British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

douglas denny · 08-08-2008, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago.

Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be.

We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be.

I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh.

Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates.

The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting.

Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons.

Ahaa! Now I know what you are on about.

I am aware of the distinction you mean; I came across it many moons ago when I started to observe humans and their behaviour patterns for the first time, instead of playing with my toys and oblivious of the big world out there and how it works. Humans are very strange creatures indeed.
Desmond Morris gave me a good insight into just how strange they can be, with his books on the subject. My lifelong observations, sadly, only emphasise the predjudices I have built up. I am not very keen on a lot of what I observe. Reading newspapers makes me angry almost on a daily basis at some of the unbelievable evil and baseness of what some humans get up to.

The bloke and his wife who conned their own childeren (and everyone else) that he was dead - lost at sea from a canoe, for example ... and for what ....... money !!
----------

The problem you mention is one of the difference between what is actually seen(observed) by a person and that which is perceived (recognised in the brain) by them. I agree that the latter is often completely at odds with the reality of the situation even when in front of their very eyes. Hitler in his bunker convincing himself that great victories were still possible as the Russian army advanced into Berlin is an extreme example.

Another way of putting it is that people only believe that which they want to believe - quite often despite the evidence clearly before them.

I like to think that as a scientist, I try never to fall into that trap and only base my opinions on 1) the evidence before me, and 2) on the collected memories of experience about the issue/subject before: both.

There is a whole philosophy regarding this subject in the scientific sense in a very important book in philosophy called 'Conjectures and Refutations' by Karl Popper.
Popper shows that there can never be an absolute proof of anything - only a conjecture can be disproved - which is a remarkable conclusion with very fundamental consequences to the philosophy of the limits of reasoning and of scientific measurement.

When it comes to politics, I agree that to ignore the reality and support an emotional state of being is a fatal trap that many people fall into because they refuse to face up to the clear evidence in front of them.
They will still support the major parties for example, despite that particular party (LibLabCon) might be selling them down the river - which is as clear cut to being the actual case as it can be, with these parties continuing to support Britain remaining in the EU.
I know of many people on a personal level who I have met who are dedicated Conservatives; (one or two very 'high up' in that party) and they keep voting for that party regardless that being in the EU is an absolute anathema to them, and yet 'their' party continues supporting Britain being in it. It is a paradox.

These people are living in a schizophrenic mind set with one half of their perception closed-off to the other. It is astonishing that they can be, apparently, aware of the issues, and of the facts, and can talk openly about all this as if they thoroughly understand it all, yet still accept supporting a party which (you can point out to them) took us into the EU mess and is still keeping us in. They have no answer to this, and cling to straws such as - "well the Conservatives will try to 'change it from within' .... somehow convincing themselves this is the way forward yet knowing at the same time it is nonsense. There's certainly nowt so queer as folk!

Now regarding UKIP, and myself, and perhaps you might be thinking I support the party unquestioningly? Not so. I am not blinkered to the problems, but see no point in airing them in public here. I try to overcome them if possible.
With this forum I try to correct the sort of rumours which only feeds the kind of misconceptions in people's minds which gives rise to the worst form of the 'wilful blindness' syndrome to which you refer.

I am quite sure though that a lot of the wilful blindness is self-generated because of emotional hang-ups about certain individuals. An example is an unreasonable, unfounded anger towards N.Farage which seem prevalent here on this forum. Nigel is not a perfect human being, but for the job in hand he is nowhere near as bad as some here try to make out. As an observation - objectively assessed I think - it is completely fair to say he is better than some Leader(s) who went before - by miles. That does not cut any ice with some here though who think he is akin to the Devil and no amount of common-sense persuasion as to the facts/reality will ever convince them otherwise. There are none so blind who will not see.

DED.
-