Critical thinking and political matters.

@parados,

I think I answered that. We should respect their loss. But not their demands based upon bigotry.

@IRFRANK,

IRF, I agree; and it's been noted in our local newspaper that Republicans are using it for their political advantage.

As we can see on these threads on this subject, it is the right wing members who are screaming bloody murder; we must consider the victim's feelings...must be sensitive...it's a form of revenge...it's an insult to the victims...so on, and so forth.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think I answered that. We should respect their loss. But not their demands based upon bigotry.

And that is the grey area.

One side claims this isn't about bigotry but only about loss.
The other side points out there is a rather glaring bigotry involved.

0 Replies

@parados,

Devil's advocate, formal debate etc.. motivated by emotion as well. Probably that of the pure enjoyment of arguing. The objectivity of the argument is then secondary to the motive. It may be objective but it is only objective because the emotional attachment is to arguing not the argument.

But I do see your point. I'm just not all that convinced that reducing bias 1) is possible as objectivity is simply replacing one bias with another. and 2) would be benificial, because the things that have brought about 'progress' in science, society, culture, have been brought through extreme passion and bias of opinion.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But how can that possibly be when, as I have just pointed out, the way you framed the issue has not even an scintilla of evidence to support it?

Your question implies a false premise: That frames of reference are assertions that you can give evidence for or against. This premise is simply not true.

It isn't even true in a hard science like physics. For example, you can frame the fundamental laws of mechanics by starting with a set of equations and solving them, as Newton did. Or you can frame them in terms of minimization problems, as Hamilton and Lagrange did. Or you can frame it by starting with a set of fundamental symmetries, derive conservation laws from them, and work out their implications from there, as numerous other theoretical physicists did. Each way of framing it leads to a totally different way of doing physics. And yet, they end up describing the same reality.

The way you frame an issue is your free choice. If you're smart, you'll choose a way of framing it that will facilitate interesting insights. But it's not a factual proposition you could support or contradict with evidence. That's why I didn't give any.

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

But I do see your point. I'm just not all that convinced that reducing bias 1) is possible as objectivity is simply replacing one bias with another. and 2) would be benificial, because the things that have brought about 'progress' in science, society, culture, have been brought through extreme passion and bias of opinion.

I would say the church was much more passionate and biased than Copernicus was yet we all know how that ended up when it came to progress.

Emotion and bias aren't worth a whole lot if the argument is bereft of any logic and facts.

1 Reply

The latest on those who want to bring people together from Associated Press:

The developers behind the Islamic center planned for a site near Ground Zero won't rule out accepting financing from the Mideast -- including from Saudi Arabia and Iran -- as they begin searching for $100 million needed to build the project.
Despite controversy, Obama still supports right to build mosque near ground zero

The religious organization and the development company behind the center declined to say how much of the $100 million needed to build the facility has already been raised.

2 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

The new buildings will be seen once they are completed. But, I am not sure that is the issue. How close is too close? That is a good question and one I cannot answer.

What do you make of the fact that these days, the building of mosques tends to meet fierce civic opposition in America wherever it's done? Any mosque, no matter where it's built, will always be in somebody's backyard, and be opposed by the resident not-in-my-backyard people. How do you distinguish the ground-zero mosque from those cases?

IRFRANK wrote:

If I had ultimate decision powers in this situation, I am not sure what I would decide.

But you (or I) don't have ultimate decision powers. New York and US constitutions do, which is a very good thing. And from a constitutional standpoint, the case is a no-brainer: They can build if they want to, and they want to.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

And the point of you posting this is?

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I think I answered that. We should respect their loss. But not their demands based upon bigotry.

But the claim is that anything short of meeting the bigoted demand to build elsewhere is disrespectful of their loss.

There's a billion Muslims in the world. How do the atrocities of 20 terrorists justify any demands on the 999,999,980 others?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I would say the church was much more passionate and biased than Copernicus was yet we all know how that ended up when it came to progress.

Emotion and bias aren't worth a whole lot if the argument is bereft of any logic and facts.

I agree that if the motive is to search for an empirical truth empirical facts are important. However, search for the empirical truth is only one of many motives creating only one of many axiomatic bases for logic.

Who is to say copernicus did not have the passion fo the church? He brought evidence he knew would "damn" him to light in spite of his knowledge of the church. Because the church retaliated with more force than Copernicus initially expressed may have more to do with the imbalance of power between the two. The church at the time cried heretic to anybody who contradicted their doctrine and dogma Copernicus may have been seen as just another bump to a bureaurocratic steam roller. To speculate on which was more passionate is simply speculation. The fact that they both adhered to an ideal and had motive for their arguments is not.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

IRFRANK wrote:
I think I answered that. We should respect their loss. But not their demands based upon bigotry.

But the claim is that anything short of meeting the bigoted demand to build elsewhere is disrespectful of their loss.

