-- The boring part...
In order to provide a coherent framework, I would like to set out a structure for my arguments based on a few basic principles.
In order to provide a coherent framework, I would like to set out a structure for my arguments based on a few basic principles.
First of all, the strength of a pragmatist manifesto, as described by Judge Richard Posner, a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, lies in "looking at problems concretely, experimentally, without illusions, with full awareness of the limitations of human reason, with a sense of the "localness" of human knowledge, the difficulty of translations between cultures, the unattainability of "truth", the consequent importance of keeping diverse paths of inquiry open, the dependence of inquiry on culture and social institutions, and above all the insistence that social thought and action be evaluated as instruments to valued human goals rather than ends in themselves."
In this spirit, I hope to approach a number of issues with an open mind and look at every side of an argument as equally valid. I will follow a logical train of reason to show that the common arguments fail due to a lack of information or some degree of unperceived ignorance. I will frame these arguments in a new light to make them easily understandable to the common person and, thus, solvable. Finally, the ultimate goal is to provide sensible, practical solutions that address the roots of our problems.
In this approach, I will always use these basic assumptions:
- Every person is essentially well-intentioned and looking out for his or her own interests
- However, everyone, including myself, is guilty of ignorance
- Therefore, everybody has contributed to our problems, so every person and institution must assume some responsibility, albeit to different degrees
- Reconciling ignorance inevitably leads to clear solutions to our problems
- Sensible solutions should address concerns on all sides of an argument
Furthermore, for consistency and accessibility each post will follow a simple structure based loosely on the scientific method:
Title: Theme
I. Policy: A short, succinct list of policy statements addressed to the relevant parties
II. Problem: An outline and history of the problem addressed by the policies
III. Approach: The current approaches to solving the problem
IV. Analysis: Demonstrating the role of ignorance in creating and addressing
the problem
V. Action: A way to address the problem through policy reform
--In the spirit of innovation, I'm also gonna throw in random commentary in white text that may or may not be on topic just for fun and probably include some easter eggs ;-)
My hope is that by breaking down social issues to an axiomatic discipline, every person will be able to fully understand and reason through any problem. In order to do this properly, we must leave all biases and preconceived notions aside. Moreover, we must be willing to admit that we ourselves are ignorant and, therefore, we are capable of being wrong.
As in science, there is always room for debate regarding the methodology and conclusions. I do not claim to know everything or have all of the solutions to every problem. I would love to spur a healthy dialogue where others will question my ideas and form their own opinions and solutions. This sort of conflict has allowed science to move forward in leaps and bounds over the past few centuries. It is time for the rest of society to follow suit.
Let's be pragmatic!
