User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 84

  1. #31
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    The whole piece is littered with non-statements and nonsense from my perspective.
    i agree with you. and thusly our consensus makes it a social truth, and therefore equals objective reality.

    what the dumb idiot writing the article is trying to speak of are in fact crimes of fallacy committed by the world public.
    but he approaches the topic without really acknowledging his own assertion, and doesn't know how to write english

    a lot of readers might think this is over their head because he uses a lot of 13+ word sentences [which cover 3 word concepts] and long words. be not fooled, friends. in fact this is plainly diarrhea of the mouth, at its worst

    ygolo i don't understand why any energy is being spent on such an intellectually desolate article.
    we fukin won boys

  2. #32
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default Disgust and Taboo

    We feel disgust when we transgress the boundaries. We feel disgust when we break a taboo.

    We think of taboos as ancient and no longer current, but we are surrounded by taboos. Just that we don't call them taboos anymore.

    Also the word taboo is pejorative and needs to be rescued, needs to be rehabilitated, for use in the etribal world we are moving into.

    We still feel disgust quite often during the day. So when we feel disgust, we need to ask, what taboo has been broken.

    A good place to start is Totem and Taboo by Sigmund Freud. Just click on http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/..._and_Taboo.pdf

  3. #33
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    We feel disgust when we transgress the boundaries. We feel disgust when we break a taboo.
    Speak for yourself. When I transgress boundaries I feel relief, accomplishment, confidence, even excitement. Most boundaries are worth no more than those lines in coloring books. Just give me some paper and the box of crayons already.
    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...

  4. #34
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Speak for yourself. When I transgress boundaries I feel relief, accomplishment, confidence, even excitement. Most boundaries are worth no more than those lines in coloring books. Just give me some paper and the box of crayons already.
    I admire your brio. And I admire your thoroughly modern attitude. And naturally you rise above ancient taboos.

    And this is because taboo is part of spoken culture, and you have left spoken culture behind and moved onto literate culture that prides itself on not being held back by ancient taboos.

    But just look, you are a literate individual who is now the content of the electric medium of Typology Central.

    The literate individual is now the content of the etribe of Typology Central. And this is you Coriolis, a thoroughly modern Milly, just as the modern world is coming to an end in the electronic media of Typology Central.

    It's simple: the medium is the message.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    The problem with setting a foundation of truth to deduce other truths from is that it only works well when there is some form of linearity to follow. This allows for calculations and the ability to verify experiments and deduce processes with accuracy and precision. But this doesn't work in following what happens instantaneously, such as with relativity and much of the quantum world, where things are changing more than they are happening. And the result is an attempt to frame an understanding of these changes rather than explain what will happen. Absolute Truth and Relative Truth then are both real and do not need to be represented as if only one is true. Science needs both.

  6. #36
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    The problem with setting a foundation of truth to deduce other truths from is that it only works well when there is some form of linearity to follow. This allows for calculations and the ability to verify experiments and deduce processes with accuracy and precision. But this doesn't work in following what happens instantaneously, such as with relativity and much of the quantum world, where things are changing more than they are happening. And the result is an attempt to frame an understanding of these changes rather than explain what will happen. Absolute Truth and Relative Truth then are both real and do not need to be represented as if only one is true. Science needs both.
    Persons tell the truth, absolute or relative, truth or lies. The natural world is independent of truth or lies, the natural world is simply a matter of fact. Science seeks to discover the facts of the natural world.

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    A moral stand.

    1) A rational or emotional thing?

    2) Neither-
    3) Both?
    3

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    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.
    Well, okay. I guess that is a whole other debate. For starters, what from what perspective is something an "illusion" if there is no objective truth?

    I realize there may have been some historical connections between feminism and post structuralism, but so there are between chemistry and alchemy, astoronomy and astrology, and even science and religion Why does the historical intertwining necessitate the present day intertwining of basic tenets?

    Also, even if the claims themselves are something that can be supported, he certainly didn't manage to do it in the article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    The problem with setting a foundation of truth to deduce other truths from is that it only works well when there is some form of linearity to follow. This allows for calculations and the ability to verify experiments and deduce processes with accuracy and precision. But this doesn't work in following what happens instantaneously, such as with relativity and much of the quantum world, where things are changing more than they are happening. And the result is an attempt to frame an understanding of these changes rather than explain what will happen. Absolute Truth and Relative Truth then are both real and do not need to be represented as if only one is true. Science needs both.
    We don't set a foundation to build upon, we take hammer and chisel and chip away. What remains was always there to begin with, it's just given form.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  8. #38
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,040

    Default

    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".

