User:Edunoramus

About Edunoramus In syntaxi ebrietate ne sensus cecus semanticis maneat. C This user attends or attended Columbia University. EdD This user has a Doctor of Education degree This user served in the United States military.

I am an educator and a reasonable man.

Wikipedia has guidelines on presenting controversial topics neutrally by representing all significant viewpoints fairly and proportionately; this is where I work as an editor.

My priority is ensuring that controversial topics are presented neutrally and that all significant viewpoints are adequately represented.

Introduction

As a Wikipedia editor, I am committed to maintaining the platform's integrity as a space for open discussions and reliable information. I strive to preserve Wikipedia as a place for meaningful collaboration and knowledge creation, free from attempts to mislead or confuse. If you attempt to manipulate definitions to promote a specific agenda, you may encounter my efforts to ensure fairness and impartiality.

Neutrality is the practice of presenting information without personal opinions, prejudices, or bias. It is important in journalism, academia, and encyclopedias, where accurate and objective information is valued. While achieving complete objectivity can be challenging, we work to minimize bias and rely on rigorous methods to provide accurate and reliable information.

Guiding Principle

When addressing essentially contested concepts in politics, it is important to recognize that conflict and disagreement are inherent to such concepts. Rather than advocating for the primacy of one particular position, an encyclopedia entry should strive to provide a comprehensive and balanced overview of the various positions held by different individuals or groups.

The focus should be on describing the range of perspectives, arguments, and theories associated with the concept, allowing readers to develop a nuanced understanding of its complexities. By presenting multiple viewpoints, the entry enables readers to critically engage with the subject matter, fostering a broader appreciation of the diversity of opinions and facilitating informed discussions. This approach respects the inevitability of disagreement while promoting a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the contested concept.

The Control of Meaning

Groups of people often seek to control and direct the meaning of words and historical events within the broader context of culture because it allows them to shape narratives, influence perspectives, and maintain power structures. By asserting authority over the interpretation and understanding of concepts, they can advance their agendas, solidify collective identities, and reinforce social norms. Even when meanings are disputed, controlling language and history becomes a means of preserving influence and shaping the collective consciousness of a society.

Therefore, in democracies, it is crucial to ensure that definitions are fair and even-handed, promoting understanding and knowledge while avoiding perpetuating stereotypes and misinformation. However, these conversations are often difficult and fraught with power struggles and disagreements. Conflicts arising from differing interpretations of words and historical events are inevitable, as they challenge existing beliefs and threaten established power structures.

A commitment to objectivity, accuracy, and rigorous information analysis is essential in navigating these complexities. It requires a willingness to be open-minded, critical, and receptive to diverse perspectives when seeking a deeper understanding of the world around us. We can strive towards a more comprehensive and nuanced collective consciousness by engaging in respectful dialogue and embracing the inherent tensions.

On Wikipedia, neutrality is one of the core content policies, and editors are expected to strive for neutrality when writing and editing articles. This means presenting information in a way backed up by reliable sources, free from personal opinions, and avoiding the use of loaded language or propaganda.

Orienting Values

In essence, I am a skeptic who acknowledges the limits of my knowledge. I value human life and consider humanity to be of utmost importance. I respect others' beliefs and values without judgment. Meaning is personal, but truth exists objectively, although it is limited in the face of other truths. I approach the world with a critical mindset, remaining open and charitable. I understand that the world constantly challenges our understanding, and we learn and adapt our truth from these challenges. While our perceptions differ, we aim to strive for an objective perspective. I believe that these values align with the stated values of the Wikimedia Foundation.

What is the difference between objective perception and immaculate perception? Individuals may ponder the nature of human consciousness and its influence on our perception of reality. Is it possible to achieve immaculate perception, considering that our experiences shape how we perceive the world? Does acknowledging our subjectivity impact our understanding of reality? It leads us to question whether reality exists solely within our minds. Such inquiries hint at the notion that "reality" may be an inescapable or perhaps even an inevitable delusion.

Who is the realist and, who is the idealist?

James Madison & Federalist # 10

For historical context, it is helpful to point to James Madison's understanding of factions and human nature as described in Federalist No. 10; it can be inferred that conflict and disagreement in public discourse are inevitable and should be expected. Madison recognized that people naturally form factions around their shared interests or passions, which can lead to differing opinions, competing perspectives, and clashes of ideas. He believed that conflict is a natural outcome in a diverse and pluralistic society where individuals hold varying beliefs and interests.

Madison argued that the critical challenge is not to eliminate conflict altogether but rather to manage it effectively within a system of government. He advocated for a representative democracy where different factions and interests can engage in dialogue, negotiation, and compromise to reach decisions that serve the common good. The idea was not to suppress or avoid conflict but to create mechanisms to harness and channel it constructively.

The problem in American politics today is a complex one, and it relates to several factors, some of which are consistent with James Madison's concerns in Federalist No. 10. In contrast, contemporary issues and dynamics influence others. Here are some key challenges in contemporary American politics as relates to what Madison advocated in Federalist #10:

• Factionalism and Polarization: Madison was concerned about factions becoming too powerful and potentially undermining the common good. Today, American politics is marked by extreme polarization, where political factions are deeply divided and often unwilling to compromise. This has led to gridlock in government and challenges in passing legislation that addresses pressing issues.

• Influence of Special Interests: Madison's idea of factions included political parties and special interest groups. Today, money's political influence has allowed powerful interest groups to wield significant power and influence over the political process, potentially distorting the representation of the broader public interest.

• Media Landscape: While Madison couldn't have anticipated today's media landscape, it plays a significant role in shaping public opinion. Media outlets often cater to specific ideological or partisan viewpoints, contributing to the echo chamber effect where individuals are exposed primarily to information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs.

• Social Media and Disinformation: The rise of social media has exacerbated polarization and contributed to the spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories. Online platforms can amplify extreme voices and foster division.

• Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression: Issues related to the fairness of electoral systems, including gerrymandering and voter suppression, affect the representativeness of elected officials and can reinforce partisan divides.

• Erosion of Trust: Madison's vision of a republic depended on trust in institutions and a shared commitment to democratic norms. In recent years, trust in institutions, including government and the media, has eroded, making it more challenging to address common problems.

In summary, while Madison's concerns about factions and the need for a balanced republic are still relevant today, the specific challenges facing American politics have evolved in response to changes in technology, media, and political dynamics. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach considering historical principles and contemporary realities.

Understanding Essentially Contested Concepts

Gallie's introduction of the term "Essentially contested concept"^{[1] [2] [3][4]} refers to concepts inherently controversial and subject to ongoing debates and disagreements among different individuals or groups. Gallie states these concepts are characterized by their evaluative nature, meaning they involve subjective judgments and values.

Gallie argues that essentially contested concepts cannot be resolved through empirical evidence or objective criteria alone. Instead, they require ongoing dialogue and deliberation among stakeholders with diverse perspectives. The nature of these concepts is such that they resist fixed or universally agreed-upon definitions, as they involve multiple interpretations and value judgments.

Arguments for the concept of essentially contested concepts include:

• Recognizing Pluralism: By acknowledging the existence of essentially contested concepts, it recognizes the pluralistic nature of society, where different individuals or groups may hold diverse and legitimate viewpoints on specific concepts.

• Promoting Democratic Discourse: Essentially contested concepts encourage open and ongoing dialogue, fostering democratic processes and inclusive decision-making by allowing diverse opinions and values to be expressed.

• Emphasizing Context and Perspective: By acknowledging that interpretations and meanings can vary depending on one's context and perspective, the concept of essentially contested concepts highlights the importance of considering multiple viewpoints and engaging in critical reflection.

On the other hand, there are also arguments against the concept of essentially contested concepts, including:

• Lack of Objectivity: Critics argue that the concept of essentially contested concepts undermines the possibility of objective understanding and objective criteria for resolving disputes, potentially leading to relativism or an impasse in reaching a consensus.

• Practical Difficulties: Resolving essentially contested concepts can be challenging and time-consuming, potentially hindering progress in certain areas where clear definitions or criteria are required for practical decision-making.

• Diminished Clarity: The inherent contestability of these concepts may lead to a lack of clarity or confusion, making it difficult to communicate effectively or establish shared understandings in specific contexts.

Distinguishing Fact from Opinion

Distinguishing fact from opinion can be complex, as these concepts often involve value judgments, interpretations, and diverse perspectives. Engaging in open dialogue, critically analyzing arguments, considering multiple viewpoints, and being aware of personal biases can help navigate these subjective arguments more effectively.

Here are some evaluative criteria:

• Objective vs. Subjective Claims: Facts typically refer to objective claims that can be empirically verified or proven. They are based on observable evidence and can be supported by logical reasoning. Conversely, opinions reflect subjective judgments, personal beliefs, or preferences that are not necessarily grounded in empirical evidence.

• Sources of Evidence: Assess the sources of evidence provided in the argument. Credible and verifiable sources, such as scientific research, data, or expert consensus typically support facts. Opinions, however, may rely on personal experiences, values, or subjective interpretations, which may vary among individuals.

• Context and Scope: Consider the context and scope of the argument. Facts often pertain to specific, verifiable details or events within a given context. Conversely, opinions may involve broader evaluations, moral judgments, or subjective assessments that are influenced by personal perspectives and values.

• Consensus vs. Disagreement: Evaluate the level of consensus or disagreement surrounding the claim. Facts tend to have widespread agreement among experts or a consensus supported by empirical evidence. Opinions, particularly in essentially contested concepts, are more likely to evoke diverse viewpoints and ongoing debates.

• Verifiability and Falsifiability: Examine whether the claim can be objectively verified or falsified through empirical evidence or logical reasoning. Facts are generally verifiable and subject to empirical testing. Opinions, especially in subjective arguments about what is best, may not be directly verifiable or falsifiable.

The Broader Challenge

Quantitative and empirical data are powerful tools for constructing persuasive arguments in moral discussions. This is achieved through various means: identifying and measuring moral problems, evaluating the effectiveness of moral solutions, predicting consequences of moral choices, persuading individuals to adopt moral values, and holding people accountable for their moral decisions.

However, a crucial distinction must be made between facts and opinions in moral arguments. While data supports objective claims (facts), opinions, being subjective, are not necessarily grounded in empirical evidence.

The integration of quantitative and empirical data into moral discussions serves as a potent method for constructing persuasive arguments, encompassing identification and measurement of moral problems, evaluation of solutions, prediction of consequences, persuasion for adopting values, and accountability for decisions.

C. Wright Mills' critique of such matters is encapsulated in the quote, "drunk on syntax, blind to semantics," and this quote warns against prioritizing form over substance in thinking and writing.

Mills, a holistic sociologist, advocated for understanding the social world not just through its structure but also through the meanings people attribute to actions-- this can include how our moral commitment gets carried out in the "real world."

Syntax focuses on the structure of language, and semantics delves into meaning- both play crucial roles.

Mills criticized social scientists for being overly fixated on syntax, arguing that by neglecting semantics (meaning), they missed the holistic understanding of the social world.

The quote serves as a cautionary reminder about the pitfalls of becoming overly absorbed in language. It underscores the idea that words, while powerful, are not exhaustive in capturing the complexities of reality.

Instead, it encourages an honest acknowledgment of the difficulty of understanding 'reality', given the divergent ways in which political opponents perceive the world differently. Therefore, meaning is not only integral but equivalent to the very substance of language in tandem with the significance of syntax.

Balancing Form and Substance

Examples illustrating being "drunk on syntax, blind to semantics" include a politician's empty promises, a social scientist's jargon-filled but substance-lacking paper, and a student's essay filled with big words but devoid of substantive content.

