tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post8193012973693542840..comments2024-02-27T15:47:47.923-05:00Comments on Principled Perspectives: Politics, Science, and National Unityprincipled perspectiveshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06502754865268315342noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5495065931245897039.post-23702172262899415912017-12-13T15:23:16.452-05:002017-12-13T15:23:16.452-05:00Philosophy as well as science should be considered...Philosophy as well as science should be considered by lawmakers in making policy. Philosophy along with science should determine what facts to consider to form policy and evaluate success or failure.<br /><br />The country and our elected leaders are divided on fundamental philosophy. So, common ground can't be found and shouldn't even be sought. Instead, the philosophical issue must be resolved the only way it can be. Science helps as per the philosophy.<br /><br />But, given the philosophical divisions, science merely solidifies and extends divisions. Political arguments and policy choices resolve into philosophies. One philosophy must be made operative, the term setter, to the exclusion of all others. That philosophy must be informed by hard evidence and sound reasoning. Otherwise, there's only boundless division.<br /><br />Pragmatism has no place in any rational philosophy or science, only maybe in other philosophies and sciences, which are all irrational.<br /><br />The basic philosophical division is between reason and non-reason. The philosophy shouldering aside all others must be a philosophy of reason. That's the only human, pro-life resolution of divisions.<br /><br />In human life and human relations, this philosophy must be unalienable individual rights, thus yielding laissez-faire capitalism and politics. All this derives from the fundamentals of egoism, reason and reality. All this, in turn, is geared to human life and its improvement, starting with the individual.<br /><br />The foregoing, human life, is what's at stake for the individual and for mankind.<br /><br />If there is real and dangerous climate change to humans, whether natural or human caused, or both, as determined by rational science, then, of course, something needs to be done about it. As per individual rights, law and government does NOT take the lead. Government already took the lead proper for government to take, in 1789, and must stick solely with that. It only keeps performing its proper function, as always, applying it to all human relations as they come and go, including the actions of private interests which, thru the market, take the lead on climate change.<br /><br />A rational public energy policy (neither pro nor con) is nothing more than law and government simply performing its proper functions. The science involved is that of criminology, policing (law enforcement) national defense and politics. Climate science informs private interests, not law and government.<br />Mike Kevittnoreply@blogger.com