OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Now I may misunderstand this so correct me if I'm worng but I think you're saying: The conservative does not understand that they do not have the rights to the final interpritation of anything.

If this is so then I have to disagree. Because while passing judgement on others is seen as a conservative trait, liberals do it to. Are you saying that all liberals realise that when they say a conservative is wrong they are not entitled to that judgement?

Added to this I find myself being branded a conservative, it is my opinion for example that what goes on between two consenting adults in private is their entitlement. I will not hesitate to inflict this opinion on others, and argue about it constantly. I firmly believe it is right and everyone else who thinks otherwise is wrong.

Sorry for the derail, but he called me a conservative

I don't necessarily agree with all liberals who believe they have the correct model of utopia in hand. What I look for is anyone who presents what they say as a final interpretation.

People are afraid that with this kind of relativism that there would be no way to distinguish between fact and fiction. However, making a "fact" and "fiction" dichotomy is a mistake in itself. There is no such thing as fact or fiction. Science doesn't actually prove anything, it only allows us to see what we don't know and through falsifiability create incrementally and asymptotically more and more accurate interpretive frameworks.

So the classical complaint is that with this kind of relativism the creationist are just as right as the evolutionists. But this is incorrect because the creationist must always present their interpretation as the final interpretation, that cannot be deconstructed. The evolutionist on the other hand is always in a position to be proven wrong, and often is. Evolution is not a fact but is only the interpretive framework that allows us to make falsifiable deductive statements about species and their histories. The testing of these statements allows us to continually refine the interpretive framework so that it can become a more and more accurate representation of something. We assume that something is the relationship between species and their histories, and on this grounds anyone is free to disagree. However this can only be challenged with another interpretive framework capable of making falsifiable deductions, which creationism cannot.

Evolution doesn't present itself as fact and it doesn't even present itself as necessarily representing what we call "evolution". The only thing it presents is a falsifiable and modifiable interpretive framework; from which no final interpretations can be made. Christian conservatives can stop raising cane about the whole "came from monkeys" thing. That really isn't what the theory of evolution really represents in this big debate. All it represents is a challenge to christianity, or any religion, to make final interpretations. The only possible means of disagreement now is whether or not you believe you have the right to make final interpretations. Being a conservative doesn't put you in this category, but being a christian conservative does.