Column on New Republic Style Pragmatism

Another Liberal Duplicity

Tibor R. Machan

The New Republic, that venerable Left of center publication, just came
out (dated February 28th) with its 90th Anniversary Issue. Its general
theme is ?To Liberalism! Embattled And Essential.?

By ?liberal? is meant here not classical liberalism, which made the case
for limited government, individual rights and the free market. No, instead
we get the corrupted sense of ?liberalism? that means making government
the caretaker of society, empowering it to regiment us about, redistribute
the wealth people create and otherwise subvert nearly all of the
principles of the original liberalism.

There is too much in this issue to cover in a column but one piece in
particular is worth discussing. Senior Editor Jonathan Chait penned it and
it?s called ?Fact Finders.? It addresses the difference between so called
conservatives and modern liberals, especially as regards the issue of
which side is wiser about the nature of government.

Basically Chait is defending a pragmatic liberalism, which is an
unprincipled approach to governing a country, one that sees no limit?for
example, principles of individual rights to, say, private property?to what
the state may do to set things right. His prime example is that among
conservatives who support Social Security reform some, the libertarians,
actually want the system abolished, even if this has to happen slowly. And
he correctly observes that the reasoning behind this hasn't much to do
with the particular superior results of such reform (vis-à-vis the
national economy, individual retirement benefits, or GNP). It has to do
with the general idea that a free society?one without a bloated public
sector-that is, one with a government of strictly limited scope?is
superior overall to one wherein government meddles in everything.

The fault Chait finds with this isn?t so much that it?s wrongheaded but
that it is, as he dubs it, an a priori rather than pragmatic approach to
public policy matters. He is a follower of Jeremy Bentham, who argued that
?there is no right which, when the abolition of it is advantageous to
society, should not be abolished,? as if ?advantageous to society? where a
piece of cake to spell out.

Chait, sadly, caricatures the libertarian?s ?a priori? approach, making
it seem like a dumb-stubborn, mindless embrace of the free society. He
quotes Milton Friedman, quite out of context, saying that ?freedom in
economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood,
so economic freedom is an end in itself,? as if this meant ?Economic
freedom, come hell or high water.? In fact, Friedman and most libertarians
champion principles of freedom because history shows them that when upheld
in a society, they are, in the main, better for purposes of reaching
desirable goals than are the methods involving coercion.

Principles of political economy, not unlike principles in engineering and
medicine, are what one comes to learn to be general guidelines of action
based on extensive study, on empirical and/or thought experimentation, and
so forth, not any kind of blind commitments. But let that go for a moment.
Pragmatists don?t realize that pragmatism itself is a general approach and
relies on its soundness based on what we have learned from similar studies.

What is interesting in Chait's essay is that no mention is made of how
most modern liberals are themselves "a priori" supporters of various civil
libertarian ideas, such as freedom of speech, due process in the criminal
law, fairness in the administration of the law, etc. Here it is
conservatives who have been more pragmatic?if prior restraint works, let's
use it; if giving up habeas corpus for a while achieves greater security,
go for it; if censorship achieves some good, it's fine, etc. Modern
liberals, however, have, in the main, opposed this?that is, after all,
what the ACLU is all about.

I wonder why Chait fails to discuss this internal conflict within modern
liberalism and, indeed, within conservatism?why is pragmatism so good when
it comes to some policies but should be avoided when it comes to others?
At least libertarians tend to have a coherent approach?they see liberty as
a good idea across the board, whatever projects people embark upon. They
trust the lessons they discern from history and the study of human nature,
namely, that free men and women will deal with problems better than those
who are regimented about by others.

Chait hasn?t, nor have others in The New Republic, managed to challenge
this truly principled (?a priori?) approach in the slightest, and for good
reason?it is, after all, the stance of all of the practical sciences in
which general principles are relied upon to guide future actions, leaving
changes to be made only once the principles have been shown to require
reformulation.

