Critical Thinking and Its Alternatives

A good article by Lane Wallace in the Atlantic (ht to Mark Kleiman) on certain aspects of human reasoning that have great relevance to today's political debates. People are not, as all agree, perfectly rational. One irrational thing we do is to cling to beliefs even after evidence clearly indicates these beliefs are factually wrong. And I'm not talking about grand spiritual questions here, but things that are clearly subject to resolution based on evidence. Ms. Wallace, for example, discusses the question of who got to the North Pole first, Cook or Peary. There are people still passionately attached to one conclusion or the other, on this question and many other similar questions, long after the evidence supporting their conclusion has been shown to be inconclusive or in error, and other evidence has indicated some other conclusion is correct.

While most of us, most of the time, will base our conclusions on the evidence, and will alter our beliefs based on what evidence there is and how reliable the evidence is (the reliability of the evidence being based on some independent standard), this is not always what we do. In some cases we will work in the opposite direction, basing our beliefs on some gut level reaction and then judging the evidence as being reliable or not based on whether it supports our conclusion. Mark Kleiman has distinguished these as "data based reasoning" in the first instance and "motivated reasoning" in the second. But by this second method we can never escape our conclusion no matter how wrong it is. This then is the irrationality trap that keeps people believing in things long since shown to be false.

The success of some of our intellectual activities over the past several centuries, science perhaps most notably, is due to recognizing this tendency and to keep the process focused on reasoning from evidence to conclusions. A central aspect of the critical thinking process is that conclusions are always tentative. That is, we believe these things are probably true, but keep in mind that that could be wrong. As long as one does so you do not become so attached to that conclusion that you switch to "motivated reasoning".

People vary in how likely they are to select "data driven reasoning" over "motivated reasoning", but the preference for the later can also be encouraged by better education and better explanation of the critical thinking process. There is also a theological argument for preferring the "data driven approach" that those who are more religiously inclined might be advised to present and perfect.

For any given person engaged in reasoning about the world and trying to understand the world about him, we can assume that said person does not posses the wisdom and omniscience of God. Therefore said person will, in drawing conclusions and listening to his gut often come to erroneous conclusions. It is an arrogant affront to assume that any person is incapable of error. But if the person is possibly wrong in his conclusions then by definition his conclusions are tentative. That is the very meaning of the term. Later evidence or experience might show that the conclusions are in error. A person should, if he does not assume that he is equal to God, treat his own opinions and conclusions as tentative.

Note, however, that the above paragraph is open to a possible misunderstanding, which also gums up our arguments. While I say that all conclusions are tentative, they are not all equally so. All conclusions that have been drawn to date might be overturned by some later evidence, might not all are equally likely to. That the Earth is a spheroid in orbit about the Sun is a tentative conclusion is true, but so well supported by the evidence that it would be absurd to act in any way as if it might be proven wrong. The conclusion that the Moon is the result of an impact with the Earth during the formation of the solar system is also tentative, but somewhat more so. It is not absurd to imagine that future evidence might replace that conclusion with some other, or some modified version of the impact theory. The conclusion that there was life on Mars in the distant past is also tentative, but much more uncertain than the other two. It is based on the evidence for liquid water on that planet and the inconclusive evidence from a meteorite discovered on the Earth.

To be able to have rational discourse on any subject, we need to engage in "data driven reasoning". This requires us to make use of the principals of critical thinking which recognizes that our conclusions are tentative, but we must be able to recognize that they aren't all equally so.

Walter Reed Middle School?

As reported by TPM it would appear that the McCain campaign got the Walter Reed Medical Center with the Walter Reed Middle School, at least for McCain's back drop for his acceptance speech. The story so far is that for the acceptance speech backdrop the McCain team wanted a view of the Walter Reed Medical Center as a kind of reference to wounded troops from Iraq. However, they went about getting the image they got a picture instead of a Middle School in California which also carries the name Walter Reed.

Now this may seem like a really foolish and avoidable error, and it is. However, I think that it is exactly the kind of thing one might expect from the McCain team. To avoid this kind of error, you really need to have someone find the material, and someone else check the work with a critical eye. I've written on a number of occasions on critical review as a basic and essential tool for reaching correct conclusions. It seems to me that the current conservative crowd is ideologically opposed to critical review. Much of what we've seen over the past seven years has been shaped by the refusal of the Bush/Cheney administation to subject their gut reactions to any kind of critical review. From the treatment of all outside questions regarding the Iraq war, to the Cheney stovepiping of intelligence, to Bush's isolation from questioning during the '04 campaign, and may other examples, this administration has refused to consider review of its decisions. It looks to me like the McCain team takes the same approach and therefore one can only expect many more of these kinds of avoidable mistakes.

Karma on Biden

This is a good diary arguing in support the choice of Biden for VP. Karma for All points out that Barak Obama has already made clear that his criteria for his VP choice included someone who would disagree with him and challenge him. As I've argued elsewhere, this is a central characteristic of success, looking for evidence and arguments that challenge your existing conclusions. In short McCain, and the press, will frame this as a negative on Obama. The counter argument is that Biden will provide critical review, an essential element to a success.

Biden

Ok, so the VP choice is Biden. Fine by me. There will be plenty of discussion as to the significance of this choice pros and cons, but I personally doubt that the VP choice is going to be very significant. Biden will not alienate any large segment of the voting population as far as I can tell. I know that Kos doesn't think much of Biden for VP for example, a position confirmed by Jerome Armstrong at MyDD. (Although check both Kos and MyDD for other more favorable opinions as well.) But I see no sign that anyone is so hostile to Biden that the electoral consequences will be large in either direction. Also, note that while some folks will dislike the Biden pick, others will be happy. Some votes may be lost, others will be gained. Total affect will be small. I think that the common wisdom that the VP pick has little affect on election day is certainly correct.

Another point regards the framing of this discussed by Jerome Armstrong at MyDD. The NYT is already framing this as indicating weakness for Obama, he needs Biden to give him support on foreign policy.

I think, however, that points up a common error we on the left have been making for some time now. It is always possible to frame an action in a negative light. Yes by picking a Biden it will reinforce the frame that Obama needs help with foreign policy. By picking a non-Biden it will reinforce the frame that Obama is an arrogant newcomer who thinks he is above everybody else. You can frame any choice as negative. The trick is for Obama supporters to provide the best defense of Obama's that we can. Biden is a useful old hand in Washington, Biden is a good campaigner, Biden will challenge Obama's views on foreign policy providing useful critical review, and so on.

There is a joke out there, I've seen a few times, saying that if the Democrats were to nominate Jesus Christ for president, the Republicans would say "Never held an elected office, the guy has never held a job, never met a payroll and does nothing but stir up trouble." This is odd enough, but the real problem is that the Democratic response would be "That is so true, what were we thinking. Couldn't he at least have worked at Burger King for a while. Our guy is no good." That's where the problem lies. We need to defend our choices. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to come up with solid Democratic defenses of Jesus Christ.

Klein on Broder

Joe Klein responds to Glenn Greenwald's most recent on David Broder, and Glenn responds back. Glenn's points are good and you should read the exchange between the two. But one thing struck me about Joe Klein's comments that ties into what I write about critical review, and gives me a good opportunity to do a better job of explaining what I mean.

Klein's response "Is he saying that people like Broder and Ron Brownstein and me shouldn't talk to people outside the Beltway?" is striking in how completely it misses Greenwald's complaint. Greenwald is clearly not saying that Broder shouldn't talk to folks outside the Beltway. Glenn is constantly harping on the failure of people like Broder and Klein to understand the opinions of folks outside the Beltway. What Greenwald is clearly saying is that however much Broder and Klein try to find out what people think outside the Beltway, they are doing it very badly. They may well be trying very hard to feel the American pulse, but they are clearly failing to do so. Greenwald does think that Broder and Klein should talk with folks outside the Beltway, but that they should do it well, not badly.

But additionally, it seems to me that this is characteristic of our Beltway press corps, and much of our leadership in America. These people don't even consider the possibility that what they are doing, they are doing badly. It is simply assumed that if Broder is trying to understand the opinions of most Americans, he is doing it well. Neither Broder nor Klein seem to even consider the possibility that they are doing a poor job of what they are trying to do. But this self confidence is so ingrained that they even conclude that criticisms of what they do must be for the things they are doing not for the quality.

This ties into the very nature of critical review. To achieve true excellence in something, anything, you must keep in mind the possibility that you are doing it poorly and that there are ways to do it better. One must be constantly on the lookout for evidence that you are failing, or that you are doing the job poorly. There is thus a tension between self-confidence, which is necessary and this self-doubt which is also necessary. To let either dominate will result in failure. One of the chief characteristics of our Beltway culture is to be dominated by self-confidence to the point of abandoning any self-doubt and thus abandoning critical review. The results are at best mediocre and frequently disastrous.

Republican Shake Up

Over on the Moderate Voice there is a good discussion of a recent Newsweek article on some of the potential fractures in the Republican party. The focus of the Newsweek article is on a number of descendants of famous, leading Republicans who are deeply disenchanted with their party. Disenchanted even to the point of contemplating a switch. The folks in question are lifelong, prominent Republicans, but of the so-called Country Club set, with names such as Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Goldwater. If these folks are considering leaving the Republican party then a major realignment, or possible dissolution, of the Republican party is a distinct prospect. I recommend that you go over and read what is written over there. Constructive Interference is clearly a blog that is not very warm toward the Republican party. My opinions on the current state of the Republican party are not favorable. The Moderate Voice is a good bit more centerest and friendly to the Republican party, so their perspective is well worth checking on.

To me it looks like the current trends in the Republican party are towards the neocon, ultra conservative wing, and thus towards eventual irrelevance in American politics. I can't believe that will happen without a realignment, but what that realignment will look like I don't know. Although I am a solid Democrat and rather liberal in my politics, understand that one of the main themes I discuss is the need for critical review, oversight, accountability. These things are essential if we are to make any complex system work. That includes a modern government. Therefore, while I will remain a Democrat, I want there to be a vigorous, effective Republican (or other oppostion) party to provide that critical review, oversight and accountability. The current Republican party cannot play that role because the current Republican party is ideologically opposed to critical review, oversight and accountability. I want a good Republican party back.

Addressing Two Conservative Arguments

This post addresses a few of my thoughts on some Conservative arguments for continuing the war in Iraq. It was done in response to this comment by elmendorf over on Kevin Drum's blog 'Political Animal' and can be found there as well. I just wanted to record it here too.

I just have to respond to elmendorf's December 23, 2006 at 3:22 PM post, although he seems to have vanished. He uses two arguments, that conservatives seem to love, that should be shown to be absurd.

It's popular Conventional Wisdom among liberals that their actions, both in this war, and Vietnam, had absolutely nothing to do with our setbacks and losses.

Two things about this quote. We see here the conservative standard that if the left has more than "absolutely nothing" to do with the loss then the conservatives are totally absolved and the left is entirely to blame. The conservatives failures to plan, to understand the country, the terrain, the enemy, to clearly set forth a national objective, etc. can all be ignored unless the activities of 'the left' had, beyond any possibility of doubt, "absolutely nothing" to do with the failure. This is the basic formula for conservatives that is part and parcel of their refusal to take responsibility for any of their actions.

On a related note, I must say that any policy or principal of any sort invariably has advantages and disadvantages. The fundamental principal of the United States to allow, indeed to encourage, debate and discussion of our policies before, during and after their execution, no doubt has, at times, provided some morale boost to our enemies. However, this principal of debate also makes our policies better and more likely to succeed. We can see that clearly today in that the absence of debate in 2002 has been a major cause of the failures in Iraq today. The advantages we gain from this debate, far, far outweigh any disadvantages. Conservatives ignore all the advantages gained from open debate and focus only on the trivially small cost that these debates might, I repeat might have. Note too, that for all they rail on about patriotism, for conservatives there really is only one great, unforgivable crime. And that crime is not criticizing the Unite States. We have seen, in recent weeks, any amount of talk from conservatives that the problems in Iraq stem from America and Americans loosing their nerve or not having the will (see Tom DeLay) or in the past several years, Coulter labeling a third to half of all Americans traitors, or Jerry Falwell blaming American and Americans for 9/11. These condemnations of America and Americans from conservatives raise not a peep of protest, indeed they are often met with great praise. No the one unforgivable crime, to which the names of treason and hating America will be given, is to claim that conservatives are wrong, are to blame or are at fault.

