Hi Kevin,
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:00 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote:
> Hi Ernie:
>
> You seem a bit preoccupied with yourself, and me.
> But you are right, I did predict something. You win.
I realize this seems like a petty conceit of mine, and I apologize for giving
that impression, and for coming across as some sort of boorish scorekeeper.
> I didn't mean to imply I never predict, just that I try not to take it all so
> seriously, or that it matters if I am right and you are wrong and vice versa.
> Nobody cares.
Au contraire. It matters immensely. In fact, it gets to the very heart of
Radical Centrism.
You're right of course; it doesn't really matter whether you or I are wrong
about various things.
However, it matters enormously whether our *theories* are.
One of the most useful ways to understand Radical Centrism is as an attempt to
bring an empirical -- even scientific -- mindset to political philosophy.
This means we need to:
• State our assumptions explicitly
• Derive our predictions rigorously
• Measure the results precisely
• Adapt our hypotheses scrupulously
Our goal -- like that of science in general -- is to develop a coherent and
effective mental model of reality, which we can use to predict the result of
*future* actions.
Our primary beef with the existing parties and philosophies is that are
resolutely anti-empirical: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the
facts."
This is manifested in unspoken assumptions, sloppy predictions, unexamined
consequences, and ideological dogmatism -- the exact opposite of the scientific
mindset.
My goal for Centroids is not simply to talk about a better world, but to begin
living it *now*. Which means we treat our own -- and each other's -- ideas the
way we hope every politician ultimately will.
And one of the main reasons I want you to make concrete predictions and bet
against me is because *I might be wrong* -- and I desperately want to find that
out!
In my worldview, a Libertarian candidate (of any stripe) will never gain the
serious support of more than 5% of the population. If that's wrong, that means
my mental model is fundamentally flawed -- which would be an *awesome* thing to
discover. It would spark a whole new line of investigation, and hopefully
uncover some dramatic new insights.
I don't want to *think* I'm right, I want to *be* right -- or rather, *become*
right. And that means continually testing my mental model against reality, in
competition with others.
Heck, sometimes I'll bet on a theory I don't quite believe in myself, just to
find out whether or not it works.
In short, our meta-assumption is that we *don't* have all the right
assumptions, and that only by continually subjugating our beliefs to
competition and empirical testing can we discover *better* assumptions.
> I've been on internet lists for several years and know that things can
> quickly deteriorate into oneupsmanship or symmetrical escalation. I find
> that boring as I said before.
I don't blame you. But Centroids has thrived as long as it has because we work
very, very, very hard to encourage constructive conflict. Not just discourage
destructive conflict (as important as that is), but actively *fomenting*
constructive conflict. Because we believe that is the only valid way to truly
improve our understanding.
I would hope you share that passion.
If on the other hand you're a true scholastic who believes that all important
knowledge can be derived simply by starting from self-evident truths or
historical reflection, and that rigorous empirical results are therefore
unimportant, then I fear you will not find much here to interest you.
Does that help?
-- Ernie P.
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
