US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot, Six Die

[a completely inoffensive name]

really..... go down the list of every fox host you can find. your world view is tainted if anyones is. you called furnunclus and told him on that yet you meander along in your blisssfully unaware life telling people you are completely unbiased and know absolutely the political climates of the major US parties. what world experience do you have? your a university student, one of the most left polarized institutions in the country. No one lives like a university student. I am too, but at least i admit i am biased to some extent and cannot speak and generalize about millions of americans.

that list? utter bullshit.

Why is it that every time I argue with someone right wing on this forum that isn't CR, they inflate what I am saying to mean something that I quite frankly didn't say. I said he has confirmation bias. I didn't not say he was an ignorant neanderthal living in a cave, only that his perspective is not as unbiased as he thinks. My world view is not that tainted. Considering I have subscribed to every train of political thought in my life at some point, I would say I am somewhat well rounded. Before how I was now, I was a libertarian, before that I was a nanny state socialist, before that I was a neoconservative. Universities are not really politically polarized, it all depends on where you go. You think University of Arizona is some haven for liberals and doesn't have a large proportion of conservatives? Do you know what you are talking about? No one lives like a university student? Umm reality check here dude. Everyone lives like a university student. Here in America, once you hit college you get saddled with debt and have to live under a tight budget unless you are rich. And then you graduate, get a job and live with a slightly larger budget, still saddled with debt for many years. Then you pay it off and some other problem like new furniture, a house or a medical emergency puts more debt on you. Life begins at college in many ways. If you recognize you are biased, then why not attempt to shed that bias. That should one of the important lessons to learn at uni. Let's check my list again and see where you are wrong:

Palin is not as popular as everyone thinks she is a novelty and i know very few fellow conservatives who want her in office (this is called anecdotal evidence and not applicable on a statistically significant level)
Rush- is an old blowhard. no one gives a damn about him (wrong, millions listen and love him, that is a fact. check his ratings)
Hannity- is really not the great devil everyone makes him out to be. the worst he does is latch onto tiny liberal foibles and not let go..... (your opinion which you have admitted is biased)
Romney- mitt romney was governor of a very very liberal state. he is an intelligent and pretty reasonable man i havent heard much hate speech from him.... (he actually is one of the better ones, you can strike him from this list)
Huckabee- an affable idiot from (is it missouri) (promotes having the military execute Assange in cold blood, not really a good example of the restrained and polite conservative is he?)
Gingrich- old newt? yeah he uses inflammatory speech but i dont think one could call it hate speech inciting violence (every single negative term the right has manufactured has been slung around by newt, from death panels to un-american)
Beck- really...... hes an imbecile and he isnt that hateful just stupid. (he suggested on air about killing Micheal Moore)
Napolitano- yeah if you think hes spouting hate speech your blind and deaf. (good come back. did your excuse "he is just an idiot" too tiresome for you as well?)
O Reilly- is a ego inflated jackass not a hate mongerer (he spreads lies and fear into his viewers about anything that seem left so that they grow to hate the entire left, often based on baseless lies such as his attack on amsterdam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w)
Greta van Susteren- GRETA! lol i just lol'ed (you are not helping your case)
Doocey- steve doocey this list gets worse and worse. the men is a pretty boy anchor with a reasonable intellect on morning fox news the equivalent to fox news comedy central. (he reads the teleprompter and subsequently the lies)
Carlson- yeah not really (dude, before you hit the reply button, make sure you typed a reply)
Bill Kristol- bwahahaha (see above)
Rove- the man is not hateful (see above)
Ingraham you mean ingrahm? (you caught me, I made a typo)
and Lou Dobbs bwahahaha (just watch some of his illegal immigrant rants)

Mr. Intellectual doesn't know what words mean? Couldn't be...
I do not have a mistrust of PhDs, I am merely not willing to give the argument of one with a PhD anymore consideration than that of someone without a PhD. Not having your love affair with professors is not the same as deeply mistrusting them. Maybe if you have read that 'daunting wall of text'... Forgive me that my thoughts cannot be summed up in four syllables...

This is the problem. That is anti-intellectual. Wait, SFTS has already pointed this out and you replied with more nonsense. nvm.

But this is just my point

Everyone should have an idea of what they know and what they don't. It was a common belief (never common sense but that's another debate) that leeches cure a fever precisely because people trusted authority without reminding themselves that the only reason they had to believe leeches worked is that doctors said so.

I don't think it is logical to apply the past in this way to the present. Technology and human knowledge has expanded dramatically. We actually know stuff for real (guys please don't nit pick me on that) and to tell a doctor to back away, I need to look at wikipedia first because I am not going to be the fool with leeches on his face is somewhat silly.

Also, at this point in the collection of human knowledge, many things that are true about the world and the universe is strikingly anti-logical. When a PhD in Physics starts talking about how light can be a wave or a tiny particle, someone who has no knowledge about the subject (average citizen) is going to either reject it or it will go over their head completely. There are quite frankly, somethings just better left to the experts and I don't see how challenging modern day established knowledge as determined by tens of thousands of individuals with PhDs (not a small collection) is going to get us any further.

So, your weatherman says that he can give you an accurate forecast a month ahead of time, would you believe him? Can't you know that he's full of it without having any special education in meteorology? I can't believe you would advocate this. If someone makes a fallacious argument and you don't have the expertise to judge the conclusion outside of the argument he made, you obviously don't accept it. It's equally obvious that the fact that someone made a bad argument for something doesn't mean the conclusion isn't true for some other reason. Who are you talking to?

Some weathermen don't have degrees and are just talking heads, most of them probably have degrees but not masters. None of them probably have PhDs. Just saying. Lots of people with degrees still don't get the issues that come with extrapolating the data too far.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

All you need to verify that he knows what he is talking about is:
A. Does he have a high level degree?
B. Where did he get his degree?

At some point you have to look at yourself and say, you know what even though I distrust people when they try to tell me what's happening maybe this PhD graduate from Harvard/USC/MIT knows his stuff and I should take him for his word.

"Daryl J. Bem (born June 10, 1938) is a social psychologist and professor emeritus at Cornell University"

A. Yes
B. Cornell University

"It is independently established on the basis of this work alone that Extra-Sensory Perception is an actual and demonstrable occurrence.”

Your move.

********

Oh, and the other, fundamental, mistake which I forgot to mention earlier. You make the assumption that expertise in a field is possible at this point in time. On what basis do you make that assumption? It's certainly true of some fields but not others. You also assume that the claim made is one in which the person truly has expertise, but the subject matter is not always so clear cut. And you assume they are free from personal bias, and you assume they have not made a mistake. These are, I'm sorry to say, preposterous assumptions to make about someone.

Ok, and the other fundamental mistake, which is equating phd with expertise. I would tend much further towards the "it takes one to know one" view of expertise...

*********

There are quite frankly, somethings just better left to the experts and I don't see how challenging modern day established knowledge as determined by tens of thousands of individuals with PhDs (not a small collection) is going to get us any further.

Ah well, this is the kind of thing tellos ended up saying. Yes this is all fine, don't dismiss expert opinion just because you don't like it, don't challenge established knowledge with a scientific consensus in a field you don't know much about, yadda yadda. But I think that says very little about a question that is very important.

The weatherman example makes the main point. I can't know what the weather will be better than him. My predictions will never match up. But, quite possibly, I can know that his prediction is worth a lot less than he thinks it is. I can know that the psychology researcher is biased in favor of his subject. I can know that the economist is defending his pet theory. I can know the political pundit is talking out of his ***. I can know that an argument is fallacious and that a conclusion is a platitude dressed up to look profound.

I think you are severely underestimating your own ability and overestimating the expertise of educated people. Instead you should think about what their knowledge makes them trustworthy on and what it doesn't.

We live in the information age. The main bonus is that we have incredible amounts of information at our fingertips--the problem is filtering it. "Accept it if they have a PhD" is an awful filter.

[Furunculus]

The Tories are the very embodiment and representation of the ruling political and economic elite of the country. It's hardly surprising that they have existed for so long! It's probably more surprising that anyone else has held power. Although when they have they've been Torified.

so what, how does this make them intellectually moribund?

you argument has two logical conclusions:
1. that despite universal sufferage the gov't are using black heicopters with mass mind control rays to bring about unrepresentative election results.
> in which case we should have a revolution
2. that despite being adults of legally sound mind the electorate are still a bunch of idiots who cannot be trusted to vote over their own governance.
> in which case create a benign technocratic dictatorship (the EU?)

i don't accept either of those argument, and nor should you.

so i am left struggling to understand how the most successful and lon-standing force in british politics can yet be intellectually moribund, with the implication that they have always been so...........

[a completely inoffensive name]

"Daryl J. Bem (born June 10, 1938) is a social psychologist and professor emeritus at Cornell University"

A. Yes
B. Cornell University



Your move.

********

Oh, and the other, fundamental, mistake which I forgot to mention earlier. You make the assumption that expertise in a field is possible at this point in time. On what basis do you make that assumption? It's certainly true of some fields but not others. You also assume that the claim made is one in which the person truly has expertise, but the subject matter is not always so clear cut. And you assume they are free from personal bias, and you assume they have not made a mistake. These are, I'm sorry to say, preposterous assumptions to make about someone.

Ok, and the other fundamental mistake, which is equating phd with expertise. I would tend much further towards the "it takes one to know one" view of expertise...

*********

Alright then, you got me. Let me back up and revise some of what I have said and rescind some other things. Can a PhD be wrong? Yes. Can PhDs be bias, yes absolutely. I didn't want to give the impression that I assumed that they are flawed. I