The second point made by elmendorf that I wish to address is in this paragraph:

Almost an entire political party advocating unconditional surrender--and face it, that's what "redeployment to other countries" or "withdrawal" is no matter how much icing you slap on it--goes a very long way to convincing our enemies to keep fighting.

The insistence, on the part of conservatives, that withdraw from Iraq means "unconditional surrender" is nothing short of pathetic. In every war ever fought by any nation great or small, there have been reverses and withdraws necessitated by the fortunes of war. To recognize that a given operation has failed and that it is time to redeploy one's forces so as to achieve victory elsewhere is just a requirement of competent leadership. The conservative demand that they be granted a "victory" in Iraq or else they will call everybody a "looser" and give up, is no more than the tantrum of a child who threatens to run and cry unless he not only wins the game, but wins every turn. In 1864 Grant fought a dreadful battle at Spotsylvania Courthouse, with several regiments ground to nothing in the so-called 'bloody angle' but where Lee had the day and prevented the Union break through. Lee won that battle and no doubt the Army of Northern Virginia gained some boost to morale, but Grant marched on to Cold Harbor and Petersburg and victory in the overall struggle. In 1915 Great Britain attempted to take Turkey out of the war by invading the Gallipoli peninsula. By the end of the year it was clear that the operation had failed and in January of 1916 the British troops were withdrawn, which most certainly gave encouragement to the Turks. Nonetheless, Great Britain went on to defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In September of 1944 the allies attempted to achieve a rapid crossing of the Rhine by landing three airborne divisions in Holland to capture several bridges and to be followed up by the XXX corps crossing the river at Arnhem. By the ninth day of the operation, it was clear that it had failed and the remains of the British 1st airborne in Arnhem were withdrawn. No doubt the Germans felt some boost to morale, but the Allies went ahead and won the war anyway, crossing the Rhine elsewhere. My point is that not all military campaigns will be a success, nor does the nation's safety or reputation require them to be. It is indeed a failure to launch an operation that does not succeed, but it is a greater failure by far to continue to pursue a failed course, as our conservative fellow countrymen insist we do.

Just as Grant ultimately succeeded though he pulled out of Spotsylvania, and the British succeeded in WWI although they pulled out of Gallipoli, and the Allies won WWII although they did not hold the Arnhem bridge, the goals and principals of this nation can still prevail if we pull out of Iraq and direct our resources elsewhere. Indeed, I would argue, if we are to succeed in our ultimate objectives we need to pull out of Iraq. In Iraq we are no longer fighting for the nation's interest but only in the interest of saving the reputations of some leading conservative politicians and pundits.

Return to Oversight

Oversight being absolutely essential to having good government, this is a good thing. Read the article linked below:

Democrats Aim to Save Inquiry on Work in Iraq - New York Times

It does an excellent job laying out the Democrats' likely approach to investigations. It looks to be thorough and sober. This will be good.

powered by performancing firefox

Accountability and Corruption

MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics
MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics

There have been a few posts over on MyDD over the past few days (see Democratic Leaders to Run on Iraq War Accountability and Republican Corruption Back in the Fore?) Republican corruption and Republican lack of accountability and how that the Democrats can make use of these issues. To my mind, one of the most striking aspects of this discussion, here on MyDD and elsewhere, is the tendency to treat these issues as two separate issues. They are not. The Republicans have been claiming for the past few decades that they are inherently more virtuous (using as evidence their overt Christianity, or their attitudes towards sex, or their wealth, etc.). The Democrats cannot, and should not, being trying to argue that they have the greater inherent virtue and furthermore must make clear that they are not arguing that. The liberal position has been for centuries that the thing needed to keep corruption at bay is accountability and oversight. As long as humans are involved in government, relying upon their virtue is a mistake. And not because there are no virtuous people, but rather because in the absence of oversight even the most honest will loose their way,

The Democrats can capitalize on the Republican corruption, but they need to make clear that the reason for the growing Republican scandals is the lack of oversight, the lack of accountability. The Democrats will restore that accountability but make no claim to inherently superior virtue.

The point of this for the upcoming election is that the issue the Democrats need to focus on accountability. The Republicans have abandoned that principal and as a result we see the problems in Iraq, growing corruption in government, the failures of the Katrina response, the growing deficit. The Democrats will return to the vital principal of holding the government accountable. So corruption should be part of the Democratic talking points, but as an example supporting the main talking point of accountability.

One other thing on using corruption as an issue. We Democrats suffer horribly from impatience. The 'Culture of Corruption' as an election issue was started earlier this year. So far, having been used for six months and not bringing victory in the one case where it was used, we are thinking that it needs to be dropped. The Republicans started pushing the Democrats as weak on defense in the 1964 election and finally archived that as a fundamental view on Democrats by maybe 1972 (1968 at the earliest). Could be give it a little more time, with a little more variations in how we use it before giving up. We do tend to come up with these ideas that are very good, but abandon them very quickly when they don't bring immediate success. The culture of corruption will be a fact of Republican governance for as long as they abandoned oversight. We need to make it an issue for that same period of time.

FWIW

There has been a lot of attention on the Lieberman/Lamont match up, so much that it might seem to be overkill. However, I believe that this fight embraces two of the major issues that underlie the current political scene, Critical Review and Privilege. The Bush administration is all about opposition to using Critical Review in making decisions and in favor of have one Servile Class and a Privileged Class. The net roots is all about using Critical Review and opposed to Privilege. Lieberman stands with Bush on both these matters.

Again with Critical Review

The Decembrist: My Lieberman Problem -- And Ours

The cited article is an excellent summary of the reasons for opposing Lieberman. The money quote is

It seems to me that Lieberman is following the path, quite literally, of the neo-conservatives - not the Rumsfeldian nationalists who incorrectly wear that label now, but the original neo-cons of the 1960s, driven to the right above all by their irritation at the left, often based on domestic politics. (Hence the title of this post, an allusion to one of the most famous original documents of the neocons, Norman Podhoretz’s 1967 essay, “My Negro Problem - And Ours”.)

Is that enough of a reason to oppose Lieberman? Sure, because it’s a huge error on one of the most fundamental questions of our time. It’s an error not of policy or of political loyalty, but of attitude. And it is not an error that I see others making. I heard Ed Kilgore today, on a bloggingHeads sequence, argue that if “the bloggers” come for Lieberman today, tomorrow they’ll go after Steny Hoyer or Hillary Clinton. I can’t speak for everyone, but while I have disagreements with Clinton and probably Hoyer, I’ve never heard them say things as deeply offensive to my sense of what democracy and patriotism requires as I’ve heard from Lieberman recently.

Which I believe can be put in more concrete terms by considering the concept of 'critical review' which I've talked about elsewhere

In short, if you want to successfully create and run or modify any remotely complex system (like and economy or foreign policy, etc). you cannot rely upon the wisdom or intelligence of any individual or small group to get it right. You will have to come up with proposals and subject them to critical review. That is, have a diverse group of independent thinkers review the proposal and present criticisms that will have to be addressed. This process is essential and is incorporated in every successful mechanism we use to create, run and modify complex systems.

Liberman's position, on the other hand, is to abandon this process, to abandon critical review. That is the "error of attitude" that Mark Schmitt talks of. So Lieberman is profoundly, and fundamentally wrong. Indeed, the truth is that we cease to criticize our commander-in-chief at our peril.

