because everybody jumps off a bridge, doesn't mean you have to do it." More appropriately, adultery is still wrong no matter how many people do it or endorse it. Morality is inherently metaphysical (that means it is not biological or physiological). The debate needs to be framed according to its nature.
However, it is really dangerous beyond ethics. Science is filled with statistics like 55% or 82%. The fact that most water on earth is salt water does not mean that water is salt water. Many scientists, to their credit do not frame their results by saying that x% majority equals universal fact. The fact is that .0000000000000001% to the contrary means that one does not have a universal trait. I don't even want to get into the problem of changing scientific conditions from one generation to the next, both atmospheric and philosophically. Needless to say, Norm, you really do not explain anything to me.
Norm, what I really do not like is that you get so much press. Every day, another poll is promoted telling me what I should think because most people think this or that. Norm, truth is not democratic, it is not conventional. Every day some new scientist gets a lot of press because he says "most of the time." Most Christians are out there arguing for this or that with attention to Norm's theory, rather than stating (consistent with their worldview) that they believe something to be true because God made it so. I know, that is an offensive and hated message, but it makes at least as much sense as "most people think this, therefore this is true" or "most dogs weigh that, therefore all dogs should weigh that." In fact, Solomon wrote "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Prov 1:7). Paul characterizes the thoughts of the ungodly as "futility of their own mind."
When you think about it Norm, you are running around the world getting people all worked up, motivating them to action (sometimes violent action), and keeping them in the dark. Rather than letting them reframe the debate from a more adequate worldview, we are stuck talking about "norms." Norm, you are responsible for stereotypes and ignorance at the same time. Norm, I would rather know what is right and true than what is normal.
This has been a tirade from the Intolerant, Bigoted, Right-wing, Christian, and Evil I Hate Norm Organization.
