Re: Fwd: Judge Jones sided with the Discovery Institute and ruled against the Dove...

Dave -- I believe very strongly in the principles of democracy. I bristle a
bit at describing the public a the "hoi polloi." We are the hoi polloi.
None of us are truly expert in anything but perhaps a small slice of a slice
of one discipline. Does that mean we should delegate the governance of our
lives to a panel of experts? As crazy as that sounds (I hope), I've heard
it proposed.

For example, a law faculty friend of mine who has a Ph.D. in psychology
wrote a paper summarizing some research showing that people are bad at
forecasting the consequences of their actions. The research was quite
persuasive; we are bad at deciding things like "should we buy this house" or
"should I pursue this career," never mind things like "should the government
fund health care thus and so." He proposed that the law should restrict
important individual choices until they are reviewed by panels of experts,
and that the general public should not be able to vote on some types of
policy decisions.

This kind of deferreal of individual and democratic choice isn't new of
course. It's simple totalitarianism, and it forms the backbone of places
like China and North Vietnam today.

So what can you do if you're an expert in some field that the general public
doesn't understand, and the public adopts a government policy that totally
blows it? You educate, organize, and persuade in the marketplace of ideas,
and you work within the democratic process to affect change. In my view,
that's usually preferable to having a court ram your ideas down the public's
throat.

On 1/1/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> David,
> In a previous post you noted that the people should decide rather than the
> court. Fine, but when are the hoi polloi experts on technical definitions?
> As I recall, Judge Jones took clear cognizance of the people's response to
> the disclaimer. I note also that the disclaimer was arrived at in an
> irregular fashion, bypassing the normal input from the teachers and
> administrators involved. Also, two members of the board browbeat the other
> members into voting for their version of the disclaimer. These same two
> conveniently forgot or deliberately lied under oath. The citizens' dismissal
> of the board confirms that the people had a clear opinion on ID.
>
> The testimony by Forrest concerning the development of /Of Pandas and
> People/ from an overtly creationist text to one overtly ID with no more than
> replacing the terms gives sufficient grounds for Jones' ruling. The
> testimony by one of the defense's experts (whose name I don't recall at the
> moment) that ID is creationism was almost overkill.
>
> I grant that the decision could have been short, essentially a
> formalization of "cut the crap." However, he knew that offal was being
> spread widely, so that he could save the time of many judges with a
> definitive detailed decision. He also will save taxpayers a large hunk of
> cash.
>
> It's been suggested that ID should be discussed in philosophy classes. I
> have heard of philosophy being offered in parochial high schools, but not in
> public schools. Additionally, would a high school class in philosophy
> provide enough background for a discussion of the philosophy of science? I
> think you'll find that it is an upper division or graduate course in
> universities
> Dave.
>
> On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 22:24:14 -0500 David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> As to what I think is the key question -- what sorts of questions should
> courts decide -- to some extent your answer will depend on your political
> philosophy, as well as on whether you think your side "won" in a given
> case. I think subsidiarity is an important principle in a democratic
> society, and I don't trust judges to make decisions the people should make
> for themselves. For me, that's one of the broader principles at stake here.
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 2 10:11:43 2006