Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 12:34 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 11:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the shit are you talking about this time?

Science is a human method applied by flawed human beings to overcome their own awareness of their own subjectivity in order to approach an unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. Learn to science.
Who says we are flawed? According to the standard of what?

According to everything we know about our own easily fooled senses and rampant cognitive biases.

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We humans are perfect in our versatility. We are structured matter, the most variable objects in the universe, we can perceive the most abstract truths that are never found in nature and we can use them to control the world.
The things we are supposedly inferior to are merely our instruments

wut?

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... limited to being better than one aspect of us - and nothing else. There is no reason to feel inferior. Science is an instrument. The fact that we prefer to use an instrument doesn't make us flawed.

wut?

Inferior is a comparative term. Intuitive fallacies in human reasoning cannot possibly be inferior; we have no other minds to compare to.

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Subjectivity is the inevitable fact of nature.

Which would, perforce, include humans...

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Objectivity is metaphysics, the physics yet unknown and unnamed, which we integrate one fact at a time, through our instruments.
There is no unreachable standard of empirical objectivity.

This appears incoherent.

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It just doesn't exist. We can define it in language, we look for it and either we reach it, or we find out our definition was not real to begin with. But if something is unreachable, it is also unreal and therefore non-obligatory.

I am claiming objectivity is an abstraction. Abstractions don't exist. They are constructs.

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Your philosophy seems to me deeply shame-based...

I have literally no idea how you came up with that.

It appears to be a complete non sequitur.

(17-05-2014 12:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... and most of all it reminds me of secularized protestantism and its distrust of human nature. I'm sorry, but there is no other way, all other natures are already taken.

That doesn't appear to mean anything.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 03:20 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 12:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  According to everything we know about our own easily fooled senses and rampant cognitive biases.
That's something I can tell you more about. I think you'll be interested to learn that this is not necessarily genetic or inevitable.

Small children are highly empirical and philosophical. Just try to promise a child some invisible candy in heaven and you'll have a trouble to deal with.
So where do these cognitive biases come from?
Upbringing, even in European-type countries is based on shattering this unified rational approach to life into arbitrary cultural categories and rules, which is done by threats or outright violence. Direct questions of children trigger every parental insecurity and parents lash out to force the child not to push their buttons - and by that they re-imprint their own trauma on another generation.
Behind every cognitive bias there is a pain that must be re-discovered and re-lived if the bias is ever to be corrected.




(17-05-2014 12:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I am claiming objectivity is an abstraction. Abstractions don't exist. They are constructs.
Yes. And we shouldn't condemn ourselves because of abstractions.

Let's try that again...
(17-05-2014 11:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the shit are you talking about this time?

Science is a human method applied by flawed human beings to overcome their own awareness of their own subjectivity in order to approach an unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. Learn to science.
I have no idea what do you mean by that, but I have a few good guesses, none of which you'd like.
Which science did you use to come to that conclusion?

And what do you mean by learning to science? Should I learn to separate proteins or date carbon 14? And if you mean the scientific method in general, what should I apply it on? Which science tells me that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 12:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  According to everything we know about our own easily fooled senses and rampant cognitive biases.
That's something I can tell you more about. I think you'll be interested to learn that this is not necessarily genetic or inevitable.

Small children are highly empirical and philosophical. Just try to promise a child some invisible candy in heaven and you'll have a trouble to deal with.
So where do these cognitive biases come from?
Upbringing, even in European-type countries is based on shattering this unified rational approach to life into arbitrary cultural categories and rules, which is done by threats or outright violence. Direct questions of children trigger every parental insecurity and parents lash out to force the child not to push their buttons - and by that they re-imprint their own trauma on another generation.
Behind every cognitive bias there is a pain that must be re-discovered and re-lived if the bias is ever to be corrected.

Yeah. No. Thanks for playing.

Neo-Freudian pseudopsychology is not compelling.

(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 12:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I am claiming objectivity is an abstraction. Abstractions don't exist. They are constructs.
Yes. And we shouldn't condemn ourselves because of abstractions.

You literally just said objectivity existed.

(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Let's try that again...
(17-05-2014 11:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the shit are you talking about this time?

Science is a human method applied by flawed human beings to overcome their own awareness of their own subjectivity in order to approach an unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. Learn to science.
I have no idea what do you mean by that, but I have a few good guesses, none of which you'd like.

Why don't you offer one, then?

(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Which science did you use to come to that conclusion?

Son, if you go full roadrunner on me, I will give up any hope of a reasonable discussion.

(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And what do you mean by learning to science? Should I learn to separate proteins or date carbon 14? And if you mean the scientific method in general, what should I apply it on? Which science tells me that?

Ahahahahaha NOPE. We're done here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 05:37 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah. No. Thanks for playing.

Neo-Freudian pseudopsychology is not compelling.
Alice Miller, Allison Gopnik, John Bradshaw, Herb Goldberg... Are any of them Freudians? They were recommended by Molyneux who despises Freud, says Freud made up his theories to save himself from causing scandal to Vienna's pedophile lobby that he stumbled upon in his practice.
So there's no Freud anywhere. You have to take me seriously.

(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes. And we shouldn't condemn ourselves because of abstractions.
You literally just said objectivity existed.
We have access to objectivity through our senses, mind and language. If you think otherwise, then you might as well hallucinate me. Or finally admit that we do have a capacity for objectivity, though we don't always use it.
Regardless of that, we should not condemn ourselves for abstractions.

(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Why don't you offer one, then?
Because I'd encounter resistance. You call things Freudism even if they're not Freudism, but perfectly normal practices like Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Words physically change brain structure.
The subjective and objective are interconnected.

(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Son, if you go full roadrunner on me, I will give up any hope of a reasonable discussion.
But I have to. Science says nothing about how science should or shouldn't be used, what subject is it right to choose. You are very vague in that step and then you go on a rant how flawed, sinful and deluded we are. You ignore philosophy at least as much as you think I ignore science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 05:47 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 05:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah. No. Thanks for playing.

Neo-Freudian pseudopsychology is not compelling.
Alice Miller, Allison Gopnik, John Bradshaw, Herb Goldberg... Are any of them Freudians? They were recommended by Molyneux who despises Freud, says Freud made up his theories to save himself from causing scandal to Vienna's pedophile lobby that he stumbled upon in his practice.
So there's no Freud anywhere. You have to take me seriously.

He said "non-Freudian". And no, we don't have to take you seriously.
Quote:
(17-05-2014 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Son, if you go full roadrunner on me, I will give up any hope of a reasonable discussion.
But I have to. Science says nothing about how science should or shouldn't be used, what subject is it right to choose. You are very vague in that step and then you go on a rant how flawed, sinful and deluded we are. You ignore philosophy at least as much as you think I ignore science.

I believe his point was that you don't understand the scientific method. This was shown when you asked what science to use.

You are the one ignoring the philosophy of science and slipping into suspiciously post-modern woo.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
17-05-2014, 06:35 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 08:46 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
There is no question in my mind that were every tentacle, branch and capillary of government dissolved overnight, the most surprised, offended, and fiercest complainers about what an awful state we'd fallen into would be the libertarians, who do not yet nor possibly ever will understand that we enjoy what personal autonomy we have BECAUSE government grants and protects it; that absent government, personal autonomy is impossible except for the two or three people at the apex of the social hierarchy.

Today just about anyone at middle class economic stature can board a jet airliner and freely go almost anyplace on the planet, staying in real time conversation with anyone anywhere for any length of time the whole time, with incredibly small risk. Without government we'd still be working the bugs out of the wheel and axle, eating bugs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 01:23 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Lol Monsanto. It's the new lol conspiracy.

That's all I got. Undecided

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
18-05-2014, 01:34 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 02:22 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(18-05-2014 01:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Lol Monsanto. It's the new lol conspiracy.

That's all I got. Undecided
Lol you. Get more.
[Image: revolving-door.jpg]


(17-05-2014 08:46 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  There is no question in my mind that were every tentacle, branch and capillary of government dissolved overnight, the most surprised, offended, and fiercest complainers about what an awful state we'd fallen into would be the libertarians, who do not yet nor possibly ever will understand that we enjoy what personal autonomy we have BECAUSE government grants and protects it; that absent government, personal autonomy is impossible except for the two or three people at the apex of the social hierarchy.
*putting on Morpheus' glasses*
What if I told you that it's exactly the opposite, that government is THE social hierarchy, that it takes away from our personal autonomy and that we enjoy it, because that's what we're used to from our family? Freedom is scary. Thanks god for government! That's just one guy who might attack and imprison me indefinitely without trial, instead of every single person I meet! If we're having the attacks, we need one main attacker to make everything right. I am to be attacked and detained only by what I agreed to once per every 4 years.
I mean, every law takes away freedom in some area of life that wasn't prescribed before. How many laws are there? How many bills get passed every year?
And here's one interesting website. If just part of it was true...
http://www.policestateusa.com/

(17-05-2014 08:46 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  Today just about anyone at middle class economic stature can board a jet airliner and freely go almost anyplace on the planet, staying in real time conversation with anyone anywhere for any length of time the whole time, with incredibly small risk. Without government we'd still be working the bugs out of the wheel and axle, eating bugs.
Without government we would need no passports, no cavity searches on the airport, no customs tax on the things we carry, no drug-sniffing dogs, no detainment for no reason without trial for hours at the airport security cell, targeting blacks and swarthy middle-eastern-looking people, no hacking into our laptops and surely taking a copy of the hard drive even when the device is returned...
Also, when we are talking across the world thanks to technology, NSA and other U.S. government agencies are listening and recording everything for further reference. It looks to me that the government is the greatest threat.

Just reverse the meaning of everything you say and you'll be right about everything.
[Image: lJdtTlh.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(18-05-2014 01:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  *putting on Morpheus' glasses*
What if I told you that it's exactly the opposite, that government is THE social hierarchy, that it takes away from our personal autonomy and that we enjoy it, because that's what we're used to from our family? Freedom is scary. Thanks god for government! That's just one guy who might attack and imprison me indefinitely without trial, instead of every single person I meet! If we're having the attacks, we need one main attacker to make everything right. I am to be attacked and detained only by what I agreed to once per every 4 years.

I take it you've never pondered that maybe that which is terrifying isn't freedom itself, but what cruel and malicious arseholes will do with that freedom?

What, haven't you noticed that quite a few people wouldn't hesitate to rob, murder and rape you (in that order) if there was ever the slightest chance of them getting away with it?

And if you're so afraid of the government imprisoning you without trial and torturing you, maybe you ought to move to Sweden? That stuff simply doesn't happen around here.

Oh, by the way; we're also a social liberal monarchy with total tax rates hovering around 60%! I wonder how that is even possible seeing as we should all be living in some kind of sovjet dystopia by now by your reasoning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: