Generalizing
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2012, 07:59 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:50 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(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.

He came up with an alternative theological model just as 'valid' as yours. There is no reason to believe yours over his - there is equally no evidence for either.

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, 07:59 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:55 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  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.

Please first explain how god knowing things takes away from our free will.
Then I can continue on replying.

I just don't understand how I'm contradicting myself by saying that God knows a lot of stuff and also saying we have free will...

“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, 08:04 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:49 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(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.

It's even simpler. Generalizing had survival value by providing a very fast decision mechanism. Our ancestors, being the ones who survived to reproduce, were the ones who were good at it. The ones who paused to think about whether that thing that might be a leopard was a leopard, was going to attack or not, died.

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, 08:08 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  He came up with an alternative theological model just as 'valid' as yours. There is no reason to believe yours over his - there is equally no evidence for either.

His model was a bad representation of something with far greater distance between realities.
It was like saying humans do things that seem good that have bad ends and the cow is a slave to a seemingly good lord without knowing that the end is fatal.
And then comparing that to a moral agent like God who, if he does have intentions of slaughtering us, then it is just that God is evil but has somehow tricked us into thinking He is good with good intentions.
In the illustration, I don't even know what to take seriously because the person telling it believes God does not exist at all, so of course he would not choose to follow it and of course he would believe it to be similar to that of a cow trusting in a man that is only going to slaughter him in the end.
Perhaps a different illustration would be best since my brain is just twisting nonsense right now.
I do have comprehension problems, so please humor that if you will.

“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, 08:16 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 07:59 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Please first explain how god knowing things takes away from our free will.
Then I can continue on replying.

I just don't understand how I'm contradicting myself by saying that God knows a lot of stuff and also saying we have free will...

Before you make any decision, your god knows what your decision will be. If every decision you make is pre-determined, in a mechanical universe... then you don't have free will.

If you do have free will, then your god can't know what the future holds, which makes him partially-scient, not omniscient.

You really can't have it both ways.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 08:17 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(03-08-2012 07:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  He came up with an alternative theological model just as 'valid' as yours. There is no reason to believe yours over his - there is equally no evidence for either.

His model was a bad representation of something with far greater distance between realities.
It was like saying humans do things that seem good that have bad ends and the cow is a slave to a seemingly good lord without knowing that the end is fatal.
And then comparing that to a moral agent like God who, if he does have intentions of slaughtering us, then it is just that God is evil but has somehow tricked us into thinking He is good with good intentions.
In the illustration, I don't even know what to take seriously because the person telling it believes God does not exist at all, so of course he would not choose to follow it and of course he would believe it to be similar to that of a cow trusting in a man that is only going to slaughter him in the end.
Perhaps a different illustration would be best since my brain is just twisting nonsense right now.
I do have comprehension problems, so please humor that if you will.

I neither understand what you wrote nor see how it relates in any way to what Rahn wrote.Huh

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, 08:24 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:16 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Before you make any decision, your god knows what your decision will be. If every decision you make is pre-determined, in a mechanical universe... then you don't have free will.

If you do have free will, then your god can't know what the future holds, which makes him partially-scient, not omniscient.

You really can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that you know it's impossible for God to know everything you're going to do while still allowing our will to be free?

This is still the issue of knowledge versus control.

I don't see a problem in God knowing choices we are going to make while allowing us the free choice of choosing that choice he alone knows about.

Are you appealing to a more hyper-calvinistic view of God so you can deconstruct him?
I'm not sure I get it.
What in the statement of "all-knowing" ever implied the loss of free will?
The closest thing I can think of is loss of privacy.

Also, I am not even 100% sure about the will of humans being free or not.
Are you even sure about it?
Aren't we all subject to only choose what we desire, thereby being limited agents of our desire only?

“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, 08:26 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I neither understand what you wrote nor see how it relates in any way to what Rahn wrote.Huh

lol, alright, well maybe Rahn will give me another illustration for me to go off of.

It's probably my fault lol
My comprehension and conversation skills are in serious need of attention.

“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, 08:31 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:24 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(03-08-2012 08:16 PM)Red Celt Wrote:  Before you make any decision, your god knows what your decision will be. If every decision you make is pre-determined, in a mechanical universe... then you don't have free will.

If you do have free will, then your god can't know what the future holds, which makes him partially-scient, not omniscient.

You really can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that you know it's impossible for God to know everything you're going to do while still allowing our will to be free?

This is still the issue of knowledge versus control.

I don't see a problem in God knowing choices we are going to make while allowing us the free choice of choosing that choice he alone knows about.

Are you appealing to a more hyper-calvinistic view of God so you can deconstruct him?
I'm not sure I get it.
What in the statement of "all-knowing" ever implied the loss of free will?
The closest thing I can think of is loss of privacy.

Also, I am not even 100% sure about the will of humans being free or not.
Are you even sure about it?
Aren't we all subject to only choose what we desire, thereby being limited agents of our desire only?

The point, however, is that if God knows everything that will happen, then it is predetermined and there is no free will. If there is free will, then God can't know in advance. It can't be both.

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, 08:34 PM
RE: Generalizing
(03-08-2012 08:24 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Are you saying that you know it's impossible for God to know everything you're going to do while still allowing our will to be free?

This is still the issue of knowledge versus control.

I don't see a problem in God knowing choices we are going to make while allowing us the free choice of choosing that choice he alone knows about.

Are you appealing to a more hyper-calvinistic view of God so you can deconstruct him?
I'm not sure I get it.
What in the statement of "all-knowing" ever implied the loss of free will?
The closest thing I can think of is loss of privacy.

Also, I am not even 100% sure about the will of humans being free or not.
Are you even sure about it?
Aren't we all subject to only choose what we desire, thereby being limited agents of our desire only?

In your world view, from the beginning of time, your god knew that you'd write that reply word for word. If we're just following a script, then we don't have free will.

We might have the appearance of free will, but every decision we make isn't really a decision... it is the consequence of countless actions that occurred before and during our life.

I'm quite comfortable with that. I can see that free will is a magnificent illusion.

But you shouldn't be comfortable with that. Free will is an important ingredient in the Judeo-Christian mythology tale. Your god would be rewarding us and punishing us because of the actions that he created in the first place.

So. We either have free will, or we don't. If we do, then your god isn't omniscient. If we don't, then your god isn't a god that is worth worshipping.

Which are you going to go for? Red pill or blue pill?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: