Know-Nothing Conservatism

[bloodyminded]

I think this is the problem: in your view, no one intelligent or educated can have conservative beliefs. You have defined an "expert" to be someone who shares your opinions.

When nicky was talking about professors at his university, he made the exact opposite point. So you're reading him incorrectly.

[Keepitsimple]

People who are successful at business are also "priveleged and elitist," of course.

I meant that even University graduates who have gone into the business world often reflect back and view their professors as elitist and privileged. On the other hand, I also know several people who consider their professors genuine mentors. My posts have been trying to give context to the very real perception of academia by many Canadians.

[bloodyminded]

I meant that even University graduates who have gone into the business world often reflect back and view their professors as elitist and privileged. On the other hand, I also know several people who consider their professors genuine mentors. My posts have been trying to give context to the very real perception of academia by many Canadians.

Sure. But my own experience of working for private businesses (ie the bulk of all the work I've ever done) is that of working for priveleged elites who are to one degree or another out of touch with the very people who work for them.

As for university, I didn't see a lot of politicization. There was some, of course.

At any rate, when we talk about "liberal" professors, we're really talking about the humanities. But the business faculty is one of the largest overall, and it's not exactly brimming with leftist radicals.

Edited August 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Keepitsimple]

Sure. But my own experience of working for private businesses (ie the bulk of all the work I've ever done) is that of working for priveleged elites who are to one degree or another out of touch with the very people who work for them.

As for university, I didn't see a lot of politicization. There was some, of course.

At any rate, when we talk about "liberal" professors, we're really talking about the humanities. But the business faculty is one of the largest overall, and it's not exactly brimming with leftist radicals.

I agree that private business has it's share of elitists - but Humanities has a broad reach and can include Social Sciences, including Political Science....and law......and that reach is dominated by liberal "thinking". I agree that the business faculty is much more Apolitical. Unfortunately, many "critics" and "studies" emanate from Social Sciences and Law and thus tend to provide a somewhat biased view. Not surprisingly, Journalism is a discipline within Arts and Humanities and to some degree, explains why many journalists view the world through a Liberal prism. If I sound a bit jaded, it's only from viewing Canada and politics for so many years.....going from a Trudeau fan to a first-term fan of Chretien to an acknowledgement of the need for someone like Mike Harris (right man AT THE TIME) to a current need of changing the Liberal channel. All I know is that ultimately, Canadians are in charge. Someone like Harper will attempt to make incremental changes to fulfil a vision....much like Trudea or Mulroney did previously. If Canadians really don't like what's going on, either Harper will change or moderate accordingly - or Canadians will throw him out. It is the responsibility of the opposition to create a viable alternative.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[segnosaur]

That's nothing, My MP is an Armageddonist and Chair of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Committee...what's that all about, does Harper's wing-nuts think interparliamentary cooperation will bring on the end of the world even faster?

AND he's a chiropractor too!

Yeah, I already admitted the Conservatives probably also had other problems other than Stockwell "Earth is 6000 Years Old" Day. Heck, even the Conservatives had a believer in Acupuncture (another sham medical treatment) appointed as Minister of Heatlh.

Like I said, the reason why I pointed out Ruby Dhalla was to show that all parties had believers in non-sense, and that condemning one party only for those problems is biased and unfair.

Lets judge the performance of a party by the legislation they enact, or the policies they put forward, rather than by the beliefs of individual members (which in many cases are irrelevant to the execution of their job.)

[bloodyminded]

I agree that private business has it's share of elitists - but Humanities has a broad reach and can include Social Sciences, including Political Science....and law......and that reach is dominated by liberal "thinking". I agree that the business faculty is much more Apolitical. Unfortunately, many "critics" and "studies" emanate from Social Sciences and Law and thus tend to provide a somewhat biased view. Not surprisingly, Journalism is a discipline within Arts and Humanities and to some degree, explains why many journalists view the world through a Liberal prism. If I sound a bit jaded, it's only from viewing Canada and politics for so many years.....going from a Trudeau fan to a first-term fan of Chretien to an acknowledgement of the need for someone like Mike Harris (right man AT THE TIME) to a current need of changing the Liberal channel. All I know is that ultimately, Canadians are in charge. Someone like Harper will attempt to make incremental changes to fulfil a vision....much like Trudea or Mulroney did previously. If Canadians really don't like what's going on, either Harper will change or moderate accordingly - or Canadians will throw him out. It is the responsibility of the opposition to create a viable alternative.

I can agree with much of this. Not the liberal media bit; I do agree that a lot of people going into journalism are more or less liberal in their views (or rather, I'm not sure, but I would believe this); however, I don't think the media is institutionally liberal at all, so that journalists' personal views do not circumscribe any explanation of media bias.

I would also argue that the Business faculties are not "apolitical" at all; it's just that neoliberal thinking has become so dominant that it appears so to its adherents. What appears to them as, perhaps, "common sense" is nonetheless hostile to leftist thought and broadly supportive of what conservatives (currently...but not always) believe. By definition it is politicized, whether one agrees with the political tendencies or not.

I also liked Chretien, back in the day, but became increasingly sick of him as time went on. His bullying didn't help.

And yes, the opposition needs to create a viable alternative...something they don't seem to be doing especially well at the moment.

[nicky10013]

I think this is the problem: in your view, no one intelligent or educated can have conservative beliefs. You have defined an "expert" to be someone who shares your opinions.

No, not at all. I view someone who is intelligent as someone who looks at facts and makes decisions and opinions based on those facts and have no problem admitting they were wrong based on developing research. The current CPC party soundly rejects that notion. Other Conservative parties haven't.

[nicky10013]

I agree that private business has it's share of elitists - but Humanities has a broad reach and can include Social Sciences, including Political Science....and law......and that reach is dominated by liberal "thinking". I agree that the business faculty is much more Apolitical. Unfortunately, many "critics" and "studies" emanate from Social Sciences and Law and thus tend to provide a somewhat biased view. Not surprisingly, Journalism is a discipline within Arts and Humanities and to some degree, explains why many journalists view the world through a Liberal prism. If I sound a bit jaded, it's only from viewing Canada and politics for so many years.....going from a Trudeau fan to a first-term fan of Chretien to an acknowledgement of the need for someone like Mike Harris (right man AT THE TIME) to a current need of changing the Liberal channel. All I know is that ultimately, Canadians are in charge. Someone like Harper will attempt to make incremental changes to fulfil a vision....much like Trudea or Mulroney did previously. If Canadians really don't like what's going on, either Harper will change or moderate accordingly - or Canadians will throw him out. It is the responsibility of the opposition to create a viable alternative.

Humanities and Social Sciences are by definiton very different and like I've said, it isn't dominated by Liberals. Neither is law. Journalism, well, just look at how many papers endorse the Liberals as opposed to the Conservatives and you'll see truly how liberal journalism is. The only paper to endorse the Liberals last election was the Star. I agree that ultimately Canadians are in charge, but the incredibly wide generalizations you're making about academia is really quite false.

[eyeball]

Yeah, I already admitted the Conservatives probably also had other problems other than Stockwell "Earth is 6000 Years Old" Day. Heck, even the Conservatives had a believer in Acupuncture (another sham medical treatment) appointed as Minister of Heatlh.

Like I said, the reason why I pointed out Ruby Dhalla was to show that all parties had believers in non-sense, and that condemning one party only for those problems is biased and unfair.

Lets judge the performance of a party by the legislation they enact, or the policies they put forward, rather than by the beliefs of individual members (which in many cases are irrelevant to the execution of their job.)

This is why I think I'm leaning towards a more technocratic way of governing ourselves. I say we mostly let experts and civil servants etc bring things forward as needed, let the Senate vet what these propose and leave it to Parliament to squabble over the ideological and superstitious implications, which is what's most irrelevant to our actual governance and day to day running of the country.

Lets judge the performance of Parliament by the wisdom of the Senators they appoint.

Edited August 19, 2010 by eyeball

[Shwa]

No, not at all. I view someone who is intelligent as someone who looks at facts and makes decisions and opinions based on those facts and have no problem admitting they were wrong based on developing research. The current CPC party soundly rejects that notion. Other Conservative parties haven't.

And when exactly did the Liberal party admit they were wrong during Adscam?

1995

Allan Cutler first attempts to raise concerns about bid-rigging and political interference to the attention of senior management at the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

1996

Ernst & Young conducts an audit of contracting and tendering practices. The initial draft, which identified recurring problems and the risk of legal action, was altered in the final report. Ernst & Young representative Deanne Monaghan later indicated that she did not recall why the report had been changed to remove those references.

Seems to me that Allan Cutler and the good people at Ernst&Young - some pretty intelligent folks - had some "developing research" that might have influenced some powerful opinions and decisions eh?

How many years did it take to get those Liberals to admit they were wrong?

[nicky10013]

And when exactly did the Liberal party admit they were wrong during Adscam?

Seems to me that Allan Cutler and the good people at Ernst&Young - some pretty intelligent folks - had some "developing research" that might have influenced some powerful opinions and decisions eh?

How many years did it take to get those Liberals to admit they were wrong?

When the report came out. Or did you conveniently forget that? Martin called the inquiry into what happened. Harper bribed a dying MP and look what happened with that. Nothing. Nobody has ever said what those people did was right. The party has paid for it. The fact that it's still being brought up shows how truly out of ammo the Conservatives really are. Sponsorship can't undo 4 years of mismanagement, secrecy and lies.

Edited August 19, 2010 by nicky10013

[Shwa]

When the report came out. Or did you conveniently forget that? Martin called the inquiry into what happened. Harper bribed a dying MP and look what happened with that. Nothing. Nobody has ever said what those people did was right. The party has paid for it. The fact that it's still being brought up shows how truly out of ammo the Conservatives really are. Sponsorship can't undo 4 years of mismanagement, secrecy and lies.

Oh no, no, no, not so easy. What Adscam proves is that even the Liberals are accustomed to ignoring experts, intellectuals, elites, etc for their own benefit. As I said from the beginning, it is an ethic of power and always has been regardless of political stripe.

The other side of it - for those that wish to defend the 'liberal arts and social sciences' as if they are hard science is that any opinion or decision can be deconstructed into a compendium of facts and each fact can be deconstructed into selective speculation or guesswork. The liberal arts requires critical thinking, but can't slink away when it is applied, but must recognize its limitations. In other words, ideology counts.

[nicky10013]

Oh no, no, no, not so easy. What Adscam proves is that even the Liberals are accustomed to ignoring experts, intellectuals, elites, etc for their own benefit. As I said from the beginning, it is an ethic of power and always has been regardless of political stripe.

The other side of it - for those that wish to defend the 'liberal arts and social sciences' as if they are hard science is that any opinion or decision can be deconstructed into a compendium of facts and each fact can be deconstructed into selective speculation or guesswork. The liberal arts requires critical thinking, but can't slink away when it is applied, but must recognize its limitations. In other words, ideology counts.

No it doesn't. Ideology counts for squat. Why? Because, even though social science may have limits, it's based on relevant observations and statistics at the time. Ideology doesn't. Take criminology for example. We know that just throwing people in prison doesn't deter crime because we have the crime rates compared to incarceration rates and we can weigh our numbers against others. Yet, people still want to do it. We know that safe injection sites work. Crime in areas of Vancouver have been reduced 40% and more people have entered rehab. Yet, people ae against it for purely ideological reason. Those are the two biggest issues where "social sciences" determine that it's probably in the interest of society based on proven results to go the Liberal route, yet, we have a government trying to destroy a decade of work of people in both fields. Economics is the other, which is another social science, yet people don't really think of it that way.

[Shwa]

No it doesn't. Ideology counts for squat. Why? Because, even though social science may have limits, it's based on relevant observations and statistics at the time. Ideology doesn't.

Are you kidding me?? Are you saying that one's ideological perspective does not count when it comes time to select what criteria to observe or in deciding what observations are relevant? And let's not get into the whole thing about statistics. Social sciences are not hard science including the ability to predict based on the data at hand.

Take criminology for example. We know that just throwing people in prison doesn't deter crime because we have the crime rates compared to incarceration rates and we can weigh our numbers against others.

Is this true for all regions of Canada and can all regions be compared in an equal fashion? Is this true for all ethnic and culture groups? What does "throwing...in prison mean?" Does it include other restraint or restictive measures? How about restorative justice? If it is fair for you to evolve your policy based upon the statistics and numbers you had - which are based upon the criteria you selected to support your theory - then it is only fair that I be allowed to do the same.

Yet, people still want to do it. We know that safe injection sites work. Crime in areas of Vancouver have been reduced 40% and more people have entered rehab. Yet, people ae against it for purely ideological reason.

You have only proved that safe injection sites work for Vancouver. But where does your statistical analysis show what is moral and what is good?

Those are the two biggest issues where "social sciences" determine that it's probably in the interest of society based on proven results

Ha! Even you do not trust your own analysis since you say "probably" based on "proven results." The introduction of doubt and speculation is yours. See what I mean? You say facts, but you modify that with "probably" facts.

to go the Liberal route

Now you are contradicting yourself because earlier you said that, and I quote: "Ideology counts for squat."

yet, we have a government trying to destroy a decade of work of people in both fields.

Come on now - every science on the planet - to be considered a science of any worth - undergoes peer review. Reviewing work with critical thinking is not an attempt to destroy. Well, usually not.

Economics is the other, which is another social science, yet people don't really think of it that way.

Every intelligent person knows economics is a social science, especially Economists. But economics is not exempt from peer review, critical thinking or questions of ideology.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Shwa

[eyeball]

delete

Edited August 19, 2010 by eyeball

[segnosaur]

No it doesn't. Ideology counts for squat. Why? Because, even though social science may have limits, it's based on relevant observations and statistics at the time.

Keep in mind though that due to the complexity of real world situations, it is not often possible to determine a cause-effect relationship in many cases. (For example, in social science, you can't really develop a 'control group'.)

And assuming "I'm right because the numbers back me up" is making the false assumption that the other side doesn't have equally valid numbers to support its position.

Take criminology for example. We know that just throwing people in prison doesn't deter crime because we have the crime rates compared to incarceration rates and we can weigh our numbers against others.

Umm... we don't "know" any such thing.

Crime is a complex subject... it depends on a lot of factors, the amount of punishment being only one of them. (You also have population demographics, economic pressures, etc.)

Did you know that the U.S. has a lower overall crime rate than Canada, when considering 'victim-oriented' crimes? (They have a higher murder rate than Canada, but lower rates of things like robbery, assault, etc.) They also have harsher penalties (e.g. no "faint hope" clause). Am I claiming that that is undeniable proof that harsher penalties lower crime rates? No, but its at least some evidence that points in that direction.

Yet, people still want to do it. We know that safe injection sites work.

Really? Work for what? Did you know that there's at least one study which shows a higher incidence of HIV among users of things like needle exchange programs?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/12/994

Crime in areas of Vancouver have been reduced 40% and more people have entered rehab.

I see... "crime in areas of Vancouver"? What does that mean? One or 2 neighbourhoods with reduced crime rates? And what time frame? (Dropped in a month? Year?) What about other areas of Vancouver? (Heck, that could even be due to one or 2 active criminals disappearing). And why are you assuming that safe injection sites are the only reason for a drop in crime? Much of the overall crime rate has decreased, and much of that is due to the aging of the population (older people commit fewer crimes).

Yet, people ae against it for purely ideological reason.

On the other hand, its possible that people like you are claiming your statistics, and only your statistics, are valid "purely for ideological reasons".

[Smallc]

Did you know that the U.S. has a lower overall crime rate than Canada, when considering 'victim-oriented' crimes? (They have a higher murder rate than Canada, but lower rates of things like robbery, assault, etc.)

I'd be interested to see a cite for that given that crime severity in Canada has been decreasing every year for the last two decades.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

On Canada having a higher crime rate than the U.S....

I'd be interested to see a cite for that given that crime severity in Canada has been decreasing every year for the last two decades.

My figures come from a 2003 United Nations Human Development report. (See http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr03_complete.pdf, Chart 21, 'Victims of Crime', page 308)

A couple of notes about this:

- The study was done by doing surveys to determine who had been victims of crime, rather than relying on government statistics on incarceration (this should have the advantage of eliminating differences in reporting methods, crime classifications, etc.) It also means that victimless crimes (such as drug users) don't get included in the statistics

- The study had found that .9% of Canadians had been the victim of robbery, 10.4% property theft, 2.3% assault. Compare that to the United States values of 0.6%, 10% and 1.2% respectively

- Yes, Canada's crime rate has been decreasing, but so has the crime rate in the U.S. This could be due to aging demographics as I mentioned before (elderly people commit fewer crimes), or it could be due to higher standards of living. Edited to add: Wikipedia has a few graphs of the U.S. crime rate, showing it has decreased steadily since the early 1990s, so Canada isn't alone in having a decreasing crie rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time

Again, I don't necessarily think that that is conclusive proof that higher penalties lead to reduced crime rate (since there are social and economic differences between the 2 countries), but it is at least suggestive of that.

Edited August 19, 2010 by segnosaur

[fellowtraveller]

The other side of it - for those that wish to defend the 'liberal arts and social sciences' as if they are hard science is that any opinion or decision can be deconstructed into a compendium of facts and each fact can be deconstructed into selective speculation or guesswork. The liberal arts requires critical thinking, but can't slink away when it is applied, but must recognize its limitations. In other words, ideology counts.

Well said.

Social 'science' like sociology are little more than ideology.

[eyeball]

Well said.

Social 'science' like sociology are little more than ideology.

It's how the science is applied that really counts. In other words the values and principles of who is applying it ultimately count the most.

[Shwa]

It's how the science is applied that really counts. In other words the values and principles of who is applying it ultimately count the most.

I think it is ultimately both when we are talking social sciences - the actual input to the application and the application itself are affected by ideology. That is not to say that a 'conservative' policy cannot be derived from a 'liberal art' nor a 'liberal' program informed by 'conservative' study of a particular phenomena.

[nicky10013]

Are you kidding me?? Are you saying that one's ideological perspective does not count when it comes time to select what criteria to observe or in deciding what observations are relevant? And let's not get into the whole thing about statistics. Social sciences are not hard science including the ability to predict based on the data at hand.

Of course there's bias, but that's what the peer review process is for.

Is this true for all regions of Canada and can all regions be compared in an equal fashion? Is this true for all ethnic and culture groups? What does "throwing...in prison mean?" Does it include other restraint or restictive measures? How about restorative justice? If it is fair for you to evolve your policy based upon the statistics and numbers you had - which are based upon the criteria you selected to support your theory - then it is only fair that I be allowed to do the same.

I agree. That's what th process is there for. I rely on my criminologist friends who back it up with reports and data. If others can do that as well, then we have a true debate on our hand. Just don't come to me and say well, the data says this, but I feel this way for no other reason than it's my natural biases at work.

You have only proved that safe injection sites work for Vancouver. But where does your statistical analysis show what is moral and what is good?

What is good is what decreases the amount of crime, disease and addiction. What is moral is up for debate. If "morals" dictate that people are against injection sites (due to ideology and not science) which actually help the community deal with the scourge of addiction, then I'd argue those aren't morals at all.

Ha! Even you do not trust your own analysis since you say "probably" based on "proven results." The introduction of doubt and speculation is yours. See what I mean? You say facts, but you modify that with "probably" facts.

Nothing in any science outside of mathematics and physics is really "proven." Some approaches work on some, not on others. It's our duty as citizens to choose which policies improve the lives of the most.

Now you are contradicting yourself because earlier you said that, and I quote: "Ideology counts for squat."

Nope. I view the current Liberal Party as pragmatic. People often claim that they don't believe in anything. To a degree, I think they're right, but in the end, I believe that's a good thing rather than a bad thing. They talk about the Liberals being all over the map to try and win votes but I don't see it that way. What's wrong with a government that isn't afraid to change it's mind based on what will work best. There are quite a few partisans, but there are even more people who value good policy based on fact over partisan bickering. You may find that surprising, but, in the end, that's true.

Come on now - every science on the planet - to be considered a science of any worth - undergoes peer review. Reviewing work with critical thinking is not an attempt to destroy. Well, usually not.

This is data that has already been through the process.

Every intelligent person knows economics is a social science, especially Economists. But economics is not exempt from peer review, critical thinking or questions of ideology.

Of course it isn't. However, the other sciences which people look down on, also go through the same process. So, what's the problem?

[eyeball]

I think it is ultimately both when we are talking social sciences - the actual input to the application and the application itself are affected by ideology. That is not to say that a 'conservative' policy cannot be derived from a 'liberal art' nor a 'liberal' program informed by 'conservative' study of a particular phenomena.

I don't know about both - I still think more depends on how informed the individual is by their own values and principles than ideology which itself is fundamentally informed by the people that bring these things things to it.

In other words, it all comes down to people.

[nicky10013]

Keep in mind though that due to the complexity of real world situations, it is not often possible to determine a cause-effect relationship in many cases. (For example, in social science, you can't really develop a 'control group'.)

And assuming "I'm right because the numbers back me up" is making the false assumption that the other side doesn't have equally valid numbers to support its position.

Two diametrically opposed yet equally valid sets of data would be incredibly rare. In that case, that's where the debate should take place

Umm... we don't "know" any such thing.

Crime is a complex subject... it depends on a lot of factors, the amount of punishment being only one of them. (You also have population demographics, economic pressures, etc.)

Did you know that the U.S. has a lower overall crime rate than Canada, when considering 'victim-oriented' crimes? (They have a higher murder rate than Canada, but lower rates of things like robbery, assault, etc.) They also have harsher penalties (e.g. no "faint hope" clause). Am I claiming that that is undeniable proof that harsher penalties lower crime rates? No, but its at least some evidence that points in that direction.

Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada. However, the rate of some property crime types is lower in the U.S. than in Canada. For example, in 2006, the rates of vehicle theft were 22% higher in Canada than in the US.

the citation is in the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#cite_note-6

Really? Work for what? Did you know that there's at least one study which shows a higher incidence of HIV among users of things like needle exchange programs?

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/12/994

As opposed to the other journals which say what?

I see... "crime in areas of Vancouver"? What does that mean? One or 2 neighbourhoods with reduced crime rates? And what time frame? (Dropped in a month? Year?) What about other areas of Vancouver? (Heck, that could even be due to one or 2 active criminals disappearing). And why are you assuming that safe injection sites are the only reason for a drop in crime? Much of the overall crime rate has decreased, and much of that is due to the aging of the population (older people commit fewer crimes).

I would imagine the lower east side where the injection sites are located, where the highest amount of addiction related crime is. Over a period of time? I'm not sure, saw the report a while ago. This is all very much old news.

On the other hand, its possible that people like you are claiming your statistics, and only your statistics, are valid "purely for ideological reasons".

Nope. If I'm wrong, I've never hesitated to admit it. If something works better, let's try it. This isn't about who is right or wrong, but which makes things better.

[nicky10013]

Well said.

Social 'science' like sociology are little more than ideology.

sigh.