Mills' quote encourages a balance between form and substance. It urges us not to lose sight of the meanings behind our words, as well as the words of others. There are often disconnects in interpretations, understanding, and meaning, which emphasizes our collective aspiration for clear and concise communication. All too often, our focus is on explanation and prediction.

So, the question is-- what would be different if we paused to interpret and understand?

This serves as a reminder that while syntax is essential, it should not overshadow the substantive content of what we aim to achieve and our ability to communicate it. There's always someone we expect to be listening to-- but are they listening?

You're that person, too.

But a good place to start is asking:

Who is the realist? Who is the idealist? Who is the judge? What is the rubric, and who provided it?

The truth of the matter is we don't always understand how the world works in the same way. (Exhibit A: Logos)

Ambiguity & Comfort

Overall, these questions are designed to challenge our assumptions about knowledge and reality. They remind us that there is no singularly comprehensive and conclusive summarised way to understand the world and that our own understanding is always limited and incomplete by the limitations of our cognition.

Ambiguity is not a comfortable truth to stand in; all too often, we prefer the cozy familiarity of cognitive dissonance.

Keats concept of Negative capability emphasizes the importance of mental flexibility in the creative process, asserting that the artist must navigate uncertainties without succumbing to the urge for absolute clarity. It is described as the capacity to withstand uncertainties, mysteries, and doubts without an irritable need for immediate resolution or closure. This concept extends beyond mere tolerance of ambiguity. It involves being able to tolerate not knowing or, being comfortable with not being able to locate the full, accurate, complete, and final answer.

In the German historical context, we can see the contrast-- the German phrase "durch den Nebel dringen", is understood as "pushing through the fog" and this term can be applied to societal, political, or scientific advancements. This phrase reflects the idea that progress often requires pushing through the metaphorical fog of ignorance, uncertainty, or resistance.

It also implies the need for perseverance, resilience, and adaptability when confronted with challenges and obstacles on the path to achieving a goal or making a breakthrough.

Not knowing is a space where there is the potential for both edifying conversations that foster a sense of belonging and shared understanding or disruptive conversations that challenge assumptions and introduce new knowledge-- which one sounds more appealing?

In the realm of cognitive dissonance and discomfort with ambiguity, the idea encapsulated in the quote often attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald comes into focus: "The sign of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

This concept also resonates with the acknowledgment that ambiguity is not a comfortable truth to stand in; instead, there's a tendency to seek solace in the familiar embrace of perpetual and deeply conflicted belief or, at its extreme denial; understanding innate human psychology is helpful in this regard-- see also, the need for cognitive closure

My Perspective on the "Facts Matter" & "Facts First" Arguments

On Wikipedia, Facts Matter, and CNN has previously advanced their Facts First Campaign. While people may hold differing opinions about what they believe to be the best course of action, when evaluating these opinions, it's crucial to rely on trusted and reliable sources to discern whether an opinion aligns with factual information or not. These authoritative sources play a vital role in helping us determine the veracity of an opinion.

In politics, distinguishing fact from opinion can be a formidable challenge. This challenge becomes particularly pronounced when we encounter opinions about matters that cannot be scientifically proven or empirically tested. These opinions are typically grounded in abstract ideas that stem from an individual's unique perceptions and beliefs about the world.

The issue’s crux lies in how opinions connect with the factual— opinions are inherently subjective and rooted in personal interpretations of complex social, economic, and political phenomena that have an abundance of facts surrounding them. But, unlike empirically provable facts, which can be objectively validated through evidence and observation, opinions in politics often revolve around multifaceted matters and are subject to diverse interpretations. These opinions influence how we interpret and understand "the facts."

Consequently, the confusion between fact and opinion arises when individuals naturally allow their subjective viewpoints to influence their understanding and interpretation of objective facts. This blurring of the lines occurs because people may passionately believe in the correctness of their opinions, often driven by their values, ideologies, or personal experiences. In their minds, their opinions are seen as undeniable truths in light of the clear "facts" that are presented.

This phenomenon can lead to polarized political discourse, where opposing sides not only hold different opinions but also fiercely dispute the factual basis of those opinions. In such cases, the challenge lies in recognizing that while opinions may be deeply held and sincerely believed, they do not possess the same empirical weight as objectively verifiable facts. When it comes to imposing the moral and ethical "shoulds, oughts, and musts" onto social, cultural, and political topics, things get extremely messy.

Therefore, in political discussion, fostering a nuanced understanding of the distinction between fact and opinion is vital. Recognizing that opinions are subjective expressions of personal perspectives can promote more constructive dialogue, where individuals acknowledge the legitimacy of differing viewpoints while grounding their arguments in evidence-based facts whenever possible.

Enter Metaphysics

So, while credible sources can assist us in evaluating whether an opinion is grounded in factual information, some opinions cannot be directly validated or invalidated as they revolve around abstract concepts related to personal beliefs and one's perception of the world, akin to the field of Metaphysics.

For instance, a long-standing metaphysical debate that remains an 'essentially contested concept' on Wikipedia is the dispute between Determinism and free will. Determinism posits that all events, including human actions and decisions, are predetermined by antecedent causes. From this standpoint, the universe follows a predetermined sequence of cause and effect, potentially limiting genuine freedom of choice or agency.

Nevertheless, the central and persistently unresolved argument in this context, often skirted to promote a particular viewpoint, revolves around recognizing the perennially contentious interplay between Structure and agency.

The debate surrounding determinism and free will encompasses philosophical reasoning, personal convictions, and varying interpretations of available evidence. These concepts delve into profound inquiries about the nature of reality and human existence, rendering them inherently complex to prove or disprove conclusively. In such instances, factual evidence alone cannot resolve the dispute. It is essential to acknowledge that opinions regarding these metaphysical concepts hinge on individual beliefs that lack objective verification.

Individuals often rely on diverse sources, including philosophical texts, religious teachings, and personal experiences, to substantiate their viewpoints on determinism and free will. However, achieving consensus can be difficult due to the inherently contested nature of these concepts, rooted in metaphysics rather than factual evidence. While facts may be employed to bolster persuasive arguments, the discussion ventures into the realm of Rhetoric; this brings us to one of Wikipedia's most controversial and essentially contested concepts: logos.

The "Thinking Slow" Context

The intersection of metaphysics and facts in relation to the work of Daniel Kahneman, a renowned psychologist and Nobel laureate, can be understood through his research on cognitive biases and the subjective nature of human perception.

Kahneman's work reveals how human decision-making is influenced by cognitive biases and heuristics, shaping our understanding and judgments. Metaphysics explores fundamental questions about reality, including determinism, free will, and consciousness, often beyond objective measurement. The connection lies in recognizing that human perception is subjective and influenced by biases and mental processes.

The Value of Psychology

Psychology plays a crucial role in uncovering and understanding bias in cognition, building upon the insights gained from Kahneman's work and the recognition of subjective human perception. By studying cognitive biases and heuristics, psychologists delve into the intricate workings of the mind and uncover the subtle ways in which biases can shape our thinking and decision-making processes.

Through empirical research and psychological experiments, psychologists shed light on the underlying mechanisms that give rise to these biases, allowing us to understand better and recognize our own biases. This knowledge equips us with tools to critically evaluate our thoughts, judgments, and actions, enabling us to mitigate the influence of biases and make more informed, objective decisions. Psychology, therefore, provides valuable insights into the complexities of human cognition and offers strategies for navigating the subjective nature of perception and decision-making.

Psychology and therapy are essential in helping individuals achieve objective perception by increasing awareness of factors that influence our interpretations. Through reflection and challenging assumptions, therapy fosters more accurate perceptions of reality. It encourages open-mindedness, critical thinking, and understanding of the complexities of subjective experience. Therapy also promotes empathy, bridging gaps in perception. However, achieving objective perception requires ongoing self-reflection and a commitment to learning and growth. Ultimately, therapy enhances self-awareness and overcomes biases, leading to greater well-being and a more accurate understanding of the world.

Edunoramus (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

References: