Is conservatism today rejecting empiricism?

[myp]

I am seeing a lot of it today, unfortunately. I know there has always been a sect and certain groups that identified themselves as conservatives who have felt this way, but it seems to be becoming more mainstream- a tragedy, if you ask me. Sorry, but empiricism and science matter whether or not it is convenient for any individual.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-06/who-needs-posner-when-you-have-mises-and-hayek-.html

disclosure: I considered myself an Austrian once upon a time as some of our older members probably know. I don't like labeling myself one way or another anymore, but I have revised some of my beliefs given what I have learned over the years and what this crisis has taught us. I still agree with the Austrians on a lot of things like fiscal policy (generally, not absolutely), but for different reasons- more logical reasons in my opinion.

 

[DodgeFB]

If I have shifted in recent years it would be to more "Libertarian" than before. But then I run into what seems to be their weakness toward defense. So I can't really go there. And when I listen to the "progressive" thinkers they offer me nothing. They are against most things I am for, and for most things I am against. Which is why I left the democratic party years ago.

Truthfully I guess I should just turn my back on all things political. I don't agree with any of them. And I am so tired of all the fake "I am just"appalled" crap coming from all sides. There is no "respect" of other opinions coming from either side.

So I don't believe 90% of what any of them say. Maybe "science" can come up with a way to keep them all honest. But I doubt it.

 

[myp]

You were a Democrat? Would never have guessed it.

And this isn't so much about actual beliefs, but the way of thinking. Beliefs are one thing, analysis is another. The second has roots in logic, the first is just opinion. Science, logic, and math already offer a better alternative- unfortunately the majority of voters including the median voter just don't know it- or they do and they flatout refuse to embrace it, which is kind of the situation which this article and Posner are criticizing.

 

[DodgeFB]

You were a Democrat? Would never have guessed it.

And this isn't so much about actual beliefs, but the way of thinking. Beliefs are one thing, analysis is another. The second has roots in logic, the first is just opinion. Science, logic, and math already offer a better alternative- unfortunately the majority of voters including the median voter just don't know it- or they do and they flatout refuse to embrace it, which is kind of the situation which this article and Posner are criticizing.

I was a democrat from 1969 until I started voting republican so much I went on and changed parties. I never voted democrat for president after J. Carter.
But I did help get democrats elected at the state level by putting up posters and handing out bumper stickers. I was a democrat for almost 20 years. Then they changed their ways and I went away.

As for the science, logic, and math. I am sure I am too dumb to understand it. And those that are pushing it don't seem to know how or when to get people to understand it.

Too much "we are really smart and have the answers if you dumb-asses would just do it our way".

In my opinion the people have been lied to from the Capital of the US all the way to their local churches for years. If you don't understand it enough to understand what they are pushing (some push too hard)and you don't have anyone you can really trust, you just stay with what you do know worked for you in the past.

But there is good news and bad news. Most of the people holding back the smart ones will be dyeing off. Then there will be another couple of generations coming along in the future wondering how all the dumb-asses(the smart people of now) lived so long being so stupid.

It is just the way it works.

 

[myp]

I was a democrat from 1969 until I started voting republican so much I went on and changed parties. I never voted democrat for president after J. Carter.
But I did help get democrats elected at the state level by putting up posters and handing out bumper stickers. I was a democrat for almost 20 years. Then they changed their ways and I went away.

Oh wow, must have been interesting times.

As for the science, logic, and math. I am sure I am too dumb to understand it. And those that are pushing it don't seem to know how or when to get people to understand it.

Too much "we are really smart and have the answers if you dumb-asses would just do it our way".

Some people have egos and it's unfortunate, sure. The Internet is a big win for rational thought though- if only people would read about those things.

In my opinion the people have been lied to from the Capital of the US all the way to their local churches for years. If you don't understand it enough to understand what they are pushing (some push too hard)and you don't have anyone you can really trust, you just stay with what you do know worked for you in the past.

It really depends on who they listened too. Unfortunately a lot of mass media, etc. is just as bad in probably just telling them what they want to hear. There are exceptions though.

But there is good news and bad news. Most of the people holding back the smart ones will be dyeing off. Then there will be another couple of generations coming along in the future wondering how all the dumb-asses(the smart people of now) lived so long being so stupid.

I'm not sure about that. Given the Tea Party, the revival of Austrianism in the GOP (which really started with Ron Paul who has a lot of young followers too), and Occupy (again a source of a lot of young people), prospects still look bad. Of course all these groups do have exceptions within them too, but overall there is a lot of populism and rejection of empirical methods and intellectualism. People like their intuitions too much maybe.

 

[myp]

Ran across this quotation from today: "Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ~ Mark Twain

Somewhat relevant in that we have too much cocky ignorance.

 

[Daktoria]

Conservatism has never been about empiricism. It's about rationalism by recognizing a transcendental enduring moral order.

Russell Kirk's 10 principles are a good beginning to understanding this.

 

[myp]

Conservatism has never been about empiricism. It's about rationalism by recognizing a transcendental enduring moral order.

Russell Kirk's 10 principles are a good beginning to understanding this.

I am not familiar with Kirk's work, but to if it rejects empiricism it is rejecting rationalism to some extent. A "transcendental enduring moral order" isn't really am establishment of rationalism.

 

[mogur]

The "cannons" are:

1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law.

The good are indistinguishable from the lucky.

2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence.

Evolution only works for 'other animals'.

3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions.

Yet, artificial distinctions are rather difficult to decide. Especially if the 'deciders' are arbitrary.

4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked.

I mow my lawn, therefore I am endowed. If I decide to waste resources on frivalence, I am truly free.

5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription.

Custom and convention has led us to where we are now.

6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Einstein thought that was bunk. I tend to agree.

7. Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another", and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."

Didn't I hear this from the Ayatollah? Shall we really decide what is acceptable to society based on local religious values?

8. Don't know what his other three 'canons' are, but based on his first seven, they suck.

I like AC/DC's cannons of "for those about to rock", better.