The benefit of doubt....

[Centexfarmer]

Considering some the styles utilized by everyone who posts regularly in this forum, I ran into the Opinion Piece this past Sunday, and thought I'd share it here for discussion:

Joel Achenbach: The benefit of doubt
[SIZE=+1]Uncertainty's been all but outlawed in D.C. But it's time to learn how to think again. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]09:03 AM CDT on Sunday, July 22, 2007[/SIZE]

Here's who we need in Washington: Socrates. The Greek fella.

We need him not because of what he knew, but because of what he knew he didn't know, which was pretty much everything. He was one of the all-time great doubters.

Listen to Loyal Rue, a professor of science and religion at Luther College, describe him:

"He would say things like: 'How do you know that? What's the evidence for that? What do you really mean when you say that? Here's the implication of that claim. Here's the danger you get into if you try to generalize that claim and apply it to everyone.' "

Give Doubt a Chance: This could be a rallying cry for our troubled times.

Doubt has been all but outlawed in contemporary Washington. Doubt is viewed as weakness. You are expected to hold onto your beliefs even in a hurricane of contradictory data. Believing in something that's not true is considered a sign of character.

The president sets the tone: He told Bob Woodward that he relies on "gut instinct" and said: "I'm not a textbook player. I'm a gut player." Blogger Glenn Greenwald's new book, A Tragic Legacy, opens with something Mr. Bush told journalists last September, "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions." The smart bet: He'll become more convinced yet. He's not the type to slap his forehead and say, "What a bonehead I am!"

But these are particularly polarized times, and we're in a war (or three), and no one has much patience for a lot of maybe-this, maybe-that stuff. If you want to become president, you probably should act as though you've never had a doubt in your life. Rudy Giuliani said the other day, "You face bullies and tyrants and terrorists with strength, not weakness." And strength means you don't sit around requesting more data.

This was driven home in the first Democratic debate, when Barack Obama was asked what kind of military action he'd take if the United States were attacked again by terrorists. His answer was criticized as weak. He began by saying he'd check on the emergency response to the attack itself. Then:

"The second thing is to make sure that we've got good intelligence, (a) to find out that we don't have other threats and attacks potentially out there, and (b) to find out: Do we have any intelligence on who might have carried it out so that we can take potentially some action to dismantle that network? But what we can't do is then alienate the world community based on faulty intelligence, based on bluster and bombast."

Way too deliberative. Correct answer: I'd start killing lots of bad guys. (Better yet: Make pocketa-pocketa sound effects while pantomiming the machine-gunning of the enemy.)

The entire article can be read here: Dallas Morning News | Opinion

So? Is it just me, or has the discourse of our country / politics really changed or been as influenced by this mindset, as some would claim?

 

[Andreus]

great post and alot to digest

it frames the great free thinkers of my heritage against those that suppress thought outside of their agenda as being weak.

i need ot read this more and mull it over before i post a more detailed reply, but i wanted to thank you for posting it here.

 

[Centexfarmer]

great post and alot to digest

it frames the great free thinkers of my heritage against those that suppress thought outside of their agenda as being weak.

i need to read this more and mull it over before i post a more detailed reply, but i wanted to thank you for posting it here.

It is my hope that everyone interested in commenting on this topic take the time to read the article in it's entirety. I only cherry picked a couple of points and examples.

I'm been forced to take a more "hands off approach" to how this forum is moderated, and as I was reading this article, I couldn't help but make some comparisons to how we post here.

What is it that many of us are actually railing against here? The message, the messenger, or HOW the message is delivered.

I'm a strong believe in "communication being the key" to many things.

Since we're influenced in not only WHAT we decide to debate, I found it interesting that we also appear to be influenced by HOW we debate.

 

[Andreus]

well yes

lol

and i posted a thread that only praised people and invited others to do the same to see what would happen if all the forum members were invited to a positive only message that all parties from all sides of the political spectrum could answer.

the thread is "Just Too Much"

it illuminates that some carry rage and anger from one thread to the next... meaning that if you do that, you are arguing a grudge with a person, not the current idea being presented at the moment... there is no way an invitation to name people that have inspired you should or could have hostility unless it was personality based... the issue seems irelevant alot of the time

it is interesting to see its progression and what occured in it as to date

like my satire thread, "90/10" also illustrated...

its posible to rise above a bit of vitriol if you keep things focused on the fact that we are people first and that promotes a bit of healthy banter...

as i am fond of noting... reaqan and Oneil.... two men who often argued and bashed each other during the day and went home in the evening to have beers and laugh at the low blows they dealt out to each other

 

[dsh122]

The mindset of President Bush and his administration has been aptly described as "Cowboy Diplomacy." I think it is reflective of the underlying, inflexible, "go with your gut" approach that has brought us to the place in which we now find ourselves.

 

[RandomAccess]

Great thread, Centex!

This "theory(?)" goes along with my belief that in politics today conservatives see everything as black/white issues, and make sweeping decisions based on anecdotal evidence. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to see the different shades of gray that are present in every issue. So think of the liberals, spending their time analyzing facts, as "doubters." Doubt? Caution? Call it what you want, but it sure ain't "weakness" as the right would have us believe.

Give Doubt a Chance: This could be a rallying cry for our troubled times.

I LIKE it!​

 

[Andreus]

I really doubt that more doubt will change anything at all.


Not really sure about that, though.

ask questions

think freely

make the people in charge accountable to the people that voted them in office

these are the principles that we were founded on

doubt is a byproduct of these things

indeed... even logic itself is founded on these principles as the article indicates

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

In this day and age, it appears that "doubt" is equated with lack of patriotism or out-and-out defeatism.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well part of what interested me in this article is that sometimes people argue or debate in a style that they're not conciously aware of.

I wonder sometimes if it's that "lack of percieved" doubt among some of the posters here, isn't what really bothers some of us on either side of the debate.

 

[Andreus]

you need to clarify that, centex...

do you mean perceived lack of doubt in ones self?

perceived lack of doubt in a politician?

an idea?

i cant really understand what you are saying

 

[Centexfarmer]

you need to clarify that, centex...

do you mean perceived lack of doubt in ones self?

perceived lack of doubt in a politician?

an idea?

i cant really understand what you are saying

Well you claim to have read the article in its entirety, doubt as opposed to aboslutes.

Not doubt in oneself, but rather the ability to recognize that sometimes you just don't always know.

For example the phrase, "The older I get the less I know," indicates that there was a time when we thought that we knew, and were more assure of things that we are now.

From the article posted above:

And now even the doubters have become overly certain. Look at all the atheism books on the bestseller lists. In God Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens writes, "The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." But it's hard to think of a public intellectual more certain of himself than Hitch. (Carl Sagan was certainly no believer, but he once told me, "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know.")

But in an age of warring certainties, of dogmas gone ballistic, uncertainty is viewed as the shaky prelude to going wobbly. Confidence is what citizens look for in their leaders and, increasingly, in their pundits. The pros know that John Wayne never said, "On the other hand..." It's dangerous to change or modify a position. The worst thing you can say about a politician today is that "he was for it before he was against it."

One aspect of this is, had the politician in question not be so "sure" about an issue or a topic, then they would have some wiggle room to admit that, "perhaps I was wrong."

We don't see alot of that here in CE&P.