There's a billion Muslims in the world. How do the atrocities of 20 terrorists justify any demands on the 999,999,980 others?

What is being demanded of 999,999,980 others, again? That what?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

We'll pretend you didn't ignore my evidence of Robertson making statements that show religious intolerance.

But.. Why does it matter where the money comes from? Is it illegal? If not, then what is your argument?

0 Replies

@GoshisDead,

Quote:

To speculate on which was more passionate is simply speculation. The fact that they both adhered to an ideal and had motive for their arguments is not.

But it is no more speculation than arguing that bias and passion are the reasons for every advance in science, literature, etc.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Thomas wrote:
There's a billion Muslims in the world. How do the atrocities of 20 terrorists justify any demands on the 999,999,980 others?

What is being demanded of 999,999,980 others, again? That what?

That none of them will build a mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Never mind that Google Maps finds at least five churches and two synagogues within a two-block radius of Ground Zero. Only Muslims can't build a house of worship there. That, at least, is the demand.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Thomas wrote:
There's a billion Muslims in the world. How do the atrocities of 20 terrorists justify any demands on the 999,999,980 others?

What is being demanded of 999,999,980 others, again? That what?

That none of them will build a mosque within two blocks of Ground Zero. Never mind that Google Maps finds at least five churches and two synagogues within a two-block radius of Ground Zero. Only Muslims can't build a house of worship there. That, at least, is the demand.

It is demanded of all the Muslims in the world that they do not build a mosque on that site? Excuse me? And if there were some resentment if the Japanese wanted to build a Shinto site near to where the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor, that would be an unreasonable demand on all the Japanese in the world?

Are you all right? Are you sure?

2 Replies

@parados,

I've already argued that, in that every axiom upon which an argument, scientific hypothesis etc... is based is necessarily developed from an ideal as there is no empirical evidence for an axiom and all arguments are based on them even empirical arguments.

Paul Feyerabend covers this nicely in Against method
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend/

Against Method explicitly drew the “epistemological anarchist” conclusion that there are no useful and exceptionless methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. The history of science is so complex that if we insist on a general methodology which will not inhibit progress the only “rule” it will contain will be the useless suggestion: “anything goes”. In particular, logical empiricist methodologies and Popper's Critical Rationalism would inhibit scientific progress by enforcing restrictive conditions on new theories. The more sophisticated “methodology of scientific research programmes” developed by Lakatos either contains ungrounded value-judgements about what constitutes good science, or is reasonable only because it is epistemological anarchism in disguise. The phenomenon of incommensurability renders the standards which these “rationalists” use for comparing theories inapplicable. The book thus (understandably) had Feyerabend branded an “irrationalist”. At a time when Kuhn was downplaying the “irrationalist” implications of his own book, Feyerabend was perceived to be casting himself in the role others already saw as his for the taking. (He did not, however, commit himself to political anarchism. His political philosophy was a mixture of liberalism and social democracy).

He later said:

One of my motives for writing Against Method was to free people from the tyranny of philosophical obfuscators and abstract concepts such as “truth”, “reality”, or “objectivity”, which narrow people's vision and ways of being in the world. Formulating what I thought were my own attitude and convictions, I unfortunately ended up by introducing concepts of similar rigidity, such as “democracy”, “tradition”, or “relative truth”. Now that I am aware of it, I wonder how it happened. The urge to explain one's own ideas, not simply, not in a story, but by means of a “systematic account”, is powerful indeed. (pp. 179–80).

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It is demanded of all the Muslims in the world that they do not build a mosque on that site? Excuse me?

Your rhetoric suggests that I'm wrong, even though you don't say it explicitly, let alone provide evidence for it. But I'm always willing to learn: If you think I'm wrong about the demand, which Muslims do you think can build a mosque on that site?

kennethamy wrote:

And if there were some resentment if the Japanese wanted to build a Shinto site near to where the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor, that would be an unreasonable demand on all the Japanese in the world?

As it happens I do think that would be unreasonable. But I concede you'd have a stronger case there, and anyway it's not the point I'm arguing at the moment.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an official act by the state of Japan, orchestrated by the lawful leaders of that country. By contrast, the September-11 attacks were never an official project of Islam in that sense. They were the project of a tiny fanatic fringe; mainstream Islamic leaders distanced themselves from them within hours of them happening. That's why all demands on Muslims outside that fanatic fringe are inherently unreasonable.

Quote:

Are you all right? Are you sure?

Yes and yes. And once again, drama is no substitute for argument.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

What do you mean by "near Pearl Harbor?" There are many buddhist churches in Oahu.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What do you mean by "near Pearl Harbor?" There are many buddhist churches in Oahu.

I said Shinto shrine. And there are several mosques quite near the disputed site.

1 Reply

Critical thinking and political matters.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know