    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.
    Are you arguing that internal consistency is sexist? Because that seems pretty sexist. If a man said that internal consistency and women, (or women and math) were like oil and water, I would think he's pretty sexist. I think this is just people complaining about the fact that they had to study math in grade school and get bad grades in it which made them feel bad "even though they are never going to use it in life".

    Is it really that hard to see how complaining that math is sexist plays into the hands of sexists? I swear to god, this kind of stuff is why we're usually losing the culture war.

    Last time I checked, this person is a woman. I don't have a clue what the hell she got that medal for, but I know it had something to do with math far beyond anything I've ever studied.

    What makes you think men AREN'T generally better at math?
    Let's assume this is true for a moment, and let's assume that this is because there is something called a "math gene" that only a few women have. Why should they be excluded from math because of that? Wouldn't it be better for them if their abilities were encouraged? What "feminist" goal would it serve to instead encourage them to go after other pursuits more associated with women? ( I get that some people are going to say that I have no right to say what is and isn't feminist because I'm not a woman, blah blah, but I'm pretty sure it's not feminist, because it would be pretty damn sexist if a man argued the same thing. What good would it do? And how would that liberate women? Or, if this is not what an implied course of action would be, what are the implications of "math being sexist", is there a feminist math, and what would it look like? (For some reason I assume something involving either all word problems revolving around baking, which seems super-progressive).

    Unless you're playing devil's advocate, in which case, I retract my irritable tone.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  9. #39
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amalie Muller View Post
    We could take this into account, and make mathematics less reliant on logic. Perhaps we could build a new system of mathematics, that is based on emotional evaluations as well as logic.

    Why should 2+4=6 if we don't want it to? No reason at all, other than social dogma.
    Actually, it's because if you have 2 dollars and I give you 4 more, you now have 6; no more, no less. I would love to be able to make my 2+4 dollars equal 6000 instead, but reality just doesn't work that way. Mathematics based on emotional evaluations is no longer mathematics, but some other "discipline", perhaps numerology. Whatever its merits, it should not be called by the name of something that it is not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    Absolute Truth and Relative Truth then are both real and do not need to be represented as if only one is true. Science needs both.
    Absolute and relative truth are both real and humans need both. Science relates to the first, and spirituality to the second. They are not so much intertwined as parallel paths: two different ways of looking at the same thing, namely creation.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Let's assume this is true for a moment, and let's assume that this is because there is something called a "math gene" that only a few women have. Why should they be excluded from math because of that? Wouldn't it be better for them if their abilities were encouraged? What "feminist" goal would it serve to instead encourage them to go after other pursuits more associated with women? ( I get that some people are going to say that I have no right to say what is and isn't feminist because I'm not a woman, blah blah, but I'm pretty sure it's not feminist, because it would be pretty damn sexist if a man argued the same thing. What good would it do? And how would that liberate women? Or, if this is not what an implied course of action would be, what are the implications of "math being sexist", is there a feminist math, and what would it look like? (For some reason I assume something involving either all word problems revolving around baking, which seems super-progressive).
    Put another way, statistics are meant to be descriptive, not normative. The bottom line is to treat every individual based on the reality of who they are, not some generalization, however wel-supported, about some group they belong to. Either a given individual fits that generalization, or he/she does not. Here again is where objectivity comes into play.
    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...

  10. #40
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    We don't set a foundation to build upon, we take hammer and chisel and chip away. What remains was always there to begin with, it's just given form.
    Yes, but problems come when chiseling away causes the foundation to change. The problem becomes non-linear. Then you can't chisel away and expect to find something that was always there to begin with. But instead you can frame an understanding of these changes by using relative foundations and throw out the idea of an absolute one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Persons tell the truth, absolute or relative, truth or lies. The natural world is independent of truth or lies, the natural world is simply a matter of fact. Science seeks to discover the facts of the natural world.
    But is that what science believes or what you believe? Honest question, first thing that came to mind after reading that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Absolute and relative truth are both real and humans need both. Science relates to the first, and spirituality to the second. They are not so much intertwined as parallel paths: two different ways of looking at the same thing, namely creation.
    Okay, but this doesn't really address the distinction I made.

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