|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:32 am
I suppose that this idea has taken a long time to form in my head. It initially started during one of my countless arguments against anti-child assholes in the ***** threads. (Yes, I hate children, but not enough to not want them to be prepared for the world. Long story.) Essentially, this mainly deals with Rind et al. (199 cool , a study done by Dr. Bruce Rind, and two other scientists, regarding the effects of child sexual abuse, which concluded that the concept of consent can extend to children, based on the consensus that children who viewed an "abusive" relationship as consensual did not suffer any ill effects, and those who viewed it as nonconsensual did. (Very rough summary. Check my link.) That's not what the topic is about. What the topic is about is the political condemnation of the paper, and the controversy. Essentially, the question I have to jumpstart this is should a political agenda be applied to a scientific study? Which is more important, the truth or the agenda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:20 pm
The truth is always always always more important than the agenda, provided that the truth is undeniably true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 2:31 pm
Damn...I'm almost afraid to say this, because I think this might be the one, but...what the hell.
Honestly, it depends on the social situation. If there was just a recent political scandal regarding a ***** yes, they should concern themselves with it. Furthermore, if it helps, they might as well condemn it.
Ill finish this later. I have to go do some stuff, but I'll be back later to conclude my thoughts on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 7:46 am
Damn it. I was almost finished with this post when my computer crashed. So very frustrating. Well, let's try again.
At the risk of being long winded...
My gut instinct tells me the same as Isthene. That truth should always be upheld rather than condemned, but upon due consideration, I am not so sure.
Big T Truth does not exist. I'll just state that as a given for now. If Ultimate Truth, or "the real truth" did exist, it would be an infinte concept beyond our ability to comprehend. Since it can have no effect on our finite existence, I don't see any reason to treat it as a meaningful concept.
Anyone willing to debate this with me is certainly welcome to try. I welcome all challenges. However considering the THESIS in my signature is about thirty pages on that very subject, prepare for a harsh duel if you wish to challenge that one.
With that being said, all we have is limited perspectives, ie truth (little t), to work with. Every bit of truth has a perspective. Every single bit of it has biases. I think it is rather fortunate that we have a social climate in which all truth (little t) is treated with skepticism and harsh critique. However, a side effect of this is that, once we bat it around like a dead mouse enough, all we're left with are intentions and agendas. It's gotten to the point that the news doesn't even talk about unmasking the truth anymore, they talk about agendas, the intentions behind the truths, and what people want to do with their truths.
I don't put empirical science on a pedestal and say that it's immune to this kind of foolery in the slightest. Rather, I think that scientists are even more likely to hide their subjective fallacies from themselves and others extremely well. Some probably do the best they can to be objective, just like some people in general do. Most don't even bother anymore.
I'm not sure how I feel about this state of affairs. I acknowledge my own subjectivity, as one must in order to attempt the impossibility of pure objectivity. I don't know if I actually disapprove of the rejection of objectivity. Those that seek to be objective, are striving after an imaginary impossible goal. I have the same respect for them that I do for persons of a devout religious mindset. Those individuals that believe only in their own subjective opinions, and out of principle, deny objective reality, closing their mind to other people subjective experience. I don't have near as much respect for them, but I also don't know that they're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:27 am
AllieLeota Damn it. I was almost finished with this post when my computer crashed. So very frustrating. Well, let's try again. At the risk of being long winded... My gut instinct tells me the same as Isthene. That truth should always be upheld rather than condemned, but upon due consideration, I am not so sure. Big T Truth does not exist. I'll just state that as a given for now. If Ultimate Truth, or "the real truth" did exist, it would be an infinte concept beyond our ability to comprehend. Since it can have no effect on our finite existence, I don't see any reason to treat it as a meaningful concept. Anyone willing to debate this with me is certainly welcome to try. I welcome all challenges. However considering the THESIS in my signature is about thirty pages on that very subject, prepare for a harsh duel if you wish to challenge that one. With that being said, all we have is limited perspectives, ie truth (little t), to work with. Every bit of truth has a perspective. Every single bit of it has biases. I think it is rather fortunate that we have a social climate in which all truth (little t) is treated with skepticism and harsh critique. However, a side effect of this is that, once we bat it around like a dead mouse enough, all we're left with are intentions and agendas. It's gotten to the point that the news doesn't even talk about unmasking the truth anymore, they talk about agendas, the intentions behind the truths, and what people want to do with their truths. I don't put empirical science on a pedestal and say that it's immune to this kind of foolery in the slightest. Rather, I think that scientists are even more likely to hide their subjective fallacies from themselves and others extremely well. Some probably do the best they can to be objective, just like some people in general do. Most don't even bother anymore. I'm not sure how I feel about this state of affairs. I acknowledge my own subjectivity, as one must in order to attempt the impossibility of pure objectivity. I don't know if I actually disapprove of the rejection of objectivity. Those that seek to be objective, are striving after an imaginary impossible goal. I have the same respect for them that I do for persons of a devout religious mindset. Those individuals that believe only in their own subjective opinions, and out of principle, deny objective reality, closing their mind to other people subjective experience. I don't have near as much respect for them, but I also don't know that they're wrong. It may be impossible, but I will always try to eliminate prejudice from my mind, and give myself over to pure logic. That said, I just can't comprehend why people would attack the science, and accuse it of being faulty. That may very well lead to a time when science itself is untrustworthy. When that happens, what will we have to guide us. And I'll try to fix the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 11:56 am
Cougar Draven AllieLeota Damn it. I was almost finished with this post when my computer crashed. So very frustrating. Well, let's try again. At the risk of being long winded... My gut instinct tells me the same as Isthene. That truth should always be upheld rather than condemned, but upon due consideration, I am not so sure. Big T Truth does not exist. I'll just state that as a given for now. If Ultimate Truth, or "the real truth" did exist, it would be an infinte concept beyond our ability to comprehend. Since it can have no effect on our finite existence, I don't see any reason to treat it as a meaningful concept. Anyone willing to debate this with me is certainly welcome to try. I welcome all challenges. However considering the THESIS in my signature is about thirty pages on that very subject, prepare for a harsh duel if you wish to challenge that one. With that being said, all we have is limited perspectives, ie truth (little t), to work with. Every bit of truth has a perspective. Every single bit of it has biases. I think it is rather fortunate that we have a social climate in which all truth (little t) is treated with skepticism and harsh critique. However, a side effect of this is that, once we bat it around like a dead mouse enough, all we're left with are intentions and agendas. It's gotten to the point that the news doesn't even talk about unmasking the truth anymore, they talk about agendas, the intentions behind the truths, and what people want to do with their truths. I don't put empirical science on a pedestal and say that it's immune to this kind of foolery in the slightest. Rather, I think that scientists are even more likely to hide their subjective fallacies from themselves and others extremely well. Some probably do the best they can to be objective, just like some people in general do. Most don't even bother anymore. I'm not sure how I feel about this state of affairs. I acknowledge my own subjectivity, as one must in order to attempt the impossibility of pure objectivity. I don't know if I actually disapprove of the rejection of objectivity. Those that seek to be objective, are striving after an imaginary impossible goal. I have the same respect for them that I do for persons of a devout religious mindset. Those individuals that believe only in their own subjective opinions, and out of principle, deny objective reality, closing their mind to other people subjective experience. I don't have near as much respect for them, but I also don't know that they're wrong. It may be impossible, but I will always try to eliminate prejudice from my mind, and give myself over to pure logic. That said, I just can't comprehend why people would attack the science, and accuse it of being faulty. That may very well lead to a time when science itself is untrustworthy. When that happens, what will we have to guide us. And I'll try to fix the link. I do as well, because I have nothing but respect for people that still fight the good fight, even if the ultimate goal is impossible. Perhaps even more so, because the goal is impossible. People attack science because scientists are people too. Oftentimes, they have more safeguards than most people for destroying their own fallacies, but they may still have biases. Some people also attack science, because they want science to be untrustworthy. They think they have something better to guide us, like religion, or their own "common sense" opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cougar Draven Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:30 pm
AllieLeota Cougar Draven It may be impossible, but I will always try to eliminate prejudice from my mind, and give myself over to pure logic. That said, I just can't comprehend why people would attack the science, and accuse it of being faulty. That may very well lead to a time when science itself is untrustworthy. When that happens, what will we have to guide us. And I'll try to fix the link. I do as well, because I have nothing but respect for people that still fight the good fight, even if the ultimate goal is impossible. Perhaps even more so, because the goal is impossible. People attack science because scientists are people too. Oftentimes, they have more safeguards than most people for destroying their own fallacies, but they may still have biases. Some people also attack science, because they want science to be untrustworthy. They think they have something better to guide us, like religion, or their own "common sense" opinions. If I had the resources, I'd watch it happen. Let religion take power over science, or common sense, or something, and just hide myself away and watch society collapse. Because without science, we might as well be the apes we evolved from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 8:10 pm
Cougar Draven AllieLeota Cougar Draven It may be impossible, but I will always try to eliminate prejudice from my mind, and give myself over to pure logic. That said, I just can't comprehend why people would attack the science, and accuse it of being faulty. That may very well lead to a time when science itself is untrustworthy. When that happens, what will we have to guide us. And I'll try to fix the link. I do as well, because I have nothing but respect for people that still fight the good fight, even if the ultimate goal is impossible. Perhaps even more so, because the goal is impossible. People attack science because scientists are people too. Oftentimes, they have more safeguards than most people for destroying their own fallacies, but they may still have biases. Some people also attack science, because they want science to be untrustworthy. They think they have something better to guide us, like religion, or their own "common sense" opinions. If I had the resources, I'd watch it happen. Let religion take power over science, or common sense, or something, and just hide myself away and watch society collapse. Because without science, we might as well be the apes we evolved from. It's true. If we follow the views of any one person, we'd all die of contradiction before we even got the chance to murder each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:39 pm
Hehe... reviving old topics for no apparent reason is fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
