Why is consent important?

[wolly.green]

Popper once wrote a book called The Open Society and its Enemies. In it, he shows that the value of a political institution is in its capacity to identify and eliminate error. If a political institution blocks the means through which errors and misconceptions can be identified, it is called an enemy of the open society. Popper uses the growth of scientific knowledge as an example. Any institution that enforces their dogmatic views prevents the growth of knowledge. So, any political institution that prevents the means through which errors can be identified also prevents growth of a society?

Is consent so important for the same reason open political institutions are? Because by removing consent, one removes the means through which errors and misconceptions can be identified and removed? Thus preventing progress? Thoughts?

 

[the]

Consent is a coping mechanism for the weak. It's also a standard form of leverage in a legal sense.

 

[wolly.green]

Consent is a coping mechanism for the weak. It's also a standard form of leverage in a legal sense.

Ok. But I would argue, that like openness in the scientific community, consent is a means through which society can come to understand what is good for the individual. By blocking consent, you also preventing the circulation of ideas!

 

[the]

Ok. But I would argue, that like openness in the scientific community, consent is a means through which society can come to understand what is good for the individual. By blocking consent, you also preventing the circulation of ideas!

That's a good secondary use, but use in this way is flawed as society does not choose very well.

 

[wolly.green]

That's a good secondary use, but use in this way is flawed as society does not choose very well.

Scientist are flawed creatures. This is not a good reasons to prevent scientists from perusing their own ideas.

 

[the]

Scientist are flawed creatures. This is not a good reasons to prevent scientists from perusing their own ideas.

Yes everyone is flawed. I agree.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Yes everyone is flawed. I agree.

That's why consensus is such a poor rationale for the implementation and execution of policy.

(I'm taking as assumed the notion that humans have a stronger tendency towards desiring consensus, than desiring accuracy; as is evidenced by the constant pendulum of history).

 

[wolly.green]

That's why consensus is such a poor rationale for the implementation and execution of policy.

(I'm taking as assumed the notion that humans have a stronger tendency towards desiring consensus, than desiring accuracy; as is evidenced by the constant pendulum of history).

Desiring consensus? Then why does conflict exist? Why is it possible for people to disagree so vehemently, even among people in the same political group? I think perhaps a more interesting statement is that people choose the explanations that make the most sense to them, irrespective of their capacity to rationally analyze them.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Desiring consensus? Then why does conflict exist? Why is it possible for people to disagree so vehemently, even among people in the same political group? I think perhaps a more interesting statement is that people choose the explanations that make the most sense to them, irrespective of their capacity to rationally analyze them.

The desire for accuracy and for consensus are not intrinsically contradictory. I think the latter takes more precedence, especially as a first-reaction.

Perhaps it's an over-simplification to discuss conflict in terms of single cause dynamics, but knowing it's a limited approach, I think it's fair to say most ideological conflict arises from a perceived threat to consensus.

In relation to the thread topic, consent can very definitely be a vehicle for perpetuating error; not for any intrinsic reason, but because group consent becomes an end in itself, regardless of the particular elements of unity. Objective errors become tokens of unity, even in the face of evidence, so that the urge for consensus (and the threatening towards non-conformity) effectively serve to both perpetuate and defend error.

Consent of methodology differs from consent of facts, because it at the very least leaves the door open for new information; and at best provides an acceptable method for identifying and correcting erroneous knowledge.

I don't think political bodies should be involved in the identification of errors too zealously, because they really are more involved in consensus-wrangling than anything else. They can however provide the acceptable means (methodology) by which both errors and facts can be addressed, bypassing the politics of consent. Eg. Holding verified data, tested using the standard scientific method as fact.

 

[wolly.green]

I don't think political bodies should be involved in the identification of errors too zealously, because they really are more involved in consensus-wrangling than anything else. They can however provide the acceptable means (methodology) by which both errors and facts can be addressed, bypassing the politics of consent. Eg. Holding verified data, tested using the standard scientific method as fact.

In this case, the identification of error consists in things like: identifying better ways to wrangle with consensus, analyzing the reasons we think consensus even matters to begin with, what should be done with data once it has been received and so on. There is really no escaping error correction since this leads to dogma and the death of progress.

Now before continuing, I want to be very clear that my question was not about consensus, it was about consent. But more specifically, the role consent plays in the spreading and distribution of ideas and knowledge... That is, does removing consent have the same affect as preventing the freedom to explore in science. Science stagnates and dies when institutions do not grant scientists the freedom to do what they want.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

In this case, the identification of error consists in things like: identifying better ways to wrangle with consensus, analyzing the reasons we think consensus even matters to begin with, what should be done with data once it has been received and so on. There is really no escaping error correction since this leads to dogma and the death of progress.

Now before continuing, I want to be very clear that my question was not about consensus, it was about consent. But more specifically, the role consent plays in the spreading and distribution of ideas and knowledge... That is, does removing consent have the same affect as preventing the freedom to explore in science. Science stagnates and dies when institutions do not grant scientists the freedom to do what they want.

What use of 'consent' are you using. I had presumed that you meant the internal assent of the will, to what the intellect proposes as true. I presumed that this process is not easily open to interference, and so assumed this thread was about voluntary assent to propositions from others, of which one has effective ignorance. (An external analogy of internal consent, but without the direct action of one's intellect).

 

[wolly.green]

What use of 'consent' are you using. I had presumed that you meant the internal assent of the will, to what the intellect proposes as true. I presumed that this process is not easily open to interference, and so assumed this thread was about voluntary assent to propositions from others, of which one has effective ignorance. (An external analogy of internal consent, but without the direct action of one's intellect).

I have no idea what you're talking about. I characterize a choice as weighting the evidence against competing explanations about which course of action to choose. These competing explanations emerge out of an attempt to explain the "evidence" (this can be anything at all) in the course of explaining the rest of the world. THIS is what I mean by consent; the right to choose. Now I am aware that not all people choose in this manor; but this is what you can call irrational. This is the sort of choice I am not interested in investigating.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I characterize a choice as weighting the evidence against competing explanations about which course of action to choose. These competing explanations emerge out of an attempt to explain the "evidence" (this can be anything at all) in the course of explaining the rest of the world. THIS is what I mean by consent; the right to choose. Now I am aware that not all people choose in this manor; but this is what you can call irrational. This is the sort of choice I am not interested in investigating.

Got it. It may be a strange source, given the current state of things, but there's a plethora of writing (and indeed pronouncements) on this matter, issued by the Catholic Church. (From the days before it became a bunch of camp social justice warriors).

I'll try to dig some stuff up. The phrase "error has no rights" is probably attributable to some Pope (in its use, if not its origin).

 

[wolly.green]

Got it. It may be a strange source, given the current state of things, but there's a plethora of writing (and indeed pronouncements) on this matter, issued by the Catholic Church. (From the days before it became a bunch of camp social justice warriors).

I'll try to dig some stuff up. The phrase "error has no rights" is probably attributable to some Pope (in its use, if not its origin).

That is very strange. Progress necessarily implies the death of Catholicism. Can you explain why the church would say such a thing?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Scientist are flawed creatures. This is not a good reasons to prevent scientists from perusing their own ideas.

Scientists? Why not just say humans.

 

[wolly.green]

Scientists? Why not just say humans.

Ive been over this already.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Ive been over this already.

Oh.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I consider myself to be fairly intelligent and to be able to follow most ideas and train of thought.
This is beyond me though. I have no idea what this discussion is about. Due in part perhaps to lack of interest in what's being discussed. Kind of like next year's fashions.

 

[invisible]

Ok. But I would argue, that like openness in the scientific community, consent is a means through which society can come to understand what is good for the individual. By blocking consent, you also preventing the circulation of ideas!

I agree with this. I think consent is very important to society, like dissent. A tyrannical society doesn't allow consent or dissent. A society that allows both of those things will be rich in ideas. When there are more ideas, and the freedom to take them or refuse them, knowledge will flourish, and society will evolve.

I don't think that irrational (*nonrational) choice is wrong or bad for society. I think it's part of being human, and allowing it is important to a humane society. Just as the freedom to refuse it or disagree with it is important.

I've never read any Popper (or much political theory), but I've been interested for a long time though.

Hope this is pertinent

 

[Sandie33]

Consent is a coping mechanism for the weak.

I'm not understanding this perspective @the . Could you expand for me how you view consent as a tool to soothe the weak. and, Who is the 'weak' in your reference?

Science stagnates and dies when institutions do not grant scientists the freedom to do what they want.

@wolly.green can you clarify this?
Reading through it implies that there should be no set rule in scientific pursuit ... wouldn't that breed a sect of 'mad' scientists experimenting on anyone and anything in the name of progress??