4 ms·

The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the t

The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. > I don't know any well-read people who advocate returning to a pre-police society Depends on the country! There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions and that Pinker's argument encourages complacency. I suspect they don't really conflict.

csallen 9y ago
> The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. That's definitely what was going on. But in situations such as these, isn't looking at the data an absolute necessity? I appreciate theory just as much as anyone else, but when we're trying to reason about how the world works, I don't see a good reason to ignore troves of experimental data and rely on theory alone, unless we believe that human beings are fundamentally random creatures. > There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions… I don't think Pinker would put forth any counterargument here. His point is neither "A, B, and C specific forms of violence will never happen again," nor is it "X, Y, and Z remedies to violence are incorruptible." Rather, it's that there exist specific "changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand," and as such "have driven the multiple declines in violence" that he demonstrates with the data in his book.

csallen 9y ago

> The conflict is in part a "Two Cultures" division. Pinker's responses were little more than "look at the data", Riemen's responses were "read Nietzsche" - the two sides talk past each other. That's definitely what was going on. But in situations such as these, isn't looking at the data an absolute necessity? I appreciate theory just as much as anyone else, but when we're trying to reason about how the world works, I don't see a good reason to ignore troves of experimental data and rely on theory alone, unless we believe that human beings are fundamentally random creatures. > There are many police forces I hope never to meet. Its an interesting example because as good times fade and fascism rises, its precisely such an institution that becomes a source of violence and not a shield. Riemens's argument something like: the trend of interest right now is the eternal allure of fascism that will corrupt such institutions… I don't think Pinker would put forth any counterargument here. His point is neither "A, B, and C specific forms of violence will never happen again," nor is it "X, Y, and Z remedies to violence are incorruptible." Rather, it's that there exist specific "changes in our cultural and material milieu that have given our peaceable motives the upper hand," and as such "have driven the multiple declines in violence" that he demonstrates with the data in his book.