If Mort Divine ruled the world

[EternalMetal]

But if only multi-disciplined approaches can provide the "biggest" picture, then how can any single discipline ever hope to be objective, or to provide an objective position? Inevitably any such discipline must be necessarily less than (or less comprehensive than) a multi-disciplinary approach.

I explained that. Compared to strictly adhering to one discipline, multi-disciplinary approaches can be less focused and detailed. Most research studies are remarkably specific and can be used for a more comprehensive review if desired. You are being overly critical of an analysis that does not claim to make inferences outside of one specific concept (fitness landscapes). All I am trying to claim is that in biology homosexuality could be described as an aberrant phenotype that has a slight detrimental effect on the fitness landscape of a species. Considering that imo this is a valid interpretation with regards to evolutionary biology, I argue that it should be a considered point in a multi disciplined approach to analyzing homosexuality and it's implications on a population. This is not a big picture. I made this point because of a post by Phylactery in another thread regarding homosexuality as a mental condition, in which I asserted homosexuality as an observable phenotype defined by a thought process that differs from the general population. This kind of classification is not uncommon in this field.

We might just be defining the word differently, but I'd assume that many scientists don't perceive their findings as "objective." I think that most scientists probably consider their findings to be verifiable, since falsifiability is often taken as a measuring rod of legitimate scientific claims. But a non-falsified claim isn't necessarily an objective statement about reality. According to Kuhn, who wrote the book on paradigm shifts in the sciences, scientific knowledge is less a series of objective claims than a series of predictions based on previously observed phenomena. Science develops as new observations fail to align with previous predictions.

Yea, I think you are looking at a more absolute definition of objectivity. than what I am trying to say. Scientists strive to be as objective as possible, which basically just means not to introduce personal feelings and bias. It is an approach, not an end all of objective truth. The process is described as objective, the findings therefore objective. Whether it takes into account other factors not studied is irrelevant.

A scientist might place a drop of water on the same surface ten times, and nine out of ten times it moves in a particular direction. The scientist may then advance a claim that further drops of water placed on this surface will roll in this particular direction, but this isn't an objective claim.

The process is objective considering that it is free from pre-conceived bias. The logical conclusion from this experiment would be that the water will continue in this statistical pattern given the same conditions. Where would the bias be in saying that this is not an objective scientific claim? I think our disciplines define this differently.

 

[Einherjar86]

The qualm I have with all this is really not that significant for the issue at hand, which is sexuality; and seeing as I understand the position from which you're arguing, I'm not going to try and argue with or challenge you. I just have a particular opinion on the notion of "objectivity" that might very well be unfair, but then so be it.

Suffice it to say that I probably would exhibit a bit more skepticism even regarding experimenters who presume an unbiased attitude on their part toward the objects under their observation. The way I define objectivity, it has to include more than just a temporary withholding of judgment or predisposition; it must also consider the physical and material conditions of the entire experiment, including the sensory apparatus being used to gauge the experiment.

None of that means I think experiments are worthless or misleading. I think that the best scientists often acknowledge how the very equipment and instrumentation they use are also methods of predisposition. Bias isn't something that only exists in our heads - it's built into the world around us. I take the example of the old adage, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound?" The realistic answer is yes, of course; but this answer fails to consider how the question itself has already predisposed us to a particular set of answers involving the knowledge of sound. In other words, we're creatures that hear, we identify certain things via how our brain interprets sound waves. It would make no sense to ask such a question to a creature that has never known the world via sound the way we do. It's easy to fall into the trap that the word "sound" means a solid, tangible thing even beyond our inability to hear a tree falling one thousand miles away - that it translates into sound waves, or vibrations, reverberations, etc. But the entire history of our notion of sound involves senses and instruments of measurement that condition our experience of what sound is.

That said, I still believe that science is the absolute best means we have of expanding our horizons and of shattering old expectations; but its enlightening prospects don't put it beyond critique.

That's what I believe, horseshit though it may be.

 

[CiG]

But don't you consider man-made climate change skeptics to be "anti-science" or whatever? I'm sure I read that in the past from you, which would make you a hypocrite if true.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes, I have said that in the past. I don't see it as hypocritical because my position on climate change deniers was that they reject science wholesale, rather than critique it.

 

[Dak]

Climate change deniers yes. Not ACC skeptics necessarily. Obviously there is/has been/will be climate change.

 

[EternalMetal]

The qualm I have with all this is really not that significant for the issue at hand, which is sexuality; and seeing as I understand the position from which you're arguing, I'm not going to try and argue with or challenge you. I just have a particular opinion on the notion of "objectivity" that might very well be unfair, but then so be it.

Suffice it to say that I probably would exhibit a bit more skepticism even regarding experimenters who presume an unbiased attitude on their part toward the objects under their observation. The way I define objectivity, it has to include more than just a temporary withholding of judgment or predisposition; it must also consider the physical and material conditions of the entire experiment, including the sensory apparatus being used to gauge the experiment.

None of that means I think experiments are worthless or misleading. I think that the best scientists often acknowledge how the very equipment and instrumentation they use are also methods of predisposition. Bias isn't something that only exists in our heads - it's built into the world around us. I take the example of the old adage, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present to hear it, does it make a sound?" The realistic answer is yes, of course; but this answer fails to consider how the question itself has already predisposed us to a particular set of answers involving the knowledge of sound. In other words, we're creatures that hear, we identify certain things via how our brain interprets sound waves. It would make no sense to ask such a question to a creature that has never known the world via sound the way we do. It's easy to fall into the trap that the word "sound" means a solid, tangible thing even beyond our inability to hear a tree falling one thousand miles away - that it translates into sound waves, or vibrations, reverberations, etc. But the entire history of our notion of sound involves senses and instruments of measurement that condition our experience of what sound is.

That said, I still believe that science is the absolute best means we have of expanding our horizons and of shattering old expectations; but its enlightening prospects don't put it beyond critique.

That's what I believe, horseshit though it may be.

I agree mostly with what you say. As someone who has experience with research in the field of science, I have noticed that a lot of research really is not entirely objective since the researchers are either overly passionate about their presupposed hypotheses, or too strongly depend upon their theories being true in order to get the grants necessary to stay in research.

Though tbh I feel like their is a disconnect with how someone who studies philosophy describes objectivity and how a research scientist would. My lazy assertions were a mere hypothesis, but I do think I was being objective with my (albeit limited) inferences.

But don't you consider man-made climate change skeptics to be "anti-science" or whatever? I'm sure I read that in the past from you, which would make you a hypocrite if true.

Honestly this topic has been somewhat bothersome to me as of late. It has all been shoved down my throat heavily all throughout my academic years that their is a huge man-made impact on large scale climate change. I believed it to be universally true. But more recently ive been rather skeptical about exactly how much of an impact mankind is making on the climate change trend, and am beginning to believe that more large scale natural factors might be the biggest factor instead. It seems as though most data I read makes an extremely detailed study on stuff like rising sea levels, temperature trends, melting icebergs, and then just assumes it is because of a manmade impact. It's almost like they are going "see? Temperatures are warming rapidly, we must do something to fix it!", except they are failing to make the correlation definitive. I realize these correlations are extremely hard to make in such a complex system and with such a small snapshot of data in time, but it seems to me that people are believing in manmade climate change just like our forbears assumed the existence of gods. I believe the assertions that the interference from man is causing changes in certain ecosystems, but attributing it to the climate change is still a bit of a stretch imo. Id love to spend more time researching this though.

 

[Baroque]

I agree mostly with what you say. As someone who has experience with research in the field of science, I have noticed that a lot of research really is not entirely objective since the researchers are either overly passionate about their presupposed hypotheses, or too strongly depend upon their theories being true in order to get the grants necessary to stay in research.

Though tbh I feel like their is a disconnect with how someone who studies philosophy describes objectivity and how a research scientist would. My lazy assertions were a mere hypothesis, but I do think I was being objective with my (albeit limited) inferences.



Honestly this topic has been somewhat bothersome to me as of late. It has all been shoved down my throat heavily all throughout my academic years that their is a huge man-made impact on large scale climate change. I believed it to be universally true. But more recently ive been rather skeptical about exactly how much of an impact mankind is making on the climate change trend, and am beginning to believe that more large scale natural factors might be the biggest factor instead. It seems as though most data I read makes an extremely detailed study on stuff like rising sea levels, temperature trends, melting icebergs, and then just assumes it is because of a manmade impact. It's almost like they are going "see? Temperatures are warming rapidly, we must do something to fix it!", except they are failing to make the correlation definitive. I realize these correlations are extremely hard to make in such a complex system and with such a small snapshot of data in time, but it seems to me that people are believing in manmade climate change just like our forbears assumed the existence of gods. I believe the assertions that the interference from man is causing changes in certain ecosystems, but attributing it to the climate change is still a bit of a stretch imo. Id love to spend more time researching this though.

It can be shown in a lab without question the effect of man made chemicals on chemicals in the atmosphere (for example the fact that man made CFCs destroy ozone). It is a fair question how much the man made chemicals effect the Global climate, and we do not fully understand this. We do know that greenhouse gases cause warming (again, you can show this in a lab. fill a fish tank with oxygen, and another with CO2, which traps heat better from a heat lamp?). We also know that man creates greenhouse gases, so we are not helping the situation at all.

Even if man has a micro-effect on the global climate. Even if global climate change (warming and rising greenhouse gas levels) is not our fault. The fact that we know it exists means we should do something about it. Yes, we should try and prevent it even if it is a natural process. It may destroy us if it gets out of control and we do nothing.

Saying it's not our fault doesn't save us. We can't rely on natural processes to save us, or some higher power. We are the only beings we know of that can save ourselves.

 

[EternalMetal]

It can be shown in a lab without question the effect of man made chemicals on chemicals in the atmosphere (for example the fact that man made CFCs destroy ozone). It is a fair question how much the man made chemicals effect the Global climate, and we do not fully understand this. We do know that greenhouse gases cause warming (again, you can show this in a lab. fill a fish tank with oxygen, and another with CO2, which traps heat better from a heat lamp?). We also know that man creates greenhouse gases, so we are not helping the situation at all.

I actually dont deny this, which is why as a student I was always gung-ho about reducing all CO2 emissions and finding alternative forms of energy before the apocalypse. But like you said, the impact of our emissions is unknown, and could have next to nothing to do with our world's next warming trend. Just as terrible is man's taking over of vast areas of land, destroying the plants and trees that help offset atmospheric CO2. There is lots of evidence that CO2 concentrations were much higher in the past, and this supported life just fine.

Even if man has a micro-effect on the global climate. Even if global climate change (warming and rising greenhouse gas levels) is not our fault. The fact that we know it exists means we should do something about it. Yes, we should try and prevent it even if it is a natural process. It may destroy us if it gets out of control and we do nothing.

Saying it's not our fault doesn't save us. We can't rely on natural processes to save us, or some higher power. We are the only beings we know of that can save ourselves.

So far, the best solution I have seen is to somehow reduce CO2 emissions and pray. Im not exactly sure if modern science is ready for such an attempt at climate reversal, even if our contributions are the prime mover in climate change or not. If it isnt, we are possibly more fucked than they predict. Im not saying that we shouldnt reduce emissions or change our lifestyles if this is actually just a natural process (the ramifications on ecosystems themselves should be motivation to change), but in many respects the world isnt ready to do this yet. We are probably at the mercy of our planet's natural climate tendencies, no matter how much we want to change it. Is recycling really going to save the planet, er, I mean mankind's current earth?

I remember seeing a diagram in college that graphed CO2 emissions and the associated rise in global temperature that were superimposed on one another. It looked like both trends were directly related, but this could just be statistical gymnastics by passionate ecologists who just want to damn mankind's influence on the earth. I dont really know what to think, but I do know that post-industrial revolution society is probably detrimental to the planet's ecosystem.

 

[no country for old wainds]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...al-appropriation-speech-in-full-a7240021.html you guys see this?

 

[Baroque]

First day of my phd program yesterday. Fuck this campus is liberal as fuck. I can't stand extremes on either side tbh. Extreme liberal is a special kind of annoying though. This is going to be interesting to say the least.

So many wasted tax dollars on useless services provided "just in case", that no one ever actually uses except freaks. I also hate that they think they can tell you how you should talk to people. F that.

 

[arg]

I would love to visit your campus in a Trump shirt and get into fights with libs

You're in a science field though right so it shouldn't mess with your studies too much

What courses are the other kids in?

 

[Baroque]

I would love to visit your campus in a Trump shirt and get into fights with libs

You're in a science field though right so it shouldn't mess with your studies too much

What courses are the other kids in?

It's not so much the kids (yet) as it is the administration. it's like they gave the gender studies people free reign to run the campus. The orientation was just like 'sexual violence prevention training' (which included a lot of telling you what to say and do) 'ethics training' and listing all the overly helpful services they have (too many to list here). I don't want to be babied and won't make use of any of that nonsense. I want to work hard and feel like I'm behind, that pushes me to work harder. In Statistics it should be fine when I get away from the general public campus facade.

Also my usual problem of them handing out a booklet full of groups people can join and encouraging us to join one. Chicano studies, Pacific Islander club, afro-centric ok fine... but... none of them were for white people. I can't be a part of a group?

Part of the problem nationwide is that there are too damn many administrators, and this happens.

One of the librarians is (I think) a woman dressing like a man, and back in the day we would have just laughed at that. Now I don't wtf I'm supposed to call her/him/it in order to not be cast out of society.

 

[arg]

Sounds like a crimsonfloyd and Mort paradise, fuckin horrible. That's what happens to liberals with their useless degrees who can't get real jobs. They become teachers and spew their dumbass ideologies on the youth, spawning even more libs. Truly a cancer of society

 

[Baroque]

They should do away with groups focused on one race altogether. There should be no exclusionary groups supported by the university at all. Every group should have to accept anyone within reason (they're not criminals and so on)

 

[Einherjar86]

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook today, thought I'd repost:

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/20/12915036/race-criminal-justice-inequality-glenn-loury-ta-nehisi-coates

The following passage/exchange is crucial:

GL: So Coates's historical account is a lie. It tells only one part of the story. It erases the responsibility that African Americans have for our own condition. I refuse to accept that we don’t have responsibility for our condition. I refuse to accept that we're not free-acting agents able to determine our own future.

Ironically, he imputes more agency and more capacity for judgments to white people in his argumentation than he does to black people. Black people are merely puppets at the end of the string that whites are pulling in his narrative.

SI: I realize part of your concern is that by reducing African Americans to historical props, we rob them of their agency. I take your point. But aren’t we all products of history, of antecedent causes over which we had no control? Where you’re born, when you’re born, to whom you’re born — these facts determine our lives to a great degree.

How can we talk about the concrete effects of these historical and material factors without absolving African Americans — or anyone else, for that matter — of their agency? I understand your philosophical position, but I don’t want to deny empirical realities simply because accepting them leads us into a philosophical cul-de-sac.

GL: That's a very difficult question. I see the conflict between the heavy hand of history that lies upon all of us. I didn't choose my parents, for example. If I didn't get read to or exposed to a wider vocabulary when my brain was forming, my linguistic acuity might be damaged forever — there's no undoing that. Neither can we undo the stigma of race that comes to us from the 18th and 19th centuries.

We are conditioned by our environment and our genetic inheritance and our social context, and yet there's no possibility for morality unless we presume the possibility of agency. ... We have to assume that people, despite being socially conditioned, nevertheless exercise free will, albeit within constraints.

Then it becomes a practical question whether single-parent families, in which 70 percent of African-American children live, is rightly thought of as a social phenomenon over which we have control if it's thought of as the inheritance of Jim Crow slavery and American racism. Are the structures of African-American social life the derivative consequences of the political and economic history of African Americans, or are they subject to being reshaped and reformed and remade in an image that we will for ourselves and our progeny? The latter is the stance I'm taking. The alternative is a bleak moral landscape for me.

This exchange is basically a reiteration of the discussion that Dak and I had a while back. During that debate, I found myself repeatedly confused over how others could perceive my position (or a position similar to mine) as denying blacks their agency. From my perspective, I was doing no such thing - rather, I was simply saying that very real, material constrictions tend to place more limits on black action than they do on white action. In fact, if I'm being completely forthcoming, I would suggest that all of us, whether black or white, man or woman, are equally subject to material constrictions, and equally capable of overcoming those constrictions. It's a matter of culture and history as to how those material forces organize themselves, and whom they affect to a greater degree.

After reading this article, I then started to wonder whether the disagreement over "structural racism" has less to do with historical conditions and more to do with discrepancies and misunderstandings over what "agency" actually means; and I'm not sure I have a sufficient definition. I want to say that, for me, agency is something that all individuals have the capacity to exercise equally; that certain individuals don't exercise their agency in various situations may certainly be chalked up to behavioral or motivational issues. But I also think that very real material conditions aren't entirely accidental, nor are they entirely beyond the influence of cultural attitudes/ideologies. In that sense, the fact that certain individuals don't exercise their agency in various situations may be due to behavioral or motivational issues, but it may equally be due to material conditions.

This whole setup is problematic, however, because I seem to be normalizing agency; that is, I'm taking agency to be some base-level potentiality that everyone possesses, yet not everyone is able to exercise. I'm not sure that's an appropriate definition. Does agency change from situation to situation? Does is exist only in practice? If agency is a capacity separate from material conditions, can we effectively measure to what degree material conditions and individual agency affect the outcome of a situation? Or is there a kind of Heisenbergian uncertainty relation between the two - focus on individual agency and you lose focus on material conditions, but focus on material conditions and you lose focus on agency...?

 

[Baroque]

You're surely an intelligent dude but it wouldn't hurt to make your points a bit more concisely.

 

[Dak]

I always kind of understood Pat's general position as being that points are problematic

Edit: For the record (like it's a surprise), Dr. Loury echos the position that I hold, and generally the position the two other eminent black econ professors (Williams and Sowell) hold.

 

[Einherjar86]

But Loury basically acknowledges the difficulty of the challenge posed by material conditions, which the interviewer asks about in his final question. Loury's response is that it's "a very difficult question." He then offers the following conclusion:

Are the structures of African-American social life the derivative consequences of the political and economic history of African Americans, or are they subject to being reshaped and reformed and remade in an image that we will for ourselves and our progeny? The latter is the stance I'm taking. The alternative is a bleak moral landscape for me.

The appeal to morality looks like a sidestep to me, in a larger intellectual sense. I don't think Loury would deny that he's making a judgment call at this point, but his position basically boils down to: "I believe this because it makes me feel better." That's an unfair reduction I'm sure, but it's all he really offers in this interview.

 

[CiG]

To me the problem is not, do people equally wield agency, but rather do we hold all people to a certain standard that assumes there is equal agency.

If someone makes a crap decision, does it hurt them or help them to deny their agency and basically say it's not their fault?

 

[Dak]

But Loury basically acknowledges the difficulty of the challenge posed by material conditions, which the interviewer asks about in his final question. Loury's response is that it's "a very difficult question." He then offers the following conclusion:

The appeal to morality looks like a sidestep to me, in a larger intellectual sense. I don't think Loury would deny that he's making a judgment call at this point, but his position basically boils down to: "I believe this because it makes me feel better." That's an unfair reduction I'm sure, but it's all he really offers in this interview.

I think it's an unfair reduction because Loury is looking at what is helping vs hindering. This ties in directly with psychology (which, when we take a Austrian perspective of economics makes perfect sense). If I am assessing a patient, I have to take historical factors into account. However, they cannot be changed, attenuated, etc. While they may have varying degrees of relation to the current problem (even up to significant), they most likely have a negligible effect on the treatment selection. It is the current problem that can effectively be acted upon successfully. Not what happened x number of decades ago. History "reified" if you will, functionally, is a hindrance to improvement of any given situation.