tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post110727105890410270..comments2024-03-26T12:23:35.307-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: George SorosStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1107650614754388892005-02-05T18:43:00.000-06:002005-02-05T18:43:00.000-06:00You have got to be kidding me. Is this what you le...You have got to be kidding me. Is this what you learn at Harvard Law?<br /><br />Do really not uderstand what Soros means? Let me give you an analogy, a torpedo finds its target by constantly correcting its course. A torpedo that doesn't correct navigational mistakes misses the target. For Bush, by his own account, it is more important to "stay the course" than to correct the course.<br /><br />It is true that Bush's policies could work out, but at this point there does not seem to be much chance of this occuring. Why? Because the planners are not flexible enough to change course when reality shows their plans to be on a path to failure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1107500819947569362005-02-04T01:06:00.000-06:002005-02-04T01:06:00.000-06:00Radical skepticism is the thesis that there can be...Radical skepticism is the thesis that there can be no knowledge. As such, the thesis is at least arguably incoherent: it is a knowledge claim that categorically denies the possibility of knowledge. <br /><br />But fallibilism is merely the thesis that there can be no <I>certainty</I>. As far as I can tell, there is nothing remotely incoherent about the that proposition.<br /><br />Radical fallibilism doesn't preclude holding firm beliefs, either. For example, I hold (with Quine) that even what we take to be the truths of arithmetic or laws of logic are possibly subject to correction. But that doesn't mean I'd be obliged to take seriously someone who claimed that 2+2=37.<br /><br />So while Soros might not always proceed with the epistemic humility proper to a radical fallibilist (but then so few of us do), it's a mistake to suppose that because he is a fallibilist he has some sort of duty to respect all ideas equally.Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1107367978488853352005-02-02T12:12:00.000-06:002005-02-02T12:12:00.000-06:00Radical skepticism doesn't undermine itself. The ...Radical skepticism doesn't undermine itself. The radical skeptic simply must acknowledge that even his position of radical skepticism is not immune from doubt--that even the skeptic could be wrong in his avowal of skepticism. Once he freely acknowledges this, there is nothing inconsistent about his beliefs.<br /><br />--TPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1107287979505860712005-02-01T13:59:00.000-06:002005-02-01T13:59:00.000-06:00Whether you call it "skepticism" or "fallibilism" ...Whether you call it "skepticism" or "fallibilism" (I suppose the former would be more ontological and the latter epistemological), the fact remains that Soros contradicts himself. His constant refrain is that the central principle of human conduct is that we should all be aware that we might be wrong. Yet he never applies this fallibilism to his OWN beliefs -- including the belief in fallibilism, much less his beliefs that Bush is a failure, the rest of the world doesn't like us, our foreign policy isn't working, etc. He never gives even a hint of an acknowledgment that he might be wrong, i.e., "I might be wrong, however, and the Bush doctrine might be the one thing that eventually leads to a more stable and democratic Middle East."Stuart Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1107278819231841152005-02-01T11:26:00.000-06:002005-02-01T11:26:00.000-06:00That everybody "may be wrong" isn't a statement of...That everybody "may be wrong" isn't a statement of universal skepticism. It's a statement of fallibilism. And while fallibilists might be wrong about fallibilism (that's just a corollary of fallibilism), fallibilism itself doesn't <I>entail</I> that fallibilists are wrong about fallibilism, or that they can't know (without certainty) that fallibilism is true.Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.com