User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 244

  1. #71
    Senior Member edcoaching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    7
    Posts
    752

    Default

    So back to Harry Potter and fantasy...
    edcoaching

  2. #72
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    The pursuit of truth in society I'd hardly call megalomaniacal. But if he's your ex-boyfriend, and you know more than I do, I defer.
    Let's just say I know more than you do, and leave it at that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  3. #73
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I take issue with your statement that rhetoric can convince the "non-scientifically minded", though, because rhetoric, another word for persuasion, is used in virtually all human interaction, scientific or otherwise.

    Well, it may not help that Dawkins is generally speaking in the guise of "Richard Dawkins, the renowned scientist", and tends (where he is not being purely rhetorical as he certainly is in this instance) to be selectively using scientific evidence in support of his own highly subjective viewpoint. I wouldn't find the man half so objectionable if he was honest enough to present his views as being the personal opinions of an individual who happens to be a scientist, but he almost invariably presents his own position as being THE "Scientific" or "Rational" one, which implies that any opposing viewpoint is neither scientific or rational.

    Anyone who is inclined to take at face value Dawkins' self-assumed authority is naturally more likely to find this sort of fallacious reasoning acceptable. Sorry to make the analogy, but someone who assumes that Dawkins is correct because he is who he is and says he is being scientific/rational is behaving just like a believer in a particular faith who recieves the pronouncements from the leaders of that faith as gospel. There are unfortunately an awful lot of people these days who "believe" in science but have only a second-hand idea of what it is really about. I think these people are particularly vulnerable to Dawkins' rhetoric, and will continue being so until they understand the value of a falsifiable hypothesis and how it can be used to distinguish a reasonable theory from mere tendentious speculation.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Well, it may not help that Dawkins is generally speaking in the guise of "Richard Dawkins, the renowned scientist", and tends (where he is not being purely rhetorical as he certainly is in this instance) to be selectively using scientific evidence in support of his own highly subjective viewpoint. I wouldn't find the man half so objectionable if he was honest enough to present his views as being the personal opinions of an individual who happens to be a scientist, but he almost invariably presents his own position as being THE "Scientific" or "Rational" one, which implies that any opposing viewpoint is neither scientific or rational.

    Anyone who is inclined to take at face value Dawkins' self-assumed authority is naturally more likely to find this sort of fallacious reasoning acceptable. Sorry to make the analogy, but someone who assumes that Dawkins is correct because he is who he is and says he is being scientific/rational is behaving just like a believer in a particular faith who recieves the pronouncements from the leaders of that faith as gospel. There are unfortunately an awful lot of people these days who "believe" in science but have only a second-hand idea of what it is really about. I think these people are particularly vulnerable to Dawkins' rhetoric, and will continue being so until they understand the value of a falsifiable hypothesis and how it can be used to distinguish a reasonable theory from mere tendentious speculation.
    This can be explained by his status of INTP in myriad ways. Good at logic, bad at people...Pleasing them, anyway.

  5. #75
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post


    And I agree about Dawkins. I actually have a professor (who does history and philosophy of science and rhetoric of science) who wrote a criticism of Dawkins' popular science work on the basis that what he was doing was rhetorical through and through (which it is), and not necessarily scientific (which is obvious, but during that time calling something by a scientist 'rhetoric' would, and did in the case of my prof, cause furious uproar). Dawkins himself never responded, but wrote later (I forget where, but could find it if pressed) that what he was doing was indeed rhetoric, and that he was proud of that fact. Interesting.
    And what we do here is rhetoric. But because 'rhetoric' has become a pejorative word, no one will admit to writing rhetorically, 'cause we wanna be good and be seen to be good.

    But consider, the Romans divided the curriculum into the Trivium of Rhetoric, Grammer and Logic. And they regarded Rhetoric as the greatest of the three.

    And you can't understand the modern world without understanding Rhetoric. You can't understand advertising. You can't understand politics. And you can't even understand religion without understanding Rhetoric.

    The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.

    But the purpose of Islamic Jihad is to persuade with violence.

    And the purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade peacefully.

    This is just what we need today.

    Are you persuaded?

  6. #76
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    And what we do here is rhetoric. But because 'rhetoric' has become a pejorative word, no one will admit to writing rhetorically, 'cause we wanna be good and be seen to be good.

    But consider, the Romans divided the curriculum into the Trivium of Rhetoric, Grammer and Logic. And they regarded Rhetoric as the greatest of the three.

    And you can't understand the modern world without understanding Rhetoric. You can't understand advertising. You can't understand politics. And you can't even understand religion without understanding Rhetoric.

    The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.
    Heh, I know. I study it.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #77
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    The purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade.

    But the purpose of Islamic Jihad is to persuade with violence.

    And the purpose of Rhetoric is to persuade peacefully.

    This is just what we need today.

    Are you persuaded?
    I liked the appeal to primitive emotions. A highly effective Rhetorical non-sequitur which very effectively bypasses the logic centres of the brain in susceptible targets.

  8. #78
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Heh, I know. I study it.
    How wonderful to persuade someone.

    It might be to persuade someone to love you or even marry you. It may be to persuade someone to buy their first home. Or it may be to persuade your children to study Rhetoric.

    And how wonderful you study Rhetoric.

  9. #79
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    How wonderful to persuade someone.

    It might be to persuade someone to love you or even marry you. It may be to persuade someone to buy their first home. Or it may be to persuade your children to study Rhetoric.

    And how wonderful you study Rhetoric.
    Believe me, my parents were doing no persuading on that front.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  10. #80
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Good at logic, bad at people...Pleasing them, anyway.
    Are you sure about that? I thought he seemed pretty damm good at pleasing certain people, particularly those who manage to maintain an elevated view of their own intelligence in the absence of much developement of their faculties for crritical thinking...

Similar Threads

  1. Type Mike Using Any System based off of Quote and Picture
    By Mal12345 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-11-2017, 10:35 PM
  2. "Root of All Evil?" doco by Richard Dawkins
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-29-2015, 08:39 AM
  3. Who else disapproves of Uberfuhrer's previous new avatar?
    By Athenian200 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 10-11-2007, 11:52 AM
  4. The Enemies of Reason by Richard Dawkins
    By Sahara in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-20-2007, 12:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO