That assumption is a recipe for high-minded campaigning—and, often, electoral failure.

Cognitive dissonance on parade.

A new study claims that Democrats are more rational and Republicans are more emotional. Allahpundit calls it yet another permutation of “conservatives bad, liberals good” science…….

One approach, Christian Theism, says that question 1 is answered successfully because a Divine Mind crafted mankind in His image.

ColtsFan on June 28, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Oops, I had the wrong link.

I had originally planned for this link here.

And also this link here.

Victor Reppert had a clear, step-by-step argument concerning his subject on his blog awhile back, but I simply cannot find it.

One approach, Christian Theism, says that question 1 is answered successfully because a Divine Mind crafted mankind in His image.

ColtsFan on June 28, 2007 at 2:41 AM

Sorry, I had the wrong http link posted.

I had originally planned this link.

And also this link as well.

Victor Reppert got me thinking about this subject awhile back.

I just can’t find his Argument from Reason in a step-by-step, concise format, that he used to have posted on this blog above.

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/

Aside from the distorted political angle, this “attempt to reduce mind to brain-states neuroscience” stuff by the author of the article really raises two profound philosophical questions:

1.) Is the attempt to reduce mind (READ: “A dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions.”) to neurological brain-states philosophically successful?

The answer is negative because the immaterial mind that grasps propositions, numbers, abstract objects, moral values ***can never*** be reduced to that which is purely physical.

We know we have immaterial mind. This fact poses difficulties for any worldview that attempts to reduce mind to physical brain-states, such as the worldview of naturalism.

Besides the metaphysical difficulties noted above, there is the epistemological difficulty of reconciling knowledge with naturalism.

2.) what worldview best “accounts for” the answer given to question 1?

There are paradigm cases where we know that mind cannot be “reduced” or “equated” with neurological brain-states.
But this rules out the philosophical worldview known as Naturalism.

There are some who may disagree with my very brief analysis above.

I very much respect their opinion, and I take their comments seriously.

One approach, Christian Theism, says that question 1 is answered successfully because a Divine Mind crafted mankind in His image.

I may be guilty of reading too much into this brief article. But maybe it is because I see this naturalistic ploy of “let us reduce immaterial mind to physicalistic brain all too often” in contemporary literature.

Besides, I have been on the phone all day trying to save our country from ruthless Senators. :-)

Science: Dems lose elections because they’re too darned rational

I think all of us who’ve sailed the placid seas of Nutrootsistan can sympathize with that sentiment.

Yep, nothing but sunshine, reason, and the Athenian agora for those Democrats.

To you, sir, Ayn Rand would say “Bravo”.

What she’d say about their rationality or rationale, I’d give anything to hear today, straight from the source.

Past-life regression (all of them were kings, queens, etc;
at least three I know of all insist they were Cleopatra)

Yeah, it’s funny how none of them ever had past lives where they were say, Shmobo the peasant boy, who got killed by a runaway manure cart.

I am actually related to several Democrats, and have known many.

The vast majority of them were and are firm believers in;…

eon on June 27, 2007 at 7:59 PM

I couldn’t help but notice that list includes almost every belief system on planet except for organized religion.

And there’s a reason for that. Liberalism is secularism; they deny that their beliefs ARE beliefs.

Spirituality is mankind’s way of dealing with the world of the unknown versus the world of the mundane. And liberals utterly reject that entire process. They think that the simple act of labeling their idiotic fantasies “reality” magically makes them “true.”

Denying the distinction between the spiritual world and the physical world is just as bad as not understanding the difference between fantasy and reality.

…That’s not just a FORM of insanity; that’s the very DEFINITION of insanity.

I mean, literally no one who looked at it said “wait a minute…”?

The vast majority of them were and are firm believers in;

UFOs

Ghosts

Bigfoot

Reincarnation

Crystal therapy

The Erich Von Daniken/ W. Raymond Drake “Ancient Astronauts” theory

Past-life regression (all of them were kings, queens, etc;
at least three I know of all insist they were Cleopatra )

Alien abduction

Various JFK assassination conspiracy theories (none of them involving Lee H. Oswald)

Anthrogenic Global Warming

That all nuclear power plants are actually bombs just waiting to go “boom”

Extreme vegenism

The theory of Atlantis

and of course

The healing power of green tea.

If you can swallow all that, convincing yourself that you are inherently smarter and more rational than anyone else, in spite of all factual evidence to the contrary, isn’t much of a stretch.

If you want to see where a lot of this began with the “progressive” crowd, you actually have to start with the “UFO contactee” movement in the post- World war Two period. It’s amazing how many of the “mainstream progressive” beliefs of today began with the people who were routinely taking joyrides to Venus, Mars, and points up with the “Beautiful Space People”. (Google “Donald M. Ware” and you’ll see what I mean.)

cheers

eon

A)Democratic policies are rational
B)Republican policies are emotional

Note she doesnt argue why this is the case that is the her STARTING point to draw the conclusion she wants.

Funny, when I debate democrats I find them to be totally irrational. Facts don’t matter, just what they think reality might be.

lorien1973 on June 27, 2007 at 2:25 PM

That sums it up well. With libs, everything is measured in the currency of feelings and emotions, not logic, evidence or reasoned discourse. Every time they try to show otherwise, it only ends up reinforcing the central axiom; for they perceive rationality in the same way that a spoon perceives the taste of food.

This particular instance is just a variation on a snobbery-based theme that swiftly devolves into nothing more than an exercise in projection. I’ve seen a similar “analysis” positing that libs are “too nice” and need to learn to become vicious, mean and nasty – “Like those *%^@$#* Rethuglicans, ya know what I mean?”

The problem for libs is that when minds unfamiliar with the ordinary tools of rational debate (e.g., intellectual consistency, factual evidence, and reasoned discourse) try “the logic thing,” it always ends up being so contrived, self-contradictory, convoluted and dishonest that it ends up looking like something right out of The Onion. Check of proof: Westen’s article itself.

Bottom line: Liberalism is a mental disorder, and at some unconscious or semi-conscious level, people like Westen know it. But rather than take the uncertain and painful path to wellness that begins with an honest self-examination, it’s so much easier to retreat into a fantasy world shielded by thick walls of denial, displacement and projection.

The only challenge remaining after that is to hang some fig leaf of “rationality” on the avoidance mechanisms, in an effort to fool themselves about themselves while simultaneously trying to fool others. It never works, but can be a source of some entertainment.

Tony Blair is bigger than a poodle, he’s really much closer to like a Jack Russel Terrier or a Beagle or something. [The Sun] And he just got pretty much the shittiest reassignment ever. [LGF] Bush has to change……

I can hardly think straight.

What did they say again?

Vote Republican?

I’m furious!

Must eat raw flesh now.