User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 84

  1. #21
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    1. Because all the books say so.
    I am now having doubts that you are being sincere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    2. It means generally men will be more interested in math than women. Not that men are "better".
    I don't think that's true either, and I think it would follow from the claim that men would be better at math as it currently is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    3. Well, thats what we need to figure out.
    You have to start somewhere, even somewhere extremely speculative.
    --

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    So you defend 2+4=6 because of "internal consistency".

    But isn't the view you summarized above (that if there are no objective truths the job of science is to help mankind achieve our goals) internally consistent too? Why not defend that also? It definitely has a certain "utility", don't you think.
    No, it's not internally consistent in the sense that I meant. I'm not going to explain what I meant, because it would be easier for you to just read the wikipedia article.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #22
    Senior Member Amalie Muller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I am now having doubts that you are being sincere.



    I don't think that's true either, and I think it would follow from the claim that men would be better at math as it currently is.



    You have to start somewhere, even somewhere extremely speculative.
    --



    No, it's not internally consistent in the sense that I meant. I'm not going to explain what I meant, because it would be easier for you to just read the wikipedia article.
    I'm an ENTP -- we're always sincere.

    What makes you think men AREN'T generally better at math?

  3. #23
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    I'm an ENTP -- we're always sincere.
    In my experience I have found quite the opposite to be true. It's also quite rare for them to be forthright with their intentions (usually in the form of playing devils advocate without stating that's what their doing). They're often referred to as jokesters for a reason. I also equate sincere with clear, and they often aren't.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  4. #24
    Senior Member Amalie Muller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    In my experience I have found quite the opposite to be true. It's also quite rare for them to be forthright with their intentions (usually in the form of playing devils advocate without stating that's what their doing). They're often referred to as jokesters for a reason. I also equate sincere with clear, and they often aren't.
    :O

    I can't think where you've got this twisted view of ENTPs from, ENFJ.

    In fact, I find it very offensive, and plan to report you to my local police station in the morning.

    To make this clear... I. Have. Never. Made. A. Joke. In. My. Life!! And I look down on people who do. I expect you to do the same. *Fe high five*

  5. #25
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    If anyone is interested in a summary, allow me to attempt providing one.
    __________
    Objective reality does not exist, there is only perception. Thus, the aim of science should not be to be true, but to be strategically useful for the good of man. Scientists, traditionally, have adhered to a standard of truth, and thus have held back science from liberation and the service of its true use. Because nothing is objectively true and everything is perceived, so called objective truth is only established through social authority. As such, so long as science is entrusted to an elite class like scientists, it will continue to be confined to the fallacy of objective truth. As such, the only way to liberate science is to take it from scientists and allow it to become an entirely public thing, professed and judged by anyone and everyone, no longer held to one authority's fictitious idea of the truth.
    ______________________
    Thank you.

    I find this idea both insane and dangerous.
    I totally agree.

  6. #26
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Disclaimer:For those of you informed enough to understand where I am coming from regarding this topic, I ask that you let things be. Or, at least provide facts to further the discussion.

    I am not out to embarrass anyone. I don't approve of how the author originally did things. Still, there is a certain emotional response based on the structure how this was done in the past that I want to explore explicitly. I do understand his motivations.

    Perhaps, it will expose my own arrogance. I am exploring new strategies regarding how to deal with things I find ridiculous.
    ------------------------------------

    The article I want to discuss is a little bit of philosophy regarding how modern physics is upsetting the social order imposed by older physics:
    Transgressing the Boundaries:Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

    It starts off....

    What? What does feminism have to do with objectivity? This seems ridiculous to me. Science cannot assert a priviledged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic naratives? What?

    I know that I only put in bold a section of this, as things I find explicitly ridiculous, but a lot of it reads like it says nothing, or more like nothing that can be made sense of. The whole piece is littered with non-statements and nonsense from my perspective.

    There are so many excerpts that I find ridiculous. Here is a little ridiculousness on relativity(in bold):

    Again, what? This was written in 1995, long after Einstein and Minkowski did their work, do people really believe that "traditionally" trained mathematicians have trouble because of the "nonlinearity"? What?

    The article just goes on and on in this form in this form of ridiculousness. But I am willing to see the light if people are willing to explain things to me.

    I made another thread on what I should do in the face of ridiculous statements. This particular article represents a whole litany of ridiculous statements. So if you need an example that will likely not touch on something you hold dear, this article is great.

    A moral stand.

    1) A rational or emotional thing?

    2) Neither-
    3) Both?

  7. #27
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,568

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What? What does feminism have to do with objectivity? This seems ridiculous to me. Science cannot assert a priviledged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic naratives? What?

    I know that I only put in bold a section of this, as things I find explicitly ridiculous, but a lot of it reads like it says nothing, or more like nothing that can be made sense of. The whole piece is littered with non-statements and nonsense from my perspective.
    I can see how objectivity relates to feminism, but no thanks to this article. I find it pretentious, difficult to read, to some degree even comparing apples and oranges beyond remarking that they are simply both found in the produce section of the store. To be sure, scientists reject social and cultural disciplines at our peril, but not for the reasons stated here. Their relevance is in guiding the purpose and orientation of research, not its methods and outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    The schools need to encourage that more too. It's like when people cry that more video game developers aren't female.. they aren't female because they don't want to be video game developers. The ones who do? Are. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing it now a days.
    That is not so, with notable exceptions. The primary barriers nowadays seem to be socioeconomic rather than overt racism or sexism, but stereotypes and cultural/social pressures persist in many areas. As you write here, schools (and everyon else) need to encourage interest in STEM and other atypical fields and careers, for both boys and girls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I might be inclined to agree with this if we were specifically talking about the field of biology in regards to humans, as I think to some extent there have been actions amongst biologists (mainly evolutionary psychologists) that attempt to basically preserve stereotypical understandings of gender in often dubious ways. But instead the author references physics. I wish there were an elaboration on this. I cannot fathom what role feminism has to play in the subject of theoretical physics, because I cannot think of a single way that theoretical physics advanced the domination of men over women.
    As a female physicist, I agree entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    I think there is a case to be made that the history of science has had many times shown gender bias among the people doing it. But this has mainly taken the form of women not getting credit for being as good at science or as big a contributor to science as they actually were. There is nothing inherently male about the process of science itself.
    There is nothing inherently male about the process of science; if anything, it is inherently human. The association of scientific processes with men is entirely man-made, partly because most recognized scientists have been men, and because we have come to associate the structure, precision, and objectivity of scientific inquiry with masculinity. (Why might that be?) The result is that women who pursue an interest in science have sometimes been regarded as masculine, or trying to be like men, in much the same way that financially and socially successful blacks are sometimes accused of trying to be white. This is where objectivity meets feminism and other forms of empowerment/inclusion.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  8. #28
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default Transgression and Taboo

    Transgressing the boundaries is all very well but first we need to know what the boundaries are.

    And as we perceive by making distinctions, the boundaries are distinctions.

    So how do we know we are crossing a boundary, a distinction? The very word transgression gives us the clue. So when we are crossing a boundary, we are breaking a taboo, we are trangressing.

    So consider: we perceive by making distinctions, and the more distinctions the more we see, and the more distinctions we make, the more taboos we can break.

    Interestingly modern art has made its project the breaking of taboos, one after the other, until we almost take it for granted.

  9. #29
    Level 8 Propaganda Bot SpankyMcFly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    461 so/sx
    Posts
    2,396

    Default

    Reminds me of Lucy Irigaray, who said:

    "Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster." Irigaray, Luce. Parler n’est jamais neutre. Éditions de Minuit. 1987. p.110.

    "...fluid mechanics is unfairly neglected because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics."

    Luce Irigaray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    Oh, and Sandra Harding, who said:

    "...Newton's Principia Mathematica as a "rape manual" in her 1986 book "The Science Question in Feminism".

    Sandra Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    FTR I disagree with both.
    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new Dark Age. " - H.P. Lovecraft

  10. #30
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    What? What does feminism have to do with objectivity? This seems ridiculous to me. Science cannot assert a priviledged epistemological status with respect to counter-hegemonic naratives? What?
    Forgive me for what will follow this, for my academic muscles are very, very rusty. I haven't really thought about this stuff much since college. But I think what this is saying is that feminist/post-structuralist (for the two are often intertwined) thought introduced the idea that objectivity is an illusion and an impossibility because people contain too many variables to practice true objectivity. "Science cannot assert a privileged epistemological status" means that science isn't immune from this- it is necessarily tainted by subjectivity by virtue of being practiced by people.

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. The Madmin Blog
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-19-2013, 05:40 AM
  3. Muhammad (S.A.W.) cartoons and the boundaries of satire
    By figsfiggyfigs in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 07:07 PM
  4. Eileen (to the left)
    By Eileen in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 07:55 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