Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2012, 05:01 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 04:10 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I consider the possibility of the resurrection as being invented or fraudulent. But I don't dismiss it's validity entirely until I get all the available facts.

What leads you to think there are more "available facts". How long do you plan on waiting ?

If there were "facts" available, then faith is no longer necessary. At some point, a believer always has to make a decision to abandon reason, and make the "leap". The only question is, "why would one choose to be irrational ?"

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-08-2012, 06:12 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 03:06 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The mere existence of the Universe continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists.


Let's count the gods shall we

The mere existence of the Earth (a planet) continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (There's 8 or is it 9 - The god Pluto has been down graded) + another 10 billion potential planets
The mere existence of the Sun continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (1) + another billion gods in our galaxy
The mere existence of the Galaxy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (11 billion star + planet gods in one galaxy) X (a billion galaxies)
The mere existence of Dark Matter continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (take all the matter gods X 5) - roughly 25% of the universe is made of dark matter.
The mere existence of Dark Energy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. - Roughly 70% of the universe is composed of dark energy
The mere existence of ALL of the particles in quantum mechanics continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists.

If you can propose that ONE god exists, surely by the same reasoning, I can propose that billions upon billions upon billions exist and that none of them are all knowing and live within the heart of each world completely unaware of others like themselves.

Both are equally plausible are they not ?
I think this should be taught in schools as an alternative to that ONE god idea.
Equal time and all that. Teach the controversy.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
03-08-2012, 06:21 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 12:06 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I have noticed that all women generalise but men don't.
Good example of a generalizationSmile

It is difficult not to generalize and it is rather like tribalism.
Many of us need so much to belong to specific groups, we have to toe the party line and live within the bounds of locked in belief systems............
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 06:36 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 04:18 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  If God created the universe and governs the movements and reactions of every molecule, then it seems to me that this god knows a bit more than I do about reality.

Let's say we have a farmer who is a biologist and knows a great deal about plants, animals and eco-systems. He's planted certain types of grasses for his cows to eat and monitors their diet and whereabouts quite closely. He helps young calves come into the world when he can. There are times when a young calf dies out in the field and it's unfortunate but thats part of nature.

Now the farmer has a plan for his cows and I'm sure you would agree that he knows quite a bit more about reality than the cows do. The idea that you SHOULD obey without question those who you perceive as being wiser and more knowledgeable will only get you herded into the slaughter house because you are unwilling to think for yourself.

When you place yourself in the role of peasant with a Lord that is all wise, only means that you have given up your free will. You have given up when you grant someone dominion over you purely on the basis of someone's assertion of being all wise.

If that is your measuring stick of who you should obey, then obey ME. I'm wiser than you, wiser than your god. Obey me because I say that I'm wiser.

In fact I'm Bud Wiser

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 07:08 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 06:12 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The mere existence of the Earth (a planet) continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (There's 8 or is it 9 - The god Pluto has been down graded) + another 10 billion potential planets
The mere existence of the Sun continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (1) + another billion gods in our galaxy
The mere existence of the Galaxy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (11 billion star + planet gods in one galaxy) X (a billion galaxies)
The mere existence of Dark Matter continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (take all the matter gods X 5) - roughly 25% of the universe is made of dark matter.
The mere existence of Dark Energy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. - Roughly 70% of the universe is composed of dark energy
The mere existence of ALL of the particles in quantum mechanics continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists.
Both are equally plausible are they not ?
I think this should be taught in schools as an alternative to that ONE god idea.
Equal time and all that. Teach the controversy.

Can I safely say that you restrict even the idea or thought of the possibility of Gods existence?
Can I ask why?

Rahn127 Wrote:When you place yourself in the role of peasant with a Lord that is all wise, only means that you have given up your free will. You have given up when you grant someone dominion over you purely on the basis of someone's assertion of being all wise.

I freely choose to follow in the direction of something I believe knows more about me than I myself do.
My free will is not lost, since I still have the choice every day of going against what I know is right, and I certainly do.
What you say just seems to be emotionally driven and repetitive of what others say. Not really your own opinion eh?
Because if you're right, then every person who chooses to be a good child to their parents and obey them for the most part.. they have given up.
If you're right, those same people that grow up with foundational living skills largely instilled in them by their parents... they have given up.

Nah

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 07:10 PM
RE: Generalizing
Hey, Idea.

Generalising, or stereotyping, is not irrational. As Chas mentioned, our brains are good at it and use it as a tool to make life easier. That being said, stereotyping is extremely limited. One should never, under any circumstances, believe that a stereotype is true. Because it ain't. That's where the irrationality lies.

There are all manner of shoddy ways to justify generalising, but most of them suffer from the cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happened after, therefore it happened because) logical fallacies. Some black guys committed crimes ergo it happened because they're black.

In other words, correlation does not imply causation.

Similarly, society is governed by mechanistic rules, but these rules are not deterministic. If you're poor you might have fewer options and that might cause someone to turn to crime as a method of alleviating their poverty or of gaining a sense of false empowerment through the domination of others and you might have data that shows statistical probabilities of criminal behaviour among youth raised in low-income homes vs those raised in high-income homes or whatever, but none of that means that all poor people are criminals.

People trot out all manner of BS to show that stereotypes are "based in fact" but it's utterly insupportable. It's not based in fact, it's based in assumption; two drastically different things.

Stereotyping is the basis for all bigotry because it allows a person to differentiate the target (they're not me, they're something other, something lesser). That is used to justify unfair treatment.

Stereotyping often leads to prejudice because people wind up pre-judged. "Oh, I don't want to talk to (insert group here) because they ARE (insert stereotype here)." People are individuals. Period. Prejudice denies the possibility of individuality.

All of this, of course, leads to discrimination, bigotry and ultimately violence.

So if I say to myself, "Americans are louder than Canadians," that's a generalisation that might have some anecdotal support. But if I believe that it is actually true of ALL Americans, then that is irrational because there are beyond doubt both quiet Americans and loud as fuck Canadians.

Any statement, "All X are Y," is simply not true. It has certain advantages, it makes life easy, but it ain't true.

There's the other thread about feminism and Christianity and some people were like, "Christian women aren't feminists." I don't know a single Christian woman that isn't a feminist lol. Some of the most self-actualised women I know are Christians. But I recognise that that isn't the case with all Christian women. I'm sure some aren't feminists. So stereotyping Christian women as non or anti-feminist confers whatever advantage it confers, but assuming that it is simply true is very much irrational.

Analysing a world view is fine. Assuming that everyone rigidly follows that world view as per your analysis of it is irrational. Assuming that everyone associated with a group supports that world view is irrational.

Generalisations also damn social scientists. They are reductionist to the point of uselessness. Social scientists try to understand the complexity of human interaction. Generalisations pave over complexity with a concrete pad of false certainty.

The "truth" of stereotypes and generalisations is ideological, not factual.

We had a conversation about this a few months back and one of the points was that comedians feed off of stereotype. What they do is deconstruct stereotype and show how absurd it is. What they do not do is rattle off naked stereotypes.
"White guys walk like this, and black guys walk like this," is comedy.
"Black people are fucking stupid," is not.

The reason Carlton Banks is a funny character is because he is a black male that exhibits hyper versions of every single white stereotype and no sign of any black stereotype. The Fresh Prince is funny because he's extra stereotypically black because he's "from da hood". Put them both together and you get an odd couple. But at the end of the day, they develop a sincere bond because they look past the stereotype and the surface and get to know each other as people. The power of that comedy is it's message; people are people and should be respected as such. It couldn't deliver that message without parody. It couldn't engage in parody without recognising the absurdity of stereotypes.

I offer all of this in support of your OP. I agree with everything in it (with the exception of generalisation being irrational which I discussed above).

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
03-08-2012, 07:24 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(03-08-2012 06:12 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  The mere existence of the Earth (a planet) continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (There's 8 or is it 9 - The god Pluto has been down graded) + another 10 billion potential planets
The mere existence of the Sun continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (1) + another billion gods in our galaxy
The mere existence of the Galaxy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (11 billion star + planet gods in one galaxy) X (a billion galaxies)
The mere existence of Dark Matter continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. (take all the matter gods X 5) - roughly 25% of the universe is made of dark matter.
The mere existence of Dark Energy continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists. - Roughly 70% of the universe is composed of dark energy
The mere existence of ALL of the particles in quantum mechanics continues to reinforce my belief that it's probable that something capable of creating something like this exists.
Both are equally plausible are they not ?
I think this should be taught in schools as an alternative to that ONE god idea.
Equal time and all that. Teach the controversy.

Can I safely say that you restrict even the idea or thought of the possibility of Gods existence?
Can I ask why?

Rahn127 Wrote:When you place yourself in the role of peasant with a Lord that is all wise, only means that you have given up your free will. You have given up when you grant someone dominion over you purely on the basis of someone's assertion of being all wise.

I freely choose to follow in the direction of something I believe knows more about me than I myself do.
My free will is not lost, since I still have the choice every day of going against what I know is right, and I certainly do.
What you say just seems to be emotionally driven and repetitive of what others say. Not really your own opinion eh?
Because if you're right, then every person who chooses to be a good child to their parents and obey them for the most part.. they have given up.
If you're right, those same people that grow up with foundational living skills largely instilled in them by their parents... they have given up.

Nah

You utterly missed his point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 07:49 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:10 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Idea.

Generalising, or stereotyping, is not irrational. As Chas mentioned, our brains are good at it and use it as a tool to make life easier. That being said, stereotyping is extremely limited. One should never, under any circumstances, believe that a stereotype is true. Because it ain't. That's where the irrationality lies.

There are all manner of shoddy ways to justify generalising, but most of them suffer from the cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this) and post hoc ergo propter hoc (it happened after, therefore it happened because) logical fallacies. Some black guys committed crimes ergo it happened because they're black.

In other words, correlation does not imply causation.

Similarly, society is governed by mechanistic rules, but these rules are not deterministic. If you're poor you might have fewer options and that might cause someone to turn to crime as a method of alleviating their poverty or of gaining a sense of false empowerment through the domination of others and you might have data that shows statistical probabilities of criminal behaviour among youth raised in low-income homes vs those raised in high-income homes or whatever, but none of that means that all poor people are criminals.

People trot out all manner of BS to show that stereotypes are "based in fact" but it's utterly insupportable. It's not based in fact, it's based in assumption; two drastically different things.

Stereotyping is the basis for all bigotry because it allows a person to differentiate the target (they're not me, they're something other, something lesser). That is used to justify unfair treatment.

Stereotyping often leads to prejudice because people wind up pre-judged. "Oh, I don't want to talk to (insert group here) because they ARE (insert stereotype here)." People are individuals. Period. Prejudice denies the possibility of individuality.

All of this, of course, leads to discrimination, bigotry and ultimately violence.

So if I say to myself, "Americans are louder than Canadians," that's a generalisation that might have some anecdotal support. But if I believe that it is actually true of ALL Americans, then that is irrational because there are beyond doubt both quiet Americans and loud as fuck Canadians.

Any statement, "All X are Y," is simply not true. It has certain advantages, it makes life easy, but it ain't true.

There's the other thread about feminism and Christianity and some people were like, "Christian women aren't feminists." I don't know a single Christian woman that isn't a feminist lol. Some of the most self-actualised women I know are Christians. But I recognise that that isn't the case with all Christian women. I'm sure some aren't feminists. So stereotyping Christian women as non or anti-feminist confers whatever advantage it confers, but assuming that it is simply true is very much irrational.

Analysing a world view is fine. Assuming that everyone rigidly follows that world view as per your analysis of it is irrational. Assuming that everyone associated with a group supports that world view is irrational.

Generalisations also damn social scientists. They are reductionist to the point of uselessness. Social scientists try to understand the complexity of human interaction. Generalisations pave over complexity with a concrete pad of false certainty.

The "truth" of stereotypes and generalisations is ideological, not factual.

We had a conversation about this a few months back and one of the points was that comedians feed off of stereotype. What they do is deconstruct stereotype and show how absurd it is. What they do not do is rattle off naked stereotypes.
"White guys walk like this, and black guys walk like this," is comedy.
"Black people are fucking stupid," is not.

The reason Carlton Banks is a funny character is because he is a black male that exhibits hyper versions of every single white stereotype and no sign of any black stereotype. The Fresh Prince is funny because he's extra stereotypically black because he's "from da hood". Put them both together and you get an odd couple. But at the end of the day, they develop a sincere bond because they look past the stereotype and the surface and get to know each other as people. The power of that comedy is it's message; people are people and should be respected as such. It couldn't deliver that message without parody. It couldn't engage in parody without recognising the absurdity of stereotypes.

I offer all of this in support of your OP. I agree with everything in it (with the exception of generalisation being irrational which I discussed above).

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I wanted to post a reply to someone who recently stated that it's not irrational to generalize being that it is sometimes a healthy thing to do certain times.
I agree, generalizing isn't generally irrational. The irony is in the statement and meaning itself. I was generalizing while stating generalization is irrational thereby being irrational. A very interesting irony indeed lol
So I completely agree. Although I did not mean it in the broadest sense, I meant it in more of the stereotypical way I suppose. But, given your response here, I think you've given me quite a clear visual of something I totally agree with.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  You utterly missed his point.

Alright, perhaps he would like to elaborate.
I don't like missing points.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 07:55 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  My free will is not lost, since I still have the choice every day of going against what I know is right, and I certainly do.

You didn't answer my previous question. If your god knows about the direction that every molecule will follow, then everything is predetermined. Ergo, there is no such thing as free will.

So you're contradicting yourself.

Explain it, please... to yourself, if not to us.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: