Is it just me, or does it bother anyone else when they see groups of people being described with hyphenations?
African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, etc.
I suppose such terms came about as a result of political correctness, although I don't see their benefit.
What was the point of using hyphenation? Was it an idea that the term "blacks" didn't provide them with an American identity? Was it the idea that "African-American" is supposedly more patriotic? Perhaps that was the idea.
In reality, the term is very condescending and damaging. Here's why:
To call someone African-American implies that they aren't really an American. If they were, why wouldn't you just call them an American?
And listen, I get the idea that some groups seem more American than others, based simply on how much their values are in accord with traditional American (primarily white) founded values. And there is nothing wrong with saying groups tend to have different values. To claim otherwise would be to claim that cultures are equal in every way. But blacks have been in America a very long time. They have a long tradition.
The idea of political correctness is typically a liberal idea. And liberals typically claim to believe in things like treating people equally, ending discrimination etc.
Well, it would seem to me that one way to minimize discrimination would be to minimize, not promote, the differences between people! And using hyphenated descriptions promotes differences between people. That is not good.
When I think of the word "diversity", I think of the word "divide". I argue that dividing a country is often not a good thing. After all, do people tend to choose as their friends and partners people who are similar to them, or dissimilar? Similar, I would think.
Blacks are already different from other groups based on their skin colour alone. So if liberal political correctness was the cause of the hyphenation, why would they further separate blacks from others by calling them African-Americans? It seems bizarre, especially from a traditionally liberal standpoint.
And how about the fact that ethnic white groups are often not hyphenated? The relative infrequency of use of use terms such as English-American and German-American implies that whites do not need to be hyphenated because they are more American than the hyphenated groups are.
And the thing is, regardless of whether whites tend to espouse more traditionally American values than other groups do, why would it be a positive to promote such differences by using hyphenation?
And the choice of "African" as the hyphenated word is even more bizarre, since it refers to their ancestral heritage, further highlighting division between blacks and others!
It's just not right.
Are you also opposed to women (or men) hyphenating their names when they get married? Or should women ignore the fact that they had an identity before they were married and let their new name subsume anything prior.
ReplyDeleteAlso diversity as division? Seriously? The last thing I'd want (for business, for friends, for the success of our nation) is a bunch of people who all think alike. Check out the work on groupthink, it's scary stuff. We need to create situations where diverging opinions are not only tolerated, they're encouraged.
I'm certainly not opposed to marriage hyphenation. I'm opposed to the racial hyphenation because of what that hyphenation happens to imply.
ReplyDeleteMarriage hyphenation identifies the person's name prior to marriage. I can't see that being harmful in any way.
It allows a person's name (when the person isn't seen visually) to be recognized by people who might not have otherwise recognized them had they used their married name alone. It would also allow an easier transition to their maiden name in the event that's what is wanted after a divorce.
And a woman's maiden name is a strong part of her identity. It is likely to have been her name for over 20 years prior to marriage.
If I can think of any potential negative related to marriage hyphenation, the problem wouldn't be with hyphenating a maiden name, it would be with the idea of the woman NOT using the hyphenation, and simply using the man's last name. One could argue that by doing so, it weakens the woman's identity. But this is something that is debatable. Perhaps some women would prefer their identity to be linked to the man, feeling that it strengthens their bond as a couple? I don't know, it would be interesting to see a survey on that subject.
So, use of a marriage hyphenation is to identify who the woman was known as prior to marriage, right?
The use of the word “African” in African-American, on the other hand, doesn’t identify who a black person was prior to any identifiable event. The person likely was not born in Africa either.
And I do feel that the racial hyphenation implies that blacks are not as American as non-hyphenated whites are.
There is no reason to even identify them as anything other than Americans unless you are referring only to black Americans; and if that is the case, why not just call them blacks, consistent with calling white Americans whites?
What I’m saying is that the problem with racial hyphenation is not just the use of hyphenation itself, but the contrast against the lack of hyphenation for whites, implying some type of difference. And since the hyphenated term precedes the word American, it implies that there are different types of Americans. cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteAbout diversity and division. I didn’t say all diversity was a negative. I did say that dividing a country is never a good thing. What I meant by this is that I don’t see how it’s a positive to take action to divide a country any further than it naturally is (there is a natural level of diversity throughout a country, of course). Perhaps I should’ve clarified my ideas further.
I completely agree with you about groupthink being dangerous. Look at how groupthink caused the Shuttle crash. I agree that diversity of abilities tends to strengthen a nation, in the sense that, for example, if you had people who could only excel in math and science, it would be better to diversify and add someone who excelled in, say, journalism.
But when I made my comment, I was assuming that there is a natural level of diversity (thought and ability related) implicit throughout the human range of abilities, passed down through the genes regardless.
I was referring to diversity and division as being a negative when you go beyond the natural level of diversity and needlessly diversify and divide. I believe that’s when problems occur.
Look at how much trouble has been caused in the world as a result of diversity. Look at the class conflict between upper and middle classes. Look at the genocide in Rwanda by blacks against other blacks, due to the division of their ethnicity. Look at the conflict in high schools by one clique against another clique. There has been an immeasurable amount of damage and murder conducted by people against others who are diverse from them in some way.
I just don’t see how it makes any sense to promote diversity, given the horrendous track record diversity has throughout human society. Even if you could show that needless diversity had benefits in many ways, just the fact that once in a while millions of people are murdered based on their diversity would be high enough of a cost to wipe out those benefits.
I think it should be a no brainier that promoting needless, additional diversity is one of the most cruel things one can do to society.
The root of diversity is not "divide".
ReplyDeleteThe danger of being so convinced of your intellectual superiority is that you make fallacious statements carelessly.
Diversity comes from the Latin "diversus" meaning "different in character or quality".
You make so many foundational logical errors it is hard to know where to begin. Not just in this post, but in your primary premises found all over this blog and your comments at Salon.
There is no such thing as "objectivity". Your conservatism is overtly ideological and therefore fatally flawed. Ideology is the enemy of ideas, the enemy of logic and especially the enemy of truth. Your attempt to lend your ideology credence with the pretense that you are "the 74th most intelligent person on Facebook" is exactly where you should begin your quest to uncover the fairly expansive blind-spot that makes the irony of your own thoughts opaque to you.
To directly comment on this post: Your advocating of mono-cultures is congruent with other of your flawed arguments. Mono-cultures are a threat to life on Earth. They have resulted in the creation of famine and the famine of intellectual honesty inherent in ideological thinkers. Mono-cultures destroy the ability of life to survive catastrophic events just like they destroyed the ability of the Irish to get something to eat during the potato famine…a direct result of mono-cultures. Other results of mono-cultures: The Inquisition, The Crusades, slavery, oppression, genocide etc….
Diversity is a universal imperative we humans ignore at our repeating peril. Go ahead and spend some time thinking about why that might be true. Them grow your humility, because it is tiny and at risk of completely disappearing.
...that said, you make many good points interpersed throughout and they would be so much more effective if your central premise wasn't completely illogical.
ReplyDeleteReader 26,
ReplyDeleteif I'm incorrect about the root word of diversity, I can accept that. That claim wasn't central to my argument.
This particular post didn't mention anything about objectivity. I'm not sure why you being up objectivity.
I think of objectivity as the ability to accept the premise that is the most well supported, based on the information you have available to you.
You consider me a conservative, yet I do not consider myself as such. I consider myself a logical person. I realize that you claim I've made several logical errors, yet the only one you point out is the one about mono-cultures, which is flawed, as I will show below.
I consider myself to be logical above all else, not conservative or liberal. I support whichever views are most supported, it just happens that I feel conservative views are more supported. Yet my site will show that I support some liberal views as well. That is hardly the sign of an idealogue, which you claim me to be.
I never advocated mono-cultures. I never said that diversity doesn't benefit society. What I did say, in the message that I replied to, is that I believe there's a natural level of diversity (which, by the way, may be close to the ideal level) of diversity and beyond that increased diversity tends to become a negative.
I brought up objectivity because it is a theme in your blog.
ReplyDeleteYou are not logical. Your arguments make giant leaps in supposition. You make several defined logical errors on the way to your opinions, which is what you are expressing here, opinions. You have found a clever way to rationalize your ideology.
The way you think of objectivity is subjective. How does this fact escape you? I will tell you exactly how. Blind-spots are the aspect of our personality that we cannot see, hence the term. The only way to expand conscious awareness of the self, and reduce the impact/size of blind-spots is via feedback from others. For more information google “Johari Windows”.
People have all manner of fun ways to hold false perceptions of themselves. Michael Scott, the character in the TV show, The Office, is the archetypal self-deluded personality. All of us have bits of this blindness in our personality.
Cognitive dissonance is also a common human psychological phenomenon. It occurs when we encounter information that contradicts or otherwise does not agree with what we already hold to be true. The dissonance must be converted into a consonance via dismissal, ridicule or arbitrary rejection of the new information.
Your belief that conservative positions more often are better supported than liberal positions is a completely subjective assessment. Your belief that truth/logic/correctness can be reduced to a political duality is simply bizarre, but common amongst ideological people.
100% of the studies seeking to prove ESP to be invalid have been successful.
100% of the studies seeking to prove ESP valid have been successful.
The "thinker" thinks, and the "prover" proves. Are you familiar with this saying? The "thinker" and "prover" are two aspects of the mind. Whatever the thinker part of the mind thinks, the prover part will prove, will find evidence to support the thinker.
Get it? You cannot escape subjectivity. It is impossible unless you are working with numbers. You are not adding numbers. You are seeking, via invalid logical suppositions, to convince yourself and others that you are logical first and ideological second –or not at all. The conceit about your intelligence ranking on Facebook is revealing. I am not sure why you have this drive but I am attempting to give you feedback. You have some views that I agree with and many that I don't. Your primary premise, however, is flawed and therefore everything following from it is suspect. This is logic. If your premises are false, the conclusions must also be false.
Please tell me, since the Earth is completely covered with life and that life is made up of animal, plant and mineral "species" for which no two of any species are the same, where is the point at which diversity becomes a "negative"?
You do understand that no two ants are alike, no two roses, no two humans, no two dung beetles, et. It would be far more accurate, and logical, to regard the evidence that is overwhelming and never contradicted, and conclude that there is no possible way to exceed the diversity that exists in our world, it is absolutely diverse. The only species who does not acknowledge this is ironically the only species who can study the fact that it is. We also, coincidentally, have an agenda that diversity threatens…hmmm, I wonder if there is a connection here? Truth contrary to agenda, I wonder which will win?
If you are going to attempt to logically construct an argument about diversity to the contrary, I think it is important that you acknowledge that truth and logic are not equivalent. Plato's various insane, but logical, arguments are enough proof of that. But if you'd like more evidence, please construct your argument against absolute diversity and then read it...you will witness first hand why logic and truth are not equivalent.
Everything I just wrote could be completely false.
Thanks for all the fun!! Enjoy your day.
Reader 26,
ReplyDeleteof course the views expressed on this site are opinions. My point is that that, in totality, there is a sum of information that exists somewhere that either supports one view or another. How can that not be objective? Because when you look at views that involve terms that are traditionally considered subjective, even those are objective in the sense that there is a majority of evidence that supports one view or the other (in that case, you'd need to poll people about something that's seemingly completely subjective, such as "is blue better than black?"
I am aware of cognitive dissonance. In fact, I earned among the top few grades in a Psychology class that had about 400 students.
I would enjoy if you would list the several logical leaps that you claim I incorrectly make.
I find it strange that you think logic can't be reduced to a duality. Either the evidence does support, or doesn't support, a particular view. That's a duality.
The point at which diversity becomes a negative is the point at which the benefits of the diversity outweigh the costs. Simply put, that's likely the point when a population becomes so diverse that the differences interfere with the happiness and smooth functioning of a society. You cannot dispute this. And there is no disputing that there is a point where diversity causes huge problems. You see this among the high school cliques, among the tribal fighting in Rwanda, etc.
You claim that no two humans are alike? Well, genetically there are identical twins. However, they won't act alike simply because of environmental influences. The reason twins act differently at all is because the environment places a marker on certain genes, making one twin more likely to express that gene than another. At least that's the current thinking.
Do you understand that if one twin is more likely to express a gene than the other, they are not identical except in the sense that we use the word "identical" to refer to twins arising from one egg? Do you understand that the term "identical twins" is in reference to the way they are formed, not to describe the resulting persons?
ReplyDeleteNo two naturally conceived things on Planet Earth are identical, and even clones will theoretically act differently, and undergo genetic degradation that will render them diverse.
If you reduce your analysis to genetic information only, then some sets of identical twins might be identical...still, the exception proves the rule. Let's continue with your severely flawed argument about diversity:
Here you go, a false premise followed by a false conclusion. You write: "Simply put, that's likely the point when a population becomes so diverse that the differences interfere with the happiness and smooth functioning of a society. You cannot dispute this. And there is no disputing that there is a point where diversity causes huge problems. You see this among the high school cliques, among the tribal fighting in Rwanda, etc."
Of course I can dispute it, because it is a fallacious argument! You realize that your conclusion, that diversity is the cause of unrest between diverse groups, is completely specious. It has no basis or supporting evidence except that you state it is so. First you are expressing an opinion based on pure speculation. There are un-numbered diverse groups with no unrest. There are groups enjoying peaceful diversity within larger groups containing groups experiencing unrest. The problem with your “logic” again, is that it is not logical. You have taken an observation and attempted to create premises that support your conclusion. This is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question. Also, the word “likely” is an assumption you make.
Could the cause of unrest in diverse populations be a function of personality conflict having nothing to do with the markers for diversity, such as color of skin, religious beliefs, etc? Yes, it can and it most likely is. If so, then the cause of the unrest is the similarity in all humans also known as subjectivity. Since there are peacefully diverse groups, your argument is invalid and more to the point it is not true. Could the cause be crowding, hunger, inequality, oppression by one group over another, favoritism by leadership based on personal preferences??? Do you see how you use presumption as the basis for your conclusion? Do you see how you NOT logical? Do you see that Spock would take you over his knee for your claims? Hahaha!
You are also imprecise in your analysis of what I write. I wrote this: “Your belief that truth/logic/correctness can be reduced to a political duality is simply bizarre, but common amongst ideological people.”
cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteIn your critique of this statement you left out the words “truth”, “correctness” and “political” thereby invalidating your analysis. No, truth and logic do not reduce to a political duality. Liberal and Conservative are not fundamental ways the universe is organized, they are constructs of a political system, a narrow expression of duality which like any dualistic expression can be reduced to a both/and relationship.
To believe one side of this duality is “correct ”more often than the other is ideology, not logic or truth. There is no possible way to support this assertion you continue to make. You could not possibly gather this theoretical sum of information for every issue in which there is a “liberal” and “conservative” point of view. The notion is absurd on its face. The fact is that facts and studies are always employed subjectively to support the subjective views of the person gathering them and presenting them. Objectivity is not possible from a subjective being.
Brilliance is not a cure for error, for being mis-informed or any other aspect of reality. There is nothing inherently true about having a high IQ except that one has a high IQ.
Let’s continue to de-construct your fallacies:
You write: “…there is a sum of information that exists somewhere that either supports one view or another. How can that not be objective? Because when you look at views that involve terms that are traditionally considered subjective, even those are objective in the sense that there is a majority of evidence that supports one view or the other …”
Where is this theoretical “sum of information” and who compiled it? If there is even a hint of support for the so-called “incorrect” view, then it is a lea
Please ignore the redundancy at the end of my last post, a copy/paste error.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy your day, smarty-pants.
Here is the proper conclusion to my last substantial post:
ReplyDelete...Let’s continue to de-construct your fallacies:
You write: “…there is a sum of information that exists somewhere that either supports one view or another. How can that not be objective? Because when you look at views that involve terms that are traditionally considered subjective, even those are objective in the sense that there is a majority of evidence that supports one view or the other …”
Where is this theoretical “sum of information” and who compiled it? If there is even a hint of support for the so-called “incorrect” view, then it is a least partially correct, right? If there is one correct side of your duality and one incorrect side, then there would be no valid support for the incorrect side for any given issue. Are you following me?
You are, as I said, in need of humility, which might permit you to become intellectually honest. As it stands you are not intellectually honest because your entire goal, it seems, it to beg the question, to base your argument upon the conclusion you are attempting to prove.
The key to happiness is congruence between one’s abilities and one’s ambitions. I’d have to say that yours are out of congruence. You are clearly an intelligent person, but with an inflated sense of your intelligence and a severely hobbled understanding of logic and objectivity and their relationship to truth.
Is it possible we live in a universe where there are pluralities of truths that rely completely upon subjectivity? Are you familiar with the theory of relativity? Are you familiar with quantum theory and its implications, etc?
Reader 26,
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly an intelligent person as well, but for some reason we don’t seem to see eye to eye. Let me begin:
You write:
"Do you understand that if one twin is more likely to express a gene than the other, they are not identical except in the sense that we use the word "identical" to refer to twins arising from one egg? Do you understand that the term "identical twins" is in reference to the way they are formed, not to describe the resulting persons?"
Didn’t I answer that already when I wrote:
"Well, genetically there are identical twins. However, they won't act alike simply because of environmental influences. The reason twins act differently at all is because the environment places a marker on certain genes..."
Why would you think someone might look at one gene without a marker, then look at the another identical gene with a marker on it, and think the two are the same?
Isn’t that similar to showing someone two identical copies of a photograph, putting paint on one of the photos, and asking someone if they are aware enough to notice that there is paint on one of them?
I’m surprised you brought this up in the first place, because I supported your contention that no two things may be exactly alike, so I’m not sure why you bring this up.
cont'd below
cont'd from above
ReplyDeleteAlso surprising is the fact that the point you made (about no two things being identical) had no bearing on my thesis that there is an ideal level of diversity.
You at first claim that it is "specious" to claim that diversity causes unrest between groups:
"You realize that your conclusion, that diversity is the cause of unrest between diverse groups, is completely specious."
That seems odd to me. If there hadn't been two tribes in Rwanda, then the fighting related to that diversity couldn't have come about for that reason. I don't see why you apparently disagree with this.
But in your next paragraph, you contradict yourself and say that indeed, diversity could be the cause of conflict:
"Could the cause of unrest in diverse populations be a function of personality conflict having nothing to do with the markers for diversity, such as color of skin, religious beliefs, etc? Yes, it can and it most likely is"
The problem with that view is that the facts directly contradict it. You can find quotes where people say that they were specifically targeting the other tribe. Therefore, the diversity was intertwined in the conflict.
You then claim that since there are peacefully diverse groups, diversity might NOT be the cause:
"Since there are peacefully diverse groups, your argument is invalid and more to the point it is not true."
That is not logical. In effect, you are saying that diversity can’t be the cause of unrest, since there are peacefully diverse groups. That’s equivalent to saying “men can’t tend to be stronger than women, because there are some women stronger than some men.”
You wrote "Your belief that truth/logic/correctness can be reduced to a political duality is simply bizarre". That means you are claiming that I am claiming that all THREE (truth/logic/correctness) can be reduced to the duality. My choice to not address all three, and to address only one, does not "invalidate" my analysis, because addressing one of three subjects doesn’t automatically mean I’m incorrect about the other two, especially since the three terms are similar in respect to this argument. My analysis was that there is one correct side and one incorrect side, a duality.
So, look at the term I chose to address, logic. You claim that logic is not a duality. I guess you feel that applicable situations can be described by something other than just "logical" and "illogical". You mention Spock, thereby implying that he’s the logical one I am getting spanked by, yet Spock, by his constant quotes “that is not logical” implied there WAS a duality!
If there is no duality in logic, then tell me, what's the third option other than logical and illogical?
In terms of politics, you claim that it is impossible for either liberalism or conservatism to be correct more often than the other. I never said it was impossible, I said (at least somewhere on this site) that it's extremely unlikely that they would be equally correct, for lack of a better word. Practically impossible, yes, because if you go to 1 million decimal places you could break the 50/50 split.
I don't need to gather all of the information out there, as you imply is required. Simply the existence of the evidence means there IS an answer out there, it's not up to me to be able to find all of it in order to make my point. But there certainly is a certain amount of evidence that exists at any given time.
cont'd below
Continued from above
ReplyDeleteAs for subjectivity in relation to my previous paragraph, you claim that objectivity is not possible from a subjective being. Implying that humans are biased. So? That doesn't alter the validity of my argument.
That simply means that the evaluator would take into consideration that the evidence could be biased...and one problem with your point is that you fail to point out that bias works both ways. Without knowing more about the specific topic being evaluated, there is no reason to believe that bias will affect the evidence of one theory AND NOT the other. This means you would have no reason to believe the bias would, in itself, be biased and only apply to one of the theories.
But regarding subjectivity and bias, the most important point is this:
Human bias itself is not subjective. It occurs as a result of interaction between human genes and environment. There is a template out there, yet to be discovered, that will show how bias (and other traits) express itself: When certain environmental factors mix with certain genes, bias will express itself somehow, as a neural firing between synapses.
So, the information is out there...because if there WASN'T a template for the interaction, then human behavior would be completely random, and it would mean that if you repeat the same interaction between genes and environment multiple times, then you would get a different result each time. That just wouldn’t occur, because genes and environment are all encompassing-everything that is not a gene is part of the gene’s environment.
You write:
"If there is even a hint of support for the so-called “incorrect” view, then it is a least partially correct, right? If there is one correct side of your duality and one incorrect side, then there would be no valid support for the incorrect side for any given issue. Are you following me?"
You are incorrect. There can be some evidence for one theory, and even greater evidence for an opposing theory! This existence would not mean that the former theory is the correct one.
For example, let's examine the theory that the total musculature of Jack can lift more weight than that of Bob. The opposing theory would be that Bob can lift as much or more than Jack.
Let's say that current research shows that forearm strength is correlated with overall body strength. Let’s say the research also shows that amount of weight someone can lift while powerlifting is even MORE correlated with overall body strength.
Let’s say there is evidence that shows that Bob's forearms can lift more weight then Jack's. This evidence at first would seem impressive, because forearm strength is correlated with overall body strength.
Let’s say you then reveal evidence that Jack can powerlift (deadlift, squat and bench press) more weight than Bob. Because powerlifting is a better measure of total musculature strength, according to the evidence, it’s clear that, at that given time, based on the available evidence, only one theory is correct. That Jack can lift more weight than Bob.
So, I think it's clear that it can't be "partially true" that the evidence supports the idea that Jack is stronger.
Blind spots. Look into them. We don't see eye to eye because of subjectivity. It is vital that we don't, though our human culture has been at war with the fundamental realites of nature since we arose 10,000 years ago. We can look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions. This is to be celebrated, not reduced.
ReplyDeleteYour goal of showing, for all the lesser intellects, that one side of a political duality is more right than the other is folly for your entertainment. Good for you.
I did not say that logic is not dualisitc. You cannot divorce central concepts from my assertion and then choose to analyze your version of my assertion.
What I said was that logic/truth/correctness does not reduce to a POLITICAL duality. It does not. there are pluralities of truth in societies, many paths to good results, myriad points of view that are correct.
Your point of view is reductive and reality is inclined in the opposite direction, towards diversity. There is no critical-mass of diversity. You mistake the causes of unrest for diversity because it is present. You don't consider that it is the human response to diversity, not the diversity itself, that is the root of unrest among diverse populations. The diversity itself is not an inherent cause of anything, it is simply how the Earth's life organically arises. This is to support surivival in response to catastrophic global events. If you have any understanding of what monocultures create you will understand why the Earth creates absolutely diverse organisms even within species. The Earth's drive is singularly encoded for the continuation of life, not a cultural mythos that puts human life above other life.
I had a bit of fun with you around these arguments. I offered presumptive arguments to bait you and you took it. However, you are so convinced of your ability that you skim the surface of logical constructions and fail to see the truth of logic, that it does not equate to truth.
Reader 26,
ReplyDeleteit's clear I had the fun with you. Thanks. It's nice to have these posts up for others to read.
You weren't able to refute one single argument of mine. Your last post writes a lot, using words like "reductive" and "reality" and saying I made mistakes, but you don't provide ONE single argument in response.
I could write endlessly and make endless claims that your posting is this and that, but if I didn't take examples from your text and debunk them in support, then what's the point? The point would be that I would have wasted my time, as you did. Luckily I was able to debunk every claim of yours. I refuted about, what was it, 8 or 9 quotes of yours? You didn't refute one single quote of mine! Pathetic.
Shame on you for not being able to admit that you got outsmarted. I know it's rare for you to get outsmarted, but you just did.
Oh, you did attempt to make one claim: that you were referring to political duality, not duality.
Well, if that's what you were referring to, perhaps you should have actually used the word "political" before "duality".
And anyway, political duality is no different than other dualities in the sense that, as long as you define both sides, there will be, somewhere in existence, evidence that supports one side more than the other.
If you cannot actually dismiss my arguments by taking my quotes and showing what the error is, then please do not respond. My policy in the "About Me" section states that I will remove the posts of troublemakers who try to clog up the board.
My original quote: "Your belief that truth/logic/correctness can be reduced to a political duality is simply bizarre, but common amongst ideological people."
ReplyDeleteWow, your accuracy cannot even sustain one thread! Go read it for yourself in my second post, and just be silent.
Yes, you've beaten me. If this will keep you from introspection and self-reflection that might leadd to growth, then I give it to you.
I, on the other hand, know that I know nothing.
Yes,your second post did mention political duality.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that it was post # 6 of yours, not post #2, that preceded your mentioning that you were actually referring to a political duality. And that post wrote:
"If there is one correct side of your duality and one incorrect side, then there would be no valid support for the incorrect side for any given issue."
It's clear that you were not referencing only political duality in the above quote, because that quote was preceded directly by:
"You write: '…there is a sum of information that exists somewhere that either supports one view or another. How can that not be objective? Because when you look at views that involve terms that are traditionally considered subjective, even those are objective in the sense that there is a majority of evidence that supports one view or the other …'"
Does that sound like you or I limited it to political duality? Of course not.
You are not in my league. Nice try falsifying the record, however.
Reader 26: Congratulations on retaining your dignity and humility in the face of idiocy. I commend you.
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose that we allow your argument that 'evidence will always favour one viewpoint over another', and even allow that every variable conceivable is also measurable (through your process of measuring a subjective view in an objective manner, and thereby rendering it objective).
ReplyDeleteEVEN IF one accepts these to be true, it doesn't follow that it is within the scope of human endeavour to actually prove one subjective viewpoint to be 'better' overall than another.
Let's take a simple view. I state that Chocolate ice-cream is better than Vanilla. My friend states the opposite. According to your rationale, I could poll everyone in the world to see which they think is better. However, in order to do this, I need first to identify what criteria each individual uses to decide that one is 'better' than the other, how important each of those elements is to them, and how each flavour meets each of their criteria. This is simply not achievable.
And yet this is an incredibly simple disagreement - not one that involves multiple facets and the conflation and prioritisation of opinion across myriad conflicting subjects.
Even if it is conceivably possible to prove one ideology as better than another, it isn't possible at a practical level.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletefirst, I don't have to prove that it's practical. Nowhere did I say anything about that. I simply said that the information IS out there in support of either one view or another.
If someone chooses not to pursue solutions because they worry that it's not practical, that's an issue they have.
Your example is incorrect. You wouldn't need to know every single person's definition of "better" ice cream. You would simply poll people and find the most common definition of "better". You would then poll everyone using that definition.
But you do have to prove that it's practical.
ReplyDeleteYou consistently state that people should only hold those beliefs that are most rational, and that this should be determined by 'the evidence'.
However, if you agree that it's not possible at a practical level to ascertain that 'evidence', then your whole argument falls apart. Instead, it becomes - "People should hold that view that is best supported by the facts. The facts, however, are unobtainable."
Oh, and if you only approximate how people calculate 'better' then you'll get a nonsense answer, with people apparently saying that something is better, while believing the opposite. Given that the whole idea of polling underpins your attempts to quantify the subjective, that's a pretty huge methodological flaw.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"But you do have to prove that it's practical.
You consistently state that people should only hold those beliefs that are most rational, and that this should be determined by 'the evidence'."
I don't have to prove it's practical to be able to locate every single bit of evidence relating to a given topic.
There is a reasonable level of evidence that you could expect people to be able to access, and making a decision based on the amount of practical evidence you can find is what's reasonable.
I never suggested otherwise.
You write:
"Oh, and if you only approximate how people calculate 'better' then you'll get a nonsense answer, with people apparently saying that something is better, while believing the opposite."
When it comes to more subjective topics, the aim is simply to define things as the population does. There are methods to determine when someone is lying (see the Racial Hyphenation thread).
Regardless, there's no reason to necessarily think that lying to pollsters will always occur in one direction, no reason to believe the results won't be offset by lying that results in answers in the opposite trend too.
"I find it strange that you think logic can't be reduced to a duality. Either the evidence does support, or doesn't support, a particular view. That's a duality."
ReplyDeleteHumans and the world do not act as toggle switches.
Lets say in a theoretical situation a medicine has a result of saving an arm at a cost of losing a leg? Which is the "logical" choice?
How about a 60% chance of one event and a 40% chance of the other. How about if the percentages vary by age, race, etc.?
How about if other side effect are added in--what is the "logical" choice?
Like the other poster, evidence or arguments or opinions(other than mathematical or scientific formulas) can not be "weighed" or "measured", example, Evidence a is worth 10 points, Evidence b is minus 3, net evidence plus 7? Is this how "logic" works so that everyone agrees in the conclusion? Does everyone agree with the weight of evidence--how is that determined--by a poll? Would you rather lose an arm or a leg--and the answers are?
And for more serious issues, should we spend money on pure research, or in public health to prevent and treat diseases? Should we ignore disease which are more common in certain minorities? Is there an intelligent choice??
Should we eliminate those who are institutionalized and who will take up resources ( for example including elderly and infirm and alzheimers) without contributing to them?? Is the answer based on cost-benefit analysis, or does morality enter into the decision?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletethere's a huge flaw in every example you provide. There IS a duality. Because if there wasn't a duality, there would be an exact 50/50 split between the evidence. That is EXTREMELY unlikely.
And of course, yes, you would conduct a poll in many cases. How else would it be done?
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletemorality IS one factor you'd take into consideration within a cost/benefit analysis.
How much is "morality" worth? How does you weigh it? Take a poll??
ReplyDeleteIs it better to have a society where 1 out of 10 has 50% of the assets, and the rest have average approx 5% each with a total production of $100K, and one persons starves?
or, is it more moral to have a society with a total production of $90K (lower production because of lower incentives, ie, higher taxes to fund redistribution) where the distribution is more equal, and no one starves, but the society as a whole, is poorer.
Again, political decisions are more complex than a toggle switch and whether you value more production with less taxes(trickle down theory), or more equal distribution (as obama said, spread it around), is not a question of right or wrong decision, but merely an OPINION for which there is no right or wrong answer since the arguments can NOT be weighed or measured in any OBJECTIVE manner.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteyou write:
"How much is "morality" worth? How does you weigh it? Take a poll?? "
Of course you'd take a poll. How else would you do it? After all, society defines other words in our vocabulary, why wouldn't they define morality?
Of course the arguments can be weighed and measured, all it takes is definition of the terms, which then allows measurement.
WOW, I cannot believe what I'm reading on this site.
ReplyDeleteReader 26 and the other Anonymous posters here have absolutely DESTROYED your logic, yet you persist in your illusory superiority.
In fact no, to say that you suffer from the Lake Wobegon effect is being too kind. It's an embarrassment to intellectuals that people like you even exist!
You lack wisdom, child. You can have all the knowledge in the world but without the wisdom to apply it it's all useless. Therefor you are useless. How's that for logic?
You'll probably remove this and label me a "troublemaker". That's okay, at least I'll know you've read it, and hopefully knocked you off your high horse.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeletea post like yours is actually quite a compliment!
When someone attacks one's person and not their logic (which is what you've done with me), it's often a sign that the attackeer can't win the argument!
In fact, Reader 26 wrote: "Yes, you've beaten me. " Was that sarcasm? It doesn't matter, because if I remember correctly I was able to respond correctly to every point of his, and he was unable to do so likewise.
Anonymous, if you truly feel I lost the debate, then by all means be more specific. That way, I'll be able to explain to you how my logic worked.
It's actually an embarassment that someone like YOU would go out of their way to attack me, when in fact I usually act quite respcftul until others act otherwise.
So which is it...do you believe I was not initially respectful? Do you simply not understand my logic? Or do you understand my logic but are simply a disturbing person?
Oh, and about wisdom. In order to have wisdom, you would have to HAVE knowledge, would you not? Here is the definition. How would YOU define it? It sounds like maybe you're pretending to be wiser than you really are!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wisdom
"the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
2.scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.
3.wise sayings or teachings; precepts.
4.a wise act or saying.
5.( initial capital letter ) Douay Bible . Wisdom of Solomon. "
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wise
"1.having the power of discerning and judging properly as to what is true or right; possessing discernment, judgment, or discretion.
2.characterized by or showing such power; judicious or prudent: a wise decision.
3.possessed of or characterized by scholarly knowledge or learning; learned; erudite: wise in the law.
4.having knowledge or information as to facts, circumstances, etc.: We are wiser for their explanations.
5.Slang . informed; in the know: You're wise, so why not give us the low-down?
6.Archaic . having knowledge of magic or witchcraft. "