Loading [MathJax]/extensions/TeX/AMSmath.js
Jump to content

Phi for All

Moderators
  • Posts

    23523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    167

Everything posted by Phi for All

  1. I don't think so. Do you think the US is as evenly split down the middle in terms of ideology as the 2000 / 2004 presidential elections would suggest? Or is it the result of having only two major parties? I think independents would fare better if our voting system wasn't winner-take-all. As it is now, people often vote for a candidate only to stop the other candidate from winning. A vote for an independent who may represent you better could very well allow your worst candidate to win, especially when the vote is close. But the two major platforms tend to poison any type of common grounds they may share with partisan rhetoric. I don't think anybody wants tax dollars going to healthy, work-capable people who want to live off welfare. Similarly, nobody wants a widowed mother of three to be thrown out in the streets. Yet the major platforms refuse to acknowledge such common ground on the welfare issue. We may not agree on the details, but I think there is more common ground out there than terms like liberal/conservative, right/left, Democrat/Republican will let us admit. But it's in the parties best intrests to keep us bickering about it so we don't get together to solve the real problem. How much unrest is caused when people are voting for *anything* they consider an evil, lesser or greater? How much better would you feel to back the candidate who most nearly represented the stance you do? Pretty sure the incumbent almost always gets his party's nomination if he wants the job.
  2. It's obviously important to us (us being the ridicule-the-ridiculous-idea-not-the-person crowd). I think doubly so because we're not so far apart in our stance. This isn't a lynching, it's the extra effort one uses when one sees a finish line in the near distance. I think it would make this a better forum, make us better communicators and make our choices more supportable if we could arrive at consensus on the subject. The only meaningful difference in our stances (I'm not including the group that sees no validity in ridicule) is that you draw no distinction between using a word that implies a constant behavior and separating such behavior from the actual person with a slightly modified set of words. We've shown there is a benefit in not causing unnecessary defensiveness but you've shown no benefit for your stance. You claim the difference is one of "tone", but it's precision in terminology, something I believe you value. Why is it important elsewhere but not here? When it can mean the difference between validating an argument as objective or leaving an opening for detractors to claim you are subjectively attacking someone's character, why do you insist on it? You've always been a valued member here and you make it very hard to deal with trolls and flamers when you use some of the same attacks they use. Calling people names when it's their arguments that deserve it isn't "an objective statement of fact", it's transferring the characteristics of their idea onto them and attacking. Could you at least try to shoot the gun out of their hand instead of just plugging them between the eyes, cowboy?
  3. They're both catering to the ones who are willing to fund their re-elections and pay for the spin that convinces the voters. It would be very interesting to see voter reaction to a strong independent who wanted to put an end to the nonsense and focus on bringing back a robust economy that wasn't based on broken promises from big business. I think a big part of the problem is that most politicians come from big money. There's a disconnect with people who live their lives being serviced by lesser mortals. It's hard to consider the needs of working America when you're busy thinking about what toys need to go on your main yacht and which can be put on your shadow yacht. I see what you mean. It would be very good for the Democrats, almost ensuring that Obama would be re-elected. I tend towards the Democrat platform but don't really trust them much anymore. As you said earlier, they're really not much better. I like Obama's policies and his goals, but I hate that he thinks American's should just sit back and let professional politicians handle the governing. It's caused him to miss some great opportunities to engage the public on issues where he's being stonewalled. I hate that he doesn't seem to want to bother us. It makes me think he's just another pol that doesn't want to poke the beast too much for fear of what will happen if we're aroused. Beyond that, having a third party would show us that we don't need to settle for "nearly as good" representation. If the Tea Party could thumb their nose at the GOP, maybe those of us who are more concerned with efficiency in government spending could give the full bird to the DNC.
  4. I concede this point. It is plain to me that some things need to be repeated in order to finally break through the sheer volume of clutter and pre-conceived stances. You forgot the third group, those who agree that ridicule is a valid tool but disagree when it is used to attack personally, rather than ridiculing an idea. Here again I fear I must again resort to redundancy again. The definitions of the various words used to attack someone personally almost always carry examples where the behavior is inseparable from the person. An asshole is incessantly irritating and contemptible, a moron consistently makes stupid choices, a hypocrite is like the non-voter who complains about elected officials, an idiot is a stupid or mentally handicapped person. Calling someone by these names automatically impugns their whole character. iNow claims he's not using these attacks fallaciously because they're just observations and not being used against an argument, but this is a discussion board and virtually everything can be said to be an argument about one thing or another. You (Ophiolite) had made a point about ridicule being a valid last resort choice. Then kitkat argued that your opinion came from a closed-minded, hidebound point of view and therefore couldn't reflect an up-to-date commentary on the subject. That's when iNow remarked that kitkat couldn't take what he'd previously dished out and therefore was a hypocrite. Isn't that an observation AND an argument against kitkat's statement? Wasn't the comment being used to refute kitkat's stance as being flawed? Isn't it therefore an ad hominem attack, aimed at the person instead of his hypocritical arguments? We have the ability to distinguish between a person and their ideas. We have the power of language which gives us the means to further refine that ability. With that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely. We know that attacking a person causes defenses that make discussion less productive and meaningful. We know that attacking an idea is the right (even the duty) of the skeptic when we have evidence the idea is flawed. To me it seems painfully clear that this is a viable answer to those who rail against critical judgment or claim that great ideas are lost to ridicule. Maybe the ideas were lost because it was the originator who was ridiculed instead of the idea. Maybe now that we have the scientific method and understand how weak fallacious logic is, we can modify the way we argue so we're very clear about what is worthy of ridicule instead of who.
  5. If the middle class would stand up to show the pols that "thinking of themselves" should require more thought to what the people want instead of the corporations, I agree that this focus wouldn't be as much of a problem. You can't maneuver yourself into a cushy private sector job if you can't get re-elected. We're to blame but we've been manipulated in this as well. It's easy to whip some folks into a frenzy when you claim a certain group is threatening deeply held beliefs, and the pols are very good at that. I would agree but I don't think the time is right for the Tea Party. Stripping away already eroded regulations seems counter-productive at a time when most our problems can be traced back to giving corporations and banks far too much power. Corporations aren't necessarily evil or greedy, but it's a big part of their mandate to grow and prosper in any legal way possible. We've allowed them to lobby to relax the laws too much and it's come back to bite us in the ass. If we put the regs back into place and make lobbying more costly than it's worth, corporations will look elsewhere to cut costs and bring more profit. Hell, if we work hard enough at it, we may even be able to bring back the model of happy, healthy, well-treated, well-compensated workers being more prosperous and beneficial, to replace the model where treating them like dirt and making them fear losing their jobs is more profitable. Wouldn't that be something?
  6. Here's a link to some folks at Cape Cod Research that may interest you. I don't know if they've been able to develop this product, or whether it's available outside the US military, but there is a business contact that will know more. Good luck.
  7. You said it was perfectly straight. Are you assigning any magical, time-bending qualities to this sight? When you say "perfectly", to what are you referring?
  8. Ridicule is a tool. It helps to shape the way we learn. But like most tools, it needs to have safeguards to make sure it isn't used improperly or ineffectually. That's why I think the distinction between personal attacks ("You're a hypocrite") and attacking an idea ("What you said was hypocritical") is as important as making the back edge of a scalpel dull. Especially in science, it's important to only cut what needs cutting. Sometimes the "facts" that are spoken deserve ridicule. I agree with others that it should be more of a last resort, but sometimes people are insistent to the point where ridicule is a viable, effective option. Especially here, in a discussion forum where we can't read body language, facial expressions, etc., precise language and distinctions between what is effective and what is not is very important. We know that ad hominem is wrong and shouldn't be used. We know that making a "valid observation" that impugns the character of a person rather than his comments tends to raise unnecessary defenses, which are not effective to a discussion. The dictionary definitions of "hypocrite" that I found gave examples where the hypocrisy was of an ongoing nature, e.g., a person who never votes but complains about government is a hypocrite. Making a random hypocritical comment does NOT make one a hypocrite. It just means that the comment was hypocritical. We should be capable of learning (training ourselves, I think mooeypoo observed) to make those distinctions work for us. Ridiculing an idea should be a viable tool of last resort, and we should train ourselves to know how to wield that scalpel effectively. It can be argued that those who disdain using tools that help keep things clean, productive and efficient, with the least amount of unnecessary work for everyone else, are like guys who refuse to use the urinal and instead insist on pissing all over everything and calling it a valid way to relieve themselves.
  9. Why do you, a person who understands the importance of language and its use, fail to see a distinction between attacking a person and attacking the ideas the person has, to the point where you consider one "a shorthand" for the other, basically conflating the two? But I've mentioned that the distinction is one between an acceptable argumentation tactic an a known and well-documented logical fallacy, an argument you've avoided multiple times now. This is not opinion. We're still in the Physics section, so I'll ask you directly. Do you agree that ad hominem, an argument attacking a person's character rather than the arguments they pose, is a logical fallacy and should be avoided?
  10. I made no comment about feeling I have a right to ridicule people. In fact, if you go back over the thread, I support the use of ridicule only for ridiculous ideas, and disdain the use of ad hominem fallacies. I also accused Ophiolite in post #53 of possibly not trusting in a peer's ability to see what should be obvious. I now retract that accusation, since it is patently clear to me that, after repeated declarations of my stance, it continues to be misunderstood by said peers. It seems perfectly obvious to me that attacking a person generates a clear impediment to the learning process that isn't as likely to happen when one simply attacks the ideas they put forward. Apparently I am in the minority on this. As for "thinking outside the box", it's a concept that incorrectly implies a consistently superior result. In the majority of situations, "the box" is the best supported place to look for answers.
  11. First, I don't understand why this is an ethical position. Our need for energy to power our lives can't really be compared to drug addiction, unless you're suggesting we would be better off living only on the energy we produce from our own bodies and possibly those of animals. Horse and buggy, really? Second, electricity is a very practical way to bring energy to our society. Even if you develop alternatives to oil, coal and nuclear, you still have to turn the alternative energy into something that can be used by the masses. Geothermal or wind still needs conversion to electricity to be practical. We can heat with natural gas but you still need electricity to power the blowers that push the heat throughout your home. Third, I think the idea that we're at a crossroads regarding electricity is a false dilemma. We can find ways to create electricity that don't pollute as much as fossil fuels or hydro-electric dams, such as space-based solar. Electricity is not the enemy.
  12. Rolling on the floor, convulsed with laughter, Phi for All almost swallowed the stamp he'd been licking for the envelope containing his nomination of hypervalent_iodine for the Nobel Prize in Comedy.
  13. Phi for All

    Quote

    No, no, it's funny because it's about the evolution of behavior, which B. F. Skinner wrote about, and buzzards eat the flesh off dead animals, which makes them "skinners" too. Plus, I think B. F. stood for Buzzard Feast. I'll have to double check.
  14. Can you really not see the difference between attacking the idea and attacking the person? You seemed to get it when swansont explained it to you. Do you really think it's just "a shorthand" to call someone a hypocrite instead of calling their argument hypocritical? You had me worried there.
  15. So ridicule the idea all you want if it deserves it. But don't do it inappropriately, don't attack the individual. Grow up, don't be hypocritical. This is a science forum that doesn't cherry-pick from the fallacy lists. You yourself have pointed out many fallacies others have used against you. They're all weak arguments, especially ad hominem. That's why it's 1a in our rules. It's real simple. Attack the idea, not the person. It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has nothing to do with growing up. It has nothing to do with tone over content. It has nothing to do with your grip. It has to do with fallacious logic. It's real simple. Deal with it. Definitely not. Intelligent Design is a specific movement, not just "Hey, maybe there's a deity behind all this!" It's creationism trying to distance itself from religion in an attempt to be taught alongside science in public schools, violating the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. There's nothing to "prove" there. Just like creationism is different from "Hey, maybe God created everything and we evolved!" Creationism is a strict set of beliefs that have been refuted many times over by mountains of evidence and observation. Intelligent Design is flawed and deceitful. They claim to follow scientific methods but most of it is appeals to incredulity and outright lies. Please tell me you'll study the distinction.
  16. It WAS a question of hypocrisy, as well as causing unnecessary anger. I think kitkat was definitely guilty of hypocrisy but I draw the line at calling him a hypocrite for it. He's failed to answer a question correctly before (I assume) but that doesn't make him an idiot. He's also been cruel before (I assume) but that doesn't make him a sadist. Calling out his actions allows him to correct them. Pinning a label on him personally doesn't help the argument, it's fallacious and weak and it's not going to help him understand where he went wrong. It's just going to make him lash out in kind. I have seven years experience here at the forum and tens of thousands of posts to support me. Some people like to ridicule people instead of ideas. They claim they can't help it, it's just the way they are. And it's ironic that they are labeling themselves in the process. I think if you feel the need to ridicule/attack a person for something they think, you're compromising your objectivity.
  17. I was struck by that early on, and thought it was a hopeful sign, but I think the Tea Party has been compromised on the tax issue by corporations looking to save a few percent anywhere they can find it. I think they do agree on many areas, but their priorities tend to conflict. The OWS objects heavily to relaxed regulations that have allowed corporations to become too involved in the political process that mandates those regulations. They feel this "corporate personhood" has caused the lack of response to the people by the political parties. The Tea Party, on the other hand, feels the people are best served when the markets are allowed to do as they wish: From the Tea Party Movement Platform: Really?! You can't mention "Believing in the People" without making it known you're referring to their work? It seems clear they think the people are only valuable as part of the production of goods and services. The one point where the Tea Party and OWS seem to agree is on lobbying: This is their longest platform point. The rest are short, concise statements. This one states in the first sentence that politicians are burdened with undue influence from lobbyists, then proceeds to ramble on about how the Tea Party is attacked by both parties and isn't a hate group and how focused they are on their goals. I don't see them being attacked by the Republicans (in fact, many Republican candidates are contorting their own stances to agree with the movement); I do see them being funded by lobbyist groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.
  18. I agree with this part. Oh, I think it's clear you have no peers, iNow. This is where I disagree. Again, I think calling a person a hypocrite is a clear personal attack. I'll try to find some relevant studies, but I'm quite sure that the defensiveness this kind of argument creates isn't as conducive to constructive thinking as it would be if you called kitkat's argument hypocritical. Ridiculing his argument allows him to amend it, whereas the personal attack is aimed too broadly to be effective for anything but your own satisfaction.
  19. That's quite obviously a personal attack. You can tell how weak an argument it is by the fact that it assumes knowledge you can't possibly possess. Further, it's a generalization from a single perspective, an opinion stated as fact that makes it weaker still.
  20. If they've demonstrated their ridiculousness to such a point, when you attack them yourself you are either redundant, self-serving or you don't trust in your peer's ability to see what should be obvious. Personally, I think this argument is all about the times when a good idea failed to receive attention versus the times when bad ideas get criticized. Do the math and remember that ridiculing an idea often causes the originator to be more rigorous in the future. Consider the ratio again and you'll see that ridicule is more likely to produce better ideas than allowing bad ideas to go uncontested.
  21. What strikes me is the blatant partisan maneuvering going on for some time now. The Republicans in Congress can't let Obama be seen doing anything positive, so they sabotage any help that might appear to come from his administration. It's clear that Cain jumped to attack the president's handling of Libya, and then struggled to remember why he felt that way. Oppose first, then stall for time to figure out your opposition. Is that a good leadership quality? Is that even a good campaign strategy if you have to think that hard? We're in huge trouble and the US politicians are once again setting up the country to scream across a non-existent fence instead of discussing our problems at a sorely needed round table. Both major parties are fighting to control who gets to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists, ignoring the representation aspect of their jobs as elected representatives. House Resolution 3035 is a perfect example. A sloppy bill that allows corporate robo-calling of consumer cell phones, clearly something that nobody but big business really wants. Is this really the House's answer to the economic crisis, wasting working America's cell-phone minutes with recorded sales calls? I'm not sure the Democrats are any better, but I know the Republicans lied to us about how the Bush tax cuts would allow big business to create more jobs. I know they lied about keeping jobs in the US, and how much taxes their mega-corporations have been paying. And now candidates like Herman Cain can sit in interviews and stall while they make up crap reasons why they oppose anything the current president has done. I curse Obama for not engaging the American people in his struggles against the House, but his handling of Libya was exactly what was needed, imo. I'd bet a dollar that Libya stabilizes in less time than Iraq (and with a better opinion of the US). I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but I often find myself staring open-mouthed and dazed at many of the Republican actions lately. Cain and Perry forgetting their prepared lines, Rumsfeld criticizing Obama for not having an exit strategy in Libya, and the phenomenal waste of effort at trying to cut taxes for the wealthy when they will make more money if the lower classes have more to spend. The Republicans remind me of a guy I had classes with in college. He was renting an apartment but lost his two roommates because he was insufferable to live with, never helping with shared responsibilities. Rather than trying to get along and find new roomies, he started spending his rent money on himself. When the landlord served him with an eviction notice, he trashed the place and left in the middle of the night. I think the Republicans have demonstrated that they aren't interested in helping with shared responsibilities. They're spending our resources on themselves. Are they starting to trash the place in anticipation of an eviction notice?
  22. There's a big difference between ridiculing an idea and ridiculing the person who has it. The former can put a perspective to the idea that's usually lacking in someone who is ignoring the idea's weaknesses. The latter tends to make the person defensive, and takes the focus away from the idea itself. Ridiculing the person is a weak argument against the idea, it's fallacious and unworthy. It's easy to conflate the two, and only slightly less easy to learn how not to.
  23. I didn't mean to say religion, but rather the focus of religions, the deities that defy observation. Those are outside the natural, observable world that science is interested in explaining. We can't discuss religion in this section or these posts will be removed or split off.
  24. ! Moderator Note One thread is enough for this topic, please. It will save everyone from having to go to three different places to respond.
  25. I would hope that the argument posed in the OP doesn't cover things which can be easily refuted, such as intelligent design. I've never seen an ID proponent successfully rebut a competent falsification. I can understand that some refutation seems like ridicule, and I can appreciate that there have been some discoveries that met with derision early on. It's easy in hindsight to claim ridicule, but when you place those discoveries in their proper time, with the proper state of that time's accepted science, it's easier to see why they never gained consensus. What John Cuthber says here is important. It's not about stifling free-thinkers, and it's not about overly rigid approaches. It's about a method of discerning what has merit and what doesn't. Some ideas are just a square peg trying to fit a triangular hole, and it's easy to see that no amount of refinement will make it fit better than the triangular peg that's already there. This is the physics section. Religion is not something that can be physically measured or observed.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.