Making Sense
In "The Demoralization of Western Culture", R W Fevre argues that much of the reason for the division currently afflicting the nation is because ideologies are being used incorrectly.
Below are my notes from when I read this book some time ago:
There are basically four types of "sense making"; common sense, sentiment, science, and religion. The key is to find the best method for each topic and to NOT use the incorrect method. They are NOT "relative", in that all answers are equally valid or true (or more true), but that one of these methods is more appropriate. Common sense applies only to that which we can "sense" with our five senses.
The two questions are: How and Why (knowledge or belief). In reality, most fields of thought and action are mixed fields-more than one sense-making field applies. In fact, it is dangerous to use only one field, especially if it is the wrong field, in trying to make sense out of a problem or question. This can lead to simplistic solutions to complex problems.
And the grid as best as I can duplicate it here.
Non-Human Human
Knowledge 1 3
Belief 2 4
1. Science
2. Religion
3. Common Sense
4. Sentiment
An example would be the anti-gay agenda. The religious right is using a non-human belief system as the basis of their argument. Another way of saying this is, a supernatural ideology is imposing into the realms of science (non-human knowledge) where perhaps it is genetic, human knowledge (common sense) where perhaps it really is common sense that a certain percentage of the population is attracted to members of the same sex, and sentiment (human belief) in that, for whatever reason, a certain percentage of people are gay.
The gist of it is that using a religious reason outside the realm of religion is an inappropriate frame and should be so pointed out in debate, as should other areas of incorrect sense making.
Not specified
N/A
Not specified
More
It's been a while since I read his book but it would go something like this as I remember it from my brief notes. Water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen; that's a scientific, non-human/knowledge provable fact. It's common sense that if you stick your hand on a hot stove burner it's gonna get burned; that's human/knowledge as it is identifiable through one or more of our senses (touch, sight. etc). "I love you", is a human/belief. Trying to argue any of these out of its proper category gets real fuzzy. It doesn't mean that nothing has more than one category, in fact many issues do, but whether it's on Iraq, the rapture cult theology, corporate greed or whatever, if we are able to see that an argument is out of place, it adds a way to dispute it. As for the anti-gay agenda, I view it as a religious issue and I don't see it as appropriate for a nation to adopt a supernatural ideology (as in a Constitutional Amendment) based on a belief system which itself can't agree on much of anything (there's over 600 denominations in the US alone). When someome asks me why I don't go to church (I'm more or less, maybe less, a Christian) the first thing I ask them is if Jesus came to your town/city, which church would he go to? That's the one I want to attend. Otherwise it's just a different brand of dogma, doctrine, and ideology just packaged a little differently. So if we start with the Old Testament Law that says if a man lie with a man as with a woman he shall be stoned to death. That's not science, it's not common sense, and it really isn't a human belief...it's doctrine stemming from a supernatural edict accepted on faith that it's true and properly interpreted and still valid tody. etc. Trying to take it out of that category opens up its proponents to rebuttal by forcing them to understand they are misusing a belief system. In reality most I've debated are too pigheaded to admit anything, but it can still stop them dead in their tracks as far as advancing their argument any further with me. I refuse to accept their frame.
New! 2 v 1 vs 2 v 4 isn't going to convince anyone
Actually, from what you said above, I would say that the grid would show that an anti-gay agenda would be better positioned in "sentiment" than "science." But it doesn't matter. Explaining to someone that their statements that "religion determines that homosexuality is wrong" has to be a mistake because either of "science determines that a certain percentage of the population will always be have a homosexual sexual orientation" or "real human beings are being hurt because of your anti-gay agenda" would be equally ineffectual.
My favorite (original) comeback thus far on the subject is, "If you force homosexuals into heterosexual lifestyles, they will only breed more homosexuals!" The "problem response" to this is along the lines of "people aren't really homosexuals; they just think they are". When you come up against someone like that, it's best to just walk away.