Column on Science and Sense (sans Typo)

Science and Sense

Tibor R. Machan

These days sciences multiply like rabbits. And in each broad field there
are sub-fields by the dozens, even hundreds. It?s difficult to keep up
with them, even if you, like I, subscribe to a few magazines that report
the latest news from most of the disciplines. (I read Science News and
used to read The Sciences until recently it was discontinued.)~~I ran
across a report from England about the new scientific study of happiness
and that reminded me of a professor of psychology, David Lykken of the
University of Minnesota, who is working on how happiness ?really works.?
And then there is a scholarly publication, The International Journal of
Happiness Studies. Some of these folks are assuring us that being happy
doesn?t make you, well, very happy after all. This is what Professor Lord
Layard is telling us?what makes us happy, in fact, is to see that others
aren?t too much happier than we are. So another science is in the offing!

But I am suspicious about whether these fields really can claim to be
sciences, if by ?science? one means a rigorous, systematic study of some
aspect of reality, one that can be replicated and tested by any reasonable
person. And my suspicion was reinforced recently as I was in US World &
News, in the Health & Medicine department, a piece titled ?Mysteries of
the Mind.?

Here is the sentence that gave me pause, a quote from University of
Wisconsin neuroscientist Paul Whelan: "Most of what we do every minute of
every day is unconscious?.Life would be chaos if everything were on the
forefront of our consciousness." This is supposed to be a conclusion drawn
from a scientific study.

But just consider the claim for a moment. It is one that everyone can
double check since it is supposed to be true of us all and pertains to
something we can all do easily enough, check what goes on with our minds
and how it relates to what we do. Is it really true that ?most of what we
do every minute of every day is unconscious?? I made a survey of my own
doings and here is what I did just a few minutes ago. I got out of my car
and locked it up after getting out the mail from the passenger seat. I
walked up the front steps and unlocked my door, checked my answering
machine, put the mail on the dining room table, opened some of it and
threw the envelops from them into the trash. Then I came to my computer
and checked my email, answered a few posts, after which I wrote a letter
to someone and addressed an envelop to the person, made some copies of
some bills and stuffed it into the envelop with the letter, sealed it, put
a stamp and return address sticker on it and put it to take to the Post
Office next time I drive by it. Then I remembered reading the piece from
US World & News Report when I was on tread mill at the gym and looked it
up on the magazine?s web site and began writing this piece.

I think I am being fair and accurate at~recounting my doings within
several of the minutes during which most of what I am supposed to be doing
is being done unconsciously. But none of what I did was done
unconsciously, quite the opposite. And I even remember it all. So where
the beef here? Perhaps the good professor means by ?doing? something
different from what the word means in ordinary language. Or maybe he means
not ?unconscious? but ?unselfconscious.?

My breathing, of course, is going on unconsciously, as is the circulation
of my blood. Even some of the scratching I do when my head or ear itches
might accurately be considered a kind of unconscious doing, although if I
pay attention I can make note of it, so it can easily be called to
consciousness. I look around with my eyes a lot, from the keyboard to the
monitor of the computer, sometimes at the mountains outside my window
(which I can see now that the rains have subsided).~~I am not fully aware
of all these doings?or rather, I do not monitor myself and make note of
them, but they aren?t unconscious either. They are done unselfconsciously,
though, since I do not think about doing them.

Consider that when you drive much of what you do you pay scant attention
to, yet if you were to run into someone, you would be held responsible.
But why, if most of the stuff you do is done unconsciously? No one can be
held responsible for unconscious doings?they are not really doings,
actions or conduct at all but mere happenings.

OK, point made. This statement by a scientist just doesn?t pass muster,
however well educated the bloke may be. At least he spoke carelessly.
Perhaps he was even misquoted, but that would be a serious journalistic
faux pax, not to be expected from US World & News Report. Assuming then
that the report is good and neuroscientist Paul Whelan said what I read,
how come it is so far off?

I don?t know. Maybe he wanted to get quoted with something
outlandish?not all scientists are above being tempted by trying to get
publicity through overstatement?it can bring grants and issue in
promotions. But most of them would not, I assume, sacrifice their
integrity for the sake of this. So go figure.

In any case, it is best to be cautious, so whenever one can check out
for oneself whether a claim issued by a specialist like this fellow Whelan
is true, it pays, I think to do the test for oneself. In this case
Professor Whelan flunked.

Essay on Science & Sense

Science and Sense

Tibor R. Machan

These days sciences multiply like rabbits. And in each broad field there
are sub-fields by the dozens, even hundreds. It?s difficult to keep up
with them, even if you, like I, subscribe to a few magazines that report
the latest news from most of the disciplines. (I read Science News and
used to read The Sciences until recently it was discontinued.) I ran
across a report from England about the new scientific study of happiness
and that reminded me of a professor of psychology, David Lykken of the
University of Minnesota, who is working on how happiness ?really works.?
And then there is a scholarly publication, The International Journal of
Happiness Studies. Some of these folks are assuring us that being happy
doesn?t make you, well, very happy after all. This is what Professor Lord
Layard is telling us?what makes us happy, in fact, is to see that others
aren?t too much happier than we are. So another science is in the offing!

But I am suspicious about whether these fields really can claim to be
sciences, if by ?science? one means a rigorous, systematic study of some
aspect of reality, one that can be replicated and tested by any reasonable
person. And my suspicion was reinforced recently as I was in US World &
News, in the Health & Medicine department, a piece titled ?Mysteries of
the Mind.?

Here is the sentence that gave me pause, a quote from University of
Wisconsin neuroscientist Paul Whelan: "Most of what we do every minute of
every day is unconscious?.Life would be chaos if everything were on the
forefront of our consciousness." This is supposed to be a conclusion drawn
from a scientific study.

But just consider the claim for a moment. It is one that everyone can
double check since it is supposed to be true of us all and pertains to
something we can all do easily enough, check what goes on with our minds
and how it relates to what we do. Is it really true that ?most of what we
do every minute of every day is unconscious?? I made a survey of my own
doings and here is what I did just a few minutes ago. I got out of car and
locked it up after getting out the mail from the passenger seat. I walked
up the front steps and unlocked my door, checked my answering machine, put
the mail on the dining room table, opened some of it and threw the
envelops from them into the trash. Then I came to my computer and checked
my email, answered a few posts, after which I wrote a letter to someone
and addressed an envelop to the person, made some copies of some bills and
stuffed it into the envelop with the letter, sealed it, put a stamp and
return address sticker on it and put it to take to the Post Office next
time I drive by it. Then I remembered reading the piece from US World &
News Report when I was on tread mill at the gym and looked it up on the
magazine?s web site and began writing this piece.

I think I am being fair and accurate it recounting my doings within
several of the minutes during which most of what I am supposed to be doing
is being done unconsciously. But none of what I did was done
unconsciously, quite the opposite. And I even remember it all. So where
the beef here? Perhaps the good professor means by ?doing? something
different from what the word means in ordinary language. Or maybe he means
not ?unconscious? but ?unselfconscious.?

My breathing, of course, is going on unconsciously, as is the circulation
of my blood. Even some of the scratching I do when my head or ear itches
might accurately be considered a kind of unconscious doing, although if I
pay attention I can make note of it, so it can easily be called to
consciousness. I look around with my eyes a lot, from the keyboard to the
monitor of the computer, sometimes at the mountains outside my window
(which I can see now that the rains have subsided). I am not fully aware
of all these doings?or rather, I do not monitor myself and make note of
them, but they aren?t unconscious either. They are done unselfconsciously,
though, since I do not think about doing them.

Consider that when you drive much of what you do you pay scant attention
to, yet if you were to run into someone, you would be held responsible.
But why, if most of the stuff you do is done unconsciously? No one can be
held responsible for unconscious doings?they are not really doings,
actions or conduct at all but mere happenings.

OK, point made. This statement by a scientist just doesn?t pass muster,
however well educated the bloke may be. At least he spoke carelessly.
Perhaps he was even misquoted, but that would be a serious journalistic
faux pax, not to be expected from US World & News Report. Assuming then
that the report is good and neuroscientist Paul Whelan said what I read,
how come it is so far off?

I don?t know. Maybe he wanted to get quoted with something outlandish?not
all scientists are above being tempted by trying to get publicity through
overstatement?it can bring grants and issue in promotions. But most of
them would not, I assume, sacrifice their integrity for the sake of this.
So go figure.

In any case, it is best to be cautious, so whenever one can check out for
oneself whether a claim issued by a specialist like this fellow Whelan is
true, it pays, I think to do the test for oneself. In this case Professor
Whelan flunked.

-----------
Machan is R. C. Hoiles Professor of business ethics at Chapman University,
Orange, CA. He is research fellow at the Hoover Institution and advises
Freedom Communications, Inc., on libertarian issues.

Column on Ordinary Language & Truth

Ordinary Language & Big Truths

Tibor R. Machan

My graduate training occurred during the last years of the reign of
ordinary language philosophy. This was a school in the discipline that
held that whatever philosophical truths could be learned, they were
contained in the ways people spoke about everyday things. The idea was
that such talk had to be pretty much on the mark, otherwise we would go
astray a lot and we do not, actually, not in everyday matters. So if we
just pay close attention to how people talk about such things, follow the
implications, we could learn a good deal about basic things too.

I wasn?t fully convinced of the promise of this way of doing philosophy
but it did have some merit. I ran across an example of it recently that is
actually quite revealing.

When someone asks, ?How will I manage this?? and gets the answer, ?You
will manage somehow,? we see something rather profound going on: One
person is expressing confidence in another?s ingenuity, without having a
clue just exactly how that ingenuity will show itself. There is also the
suggestion in this exchange that people do manage to figure out how to
handle problems without having to be told what exactly they need to do.

I actually think this says a lot about why a free society makes
sense?namely, because human beings are capable of figuring out how to
solve problems and do not need the Nanny State to take care of them. Such
a big idea is hidden right there in how people understand one another in
life.

There is another pointed way of talking that packs a bit of philosophical
insight. When people mess up, often you will hear them say, ?Damn it, I
didn?t think.? Indeed. That seems to suggest that the source of much
mismanagement in life is the fact that people do not think about things,
they don?t pay attention enough. And they seem to know that it is their
fault when they don?t, otherwise you wouldn?t witness them slapping the
sides of the heads when they say this thing about not having thought about
something.

Yes, ?I wasn?t thinking? is often said with an attitude of
self-recrimination because it is evident that here is something we are all
free to but often fail to do, namely, think. It is mostly what goes wrong
in my class rooms, for example?my students just do not put their minds to
full use. Instead they are drifting, day dreaming or simply lull about
mentally, in a daze. And they could snap out of it if they just made that
determination. All my classroom razzmatazz, all my shenanigans will not do
this for them.

There are many other things we can learn from paying attention to how
people reflect out loud. I focus on the above instances because I find it
important to lend full credence to the fact that people can do things of
their own, that they aren?t puppets being moved by some puppet master?or
the stars or their genes or DNA and such. It is the fashionable official
doctrine of our time, advanced by lots of intellectuals, scientists,
pundits and such that what people do is always something they had to do.
There is no free will, in other words. Crimes are not the result of
culpable misconduct but of forces that compel us to act badly. We are in
the grips of biological or cultural evolution, so that none of us is free
to think for ourselves and thus need take no responsibility for doing
either well or badly at the task of making sense of the world.

This is an especially odd thing for professional intellectuals to
believe. After all, if all that they think and say just had to be thought
and said by them, why should we care? What credibility does such
parrot-like behavior carry? If what you say you had to say, then when
someone who disagrees says the opposite, the same applies, and the same
thing goes for those who judge all this to be right or wrong, ad
infinitum. No one?s judgment can then be relied upon to be independent,
unimpeded, unprejudiced. Then why pay attention? The whole thing is absurd.

Anyway, sometimes it pays to listen to how folks talk in their most
natural mode, when they aren?t driving home some big agenda but deal with
the day to day issues they face. If their talk on such occasions carries
some implications, these may be worth taking into serious consideration as
we try to make sense of the big picture.