Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[barracuda]

sure. thing is Cw's take is best described by Wrex. she's somewhere on the sociology of science spectrum. the question she's raising is one of principle. i don't see her or anyone promoting ID anywhere. she's using it as an example. it may be a distasteful example to some but it's no more than that. painting her as a crypto-fascist right wing christian doesn't really help.

my2p.

there's a bit too much scrying into the depths of people's hidden souls going on, of the "i know what you really really think, i do" type.

*

She would do well to stop posting links to their hateful propaganda here, then. By their links ye shall know them.

But maybe you haven't really been reading the thread that closely. By any measure I can think of, she has been promoting "teach the controversy". It's her responsibility to know the politics of the examples she cites to bolster her position, and a criticism of those citations is, not unfairly, a criticism of the Republican Christian right-wing. Those are her sources, man. Nobody forced her hand to promote them in support of her politics.

[Canadian_watcher]

sure. thing is Cw's take is best described by Wrex. she's somewhere on the sociology of science spectrum. the question she's raising is one of principle. i don't see her or anyone promoting ID anywhere. she's using it as an example. it may be a distasteful example to some but it's no more than that. painting her as a crypto-fascist right wing christian doesn't really help.

my2p.

there's a bit too much scrying into the depths of people's hidden souls going on, of the "i know what you really really think, i do" type.

*

She would do well to stop posting links to their hateful propaganda here, then. By their links ye shall know them.

But maybe you haven't really been reading the thread that closely. By any measure I can think of, she has been promoting "teach the controversy". It's her responsibility to know the politics of the examples she cites to bolster her position, and a criticism of those citations is, not unfairly, a criticism of the Republican Christian right-wing. Those are her sources, man. Nobody forced her hand to promote them in support of her politics.

I was posting them to show another side - you automatically believe the sources you WANT to believe and reject the other side based on the source. You are so attached to this bias that you attribute the worst possible motives to anyone who goes near what you don't like. That is a problem. You will not admit that you don't actually know the truth of the situations of the people who were fired. I am not arguing about whether or not the reasons given for their dismissal are justified, I'm arguing that we don't KNOW the reasons for their dismissal.

IMO this goes directly to the OP.

[vanlose kid]

sure. thing is Cw's take is best described by Wrex. she's somewhere on the sociology of science spectrum. the question she's raising is one of principle. i don't see her or anyone promoting ID anywhere. she's using it as an example. it may be a distasteful example to some but it's no more than that. painting her as a crypto-fascist right wing christian doesn't really help.

my2p.

there's a bit too much scrying into the depths of people's hidden souls going on, of the "i know what you really really think, i do" type.

*

She would do well to stop posting links to their hateful propaganda here, then. By their links ye shall know them.

But maybe you haven't really been reading the thread that closely. By any measure I can think of, she has been promoting "teach the controversy". It's her responsibility to know the politics of the examples she cites to bolster her position, and a criticism of those citations is, not unfairly, a criticism of the Republican Christian right-wing. Those are her sources, man. Nobody forced her hand to promote them in support of her politics.

re the links: well, if she wanted to use the ID flap as an example then, hey... what is she going to link to? as for the hateful propaganda part, i looked into ID once because i thought the concept itself "creation science" was so confused it sparked my interest. personally i find it nonsensical. showing it up as nonsense should do (cf., the repeated video posted). no need for grand gestures of the Hitchkins type. the two feed on each other anyway.

as for the second part: she's making a point about ID (to support her point about people of faith in science and academia being given a hard time sometimes). it's a bad example. say that and be done. that she picked ID as an example (not a good one admittedly, as contentious as it is, and as confused as ID is) does not entail that she is a right-wing fascist christian hater .... that's all. point out the mistake and move on.

minor note: ID promoters are no more confused that hardcore materialists in that neither can prove their point with the help of science.

*

[barracuda]

Don't use fascists to support your ideas if you don't wish to find your ideas justly criticised for it. If those are the only sources you can find, better reassess, quick.

I'm arguing that we don't KNOW the reasons for their dismissal.

Really? That's not what it sounds like to me.

Canadian Watcher wrote:

Scientists and scholars are being fired and blacklisted for even MENTIONING it.. in America and in so-called free and civilized countries.

Is that what it sounds like to you? Where, exactly, is the "we don't KNOW" part in that statement?

[Canadian_watcher]

Don't use facists to support your ideas if you don't wish to find your ideas justly criticised for it.

I'm arguing that we don't KNOW the reasons for their dismissal.

Really? That's not what it sounds like to me.

Candian Watcher wrote:

Scientists and scholars are being fired and blacklisted for even MENTIONING it.. in America and in so-called free and civilized countries.

Is that what it sound like to you? Where, exactly, is the "we don't KNOW" part in that statement?

my mistake.

Look, you're all mad. It's obvious that here we have an untouchable subject: ID.
I had no idea. I thought this was a forum of freethinkers. I was incorrect.
Taboos abound.

[barracuda]

Yeah, promoting the Republican Christian right-wing is a bit of a sore spot here.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I'm just shocked and kinda stunned, didn't see this coming
signing off for awhile, I need to take a break.

It's amazing how you can write a post that long without putting forth a single crumb of interesting thought, ideas or polemic. It's a talent, I guess.

go to hell.

Well, do you have an answer, smart ass?

Yes.

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -- Ben Stein.

I am saying that the movie you watched was a presentation of a series of lies, and constitutes far-right Christian fundie propaganda.

...and the Grand Slam got posted just as I got this done, so I had to edit to include:

Look, you're all mad. It's obvious that here we have an untouchable subject: ID.
I had no idea. I thought this was a forum of freethinkers. I was incorrect.
Taboos abound.

[vanlose kid]

^ ^

Glenn Beck, man of the hour! as ever.



thanks WR.

*

[American Dream]

But maybe you haven't really been reading the thread that closely. By any measure I can think of, she has been promoting "teach the controversy". It's her responsibility to know the politics of the examples she cites to bolster her position, and a criticism of those citations is, not unfairly, a criticism of the Republican Christian right-wing. Those are her sources, man. Nobody forced her hand to promote them in support of her politics.

I was posting them to show another side - you automatically believe the sources you WANT to believe and reject the other side based on the source. You are so attached to this bias that you attribute the worst possible motives to anyone who goes near what you don't like. That is a problem. You will not admit that you don't actually know the truth of the situations of the people who were fired. I am not arguing about whether or not the reasons given for their dismissal are justified, I'm arguing that we don't KNOW the reasons for their dismissal.

This brings to mind the immortal teachings of that great master of wisdom- Donald Rumsfeld:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”

[Canadian_watcher]

This brings to mind the immortal teachings of that great master of wisdom- Donald Rumsfeld:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”

indeed. He is vile but he is right about that. I remember the context when he said it, and I find it disgusting, however, that statement is correct.

[Nordic]

I don't even know what you guys are fighting about. But there sure seems to be a lot of fighting on RI these days. Maybe it's the weather. ??

[American Dream]

This brings to mind the immortal teachings of that great master of wisdom- Donald Rumsfeld:

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”

indeed. He is vile but he is right about that. I remember the context when he said it, and I find it disgusting, however, that statement is correct.

Slavoj Zizek commented on this in his piece What Rumsfeld Doesn't Know That He Knows About Abu Ghraib and his words are also relevant to the Intelligent Design issue itself:

In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the relationship between the known and the unknown: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know." What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knowns," the things we don't know that we know-which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, the "knowledge which doesn't know itself," as Lacan used to say.

If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns," that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns" - the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values.

[Canadian_watcher]

AD I love that. I had never thought of it in those terms before. That is excellent!

[Canadian_watcher]

I don't even know what you guys are fighting about. But there sure seems to be a lot of fighting on RI these days. Maybe it's the weather. ??

well, because I am really a wanderer I think I wandered into a shitpile. And then I brought the shitpile here by accident.

But yeah damn its hot. Like HOT.

[Stephen Morgan]