An Essential Difference

The point raised in this post is a very important, indeed essential, difference today between the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats recognize the need for critical review. The Republicans not only have abandoned this idea, but now hold it in contempt. Look, no one is smart enough, or virtuous enough, or wise enough to put together any time of complicated plan or program that has no flaws. Any plan put together by one individual, or a small group of like minded people, will have serious flaws. Those flaws will only be removed if the plans are subjected to critical review, by a diverse group of independent people. Without that review the plans will remain deeply flawed. That is what we are seeing in Iraq. The Bush-Cheny-Rumsfeld plans for Iraq were never really reviewed, certainly not by independent critics (or to the extent that independent critics did put forth their comments, those comments were ignored) and as a result the worlds greatest supper power is struggling to come up with some kind of success in fighting Iraq.

Will the Democrats plan for timed withdraw work? I don't know. But the current plan of more of the same will not. Also, if the Democrats plans are reviewed and debated, as the Democrats are doing, this nation will come up with the best options possible to salvage as much as can be from Iraq.

Criticism

Digby gets some advice from one William G. Henders. This is classic wingnut drivel. But I do want to make a few points.

1) It is quite absurd, indeed spineless and pathetic to compare the United States and the "Islamofascists" as equals in this competition, as Mr. Henders does. If the United States is an Iditerod dog team, the 'enemy' is some minor player that could injure us, but has no chance of "winning" in any meaningful sense. Our competitors are China, India, Russia, and perhaps Japan and Europe, not Al Qaeda.

2) The left's complaint with regards to Bush is not that he is going too fast or occasionally heading to close to a cliff. The complaint is that while our objective is clearly to the North, he his heading resolutely to the South East.

3) The "...purpose served by "fouling the traces" through criticism of the leader..." is to keep the sled more on track and to get it to function at peak efficiency. That is what the criticisms do, that is all they do, and without the criticisms the sled cannot function at peak efficiency. Clearly with the current leader, peak efficiency is pretty poor, but nonetheless that is the only purpose served.

How to Reform Congress

Josh Marshall provides and excerpt from James Dobson. Calling for more ethical people to purge congress of corruption is a hopeless task, we cannot rely upon the goodness of mankind. What is needed is a return to oversight and critical review. What we need is a diverse group of independent actors who can and will criticize and challenge the actions of the President and leaders of Congress.

Republican Disaffection

Atrios notes that David Brooks has come down hard on the Republicans over the Abromoff affair. Brooks' editorial is on the NYT pay site, so I've got no link. Atrios reprints part of the editorial and provides a link to the NYT, but two things struck me:

1) Great line "That's a great G.O.P. talking point: some Democrats are so sleazy, they get involved with the likes of us." This really does sum up the Republican position.

2) Main problem facing principled Republicans is illustrated by this line: "Instead, all legislation should be posted online for 72 hours before the vote, so the staff and bloggers can nitpick and expose."

However, that nitpicking and exposing is exactly what this Republican party is so completely opposed to. That is why they support this Imperial President. It is a matter of deep conviction and principal to these people that one should not have that kind of review. It is a deep conviction which is completely wrong, one which all of history and experience has repeatedly shown is profoundly wrong, but it is nonetheless the deeply held belief of this Republican Party.

Meir's papers

The AP is reporting that Bush is refusing to turn over to the Senate papers relating to his conversations with Harriet Miers. Those documents will not be made available to the Senate for their review of her nomination to the Supreme Court. Bush is claiming that the requested papers are covered by attorney client confidentiality. Setting aside the fact that the request was for "non-privileged documents", this should be a deal breaker on her confirmation. If she is that close to the president, then she should not be appointed, much less confirmed, for the Supreme Court. The vital role of the court is as an independent review of the other two branches. Meir's is clearly not independent of the current executive.

For what it is worth, I'm not convinced that she is a jurist with whom I would object on ideological grounds. It is just not clear how conservative, and on what issues, she is. But at this point, on qualification, transparency, independence and experience, it would be a decidedly bad precedent to confirm her to the bench.

How to handle error

Democrats and liberals have come under attack to some degree for encouraging and promoting various investigations that may politically damage this administration, on the grounds that doing so will hurt the nation. I've seen complaints to that affect with regards to Abu Ghraib and to the Fitzgerald investigation into Plamegate. Apparently the conservative view is that the actions themselves, torture of prisoners or outing covert agents, are not too important, it is revealing that they happened that does the damage.

Well the liberal position is the opposite. The grave danger to our troops in the field has been done because of the torture itself and because an undercover agent was exposed. The way to minimize and control that damage, and to prevent further such damaging incidences in the future is to expose the culprits and make sure that they face justice for their actions. Covering up the misdeeds does nothing to reduce the damage, but it does make it more likely that such misdeeds will occur again.

Oversight

The Washington Post has a short piece describing how congress has been abandoning its oversight role. As I discussed in an earlier post, the role of oversight, or critical review, of what the other branches are doing, is an essential role that is absolutely necessary for government to work properly. We will only get good policy if the branches of government seriously check each others work. The trend described in the article is something we should be very concerned about. The trend has certainly accelerated with the current congress and current administration. Congressional oversight of the administration is a shadow of what it once was, typified by the congressional Katrina investigation which is shaping up to be a whitewash.

This trend is now not only affecting congress, but the executive has abandoned its oversight role as well. Bush has vetoed exactly zero pieces of legislation. It the branches of government do not check each others work we can only expect poor results. And we are seeing that in the aftermath of the Iraq war, the aftermath of Katrina, the bloated highway bill, and the rest of this current government's efforts.

Diversity

The link is to today's George Will Washington Post editorial. The post is getting a lot of attention ( kos Kleiman) because it is such a harsh critique of George Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Others have covered the political and Supreme Court implications, but one thing that Will wrote struck me. He says

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation.

This is a point where conservatism is so deeply wrong, and not just on the social grounds, but intellectually as well.

I know from personal experience that one essential element needed to make scientific research and technological development successful is what I refer to as "critical review". This is a recurring process in which ideas or plans are subject to what it says, review aimed at finding flaws. The objective being to test the ideas, look for where and how they might fail. This is essentially what the experiment is all about in science. In technology development there are formal review and test procedures. I have argued that this element of critical review is identical to the competition that makes market economics such a success. It is found in the checks and balances of our constitution and in the adversarial nature of our legal system. Critical review is a central part of making any large complex system work.

But what then are the elements needed for this critical review. The are to have a diverse group of independent reviewers. The reviewers must be independent so that they can, in fact, be critical. The diversity is needed so that the ideas being tested will face as wide a range of tests and critiques as possible. Diversity is needed because that maximizes the chances that each error will be caught. Depending upon ones background, area of expertise and training, some errors will be more readily caught and others will me more likely to get missed. By increasing the diversity the likelihood of each error getting caught goes up.

The upshot is that Will is completely wrong in the passage quoted. Diversity is an essential component of any system whose objective is critical review.

Critical Review

In my opinion one of the largest issues dividing liberalism and conservatism today is not being discussed directly. It is the idea of critical review.

That is to say that a broad and diverse group of independent observers should subject any new idea to criticism, pointing out flaws and suggesting changes, before the idea is adopted. I think that human history has shown conclusively that if you wish to make any large complex system work, it is absolutely essential that you apply this idea of critical review to any new ideas or changes to the system. Today, liberalism is broadly supportive of critical review(see note), while a large and politically powerful section of conservatism is opposed to the idea. They seem to believe that critical review is too untidy and that the better course of action is to find some person of great moral character and rely upon his direction. Again, human history has pretty much shown this to be a disastrous course.

Note: When I say broadly supportive I don't mean slavishly happy to be criticized. We are human, we prefer to have our ideas praised than condemned. However, we do realize the value of critical review and while we might express our displeasure at your criticisms, we do recognize the value. Hence, in a forum such as this you will see open criticism allowed and encouraged and you will face strong counter arguments when you bring those criticisms. This is also because we likewise believe that your criticisms should be reviewed critically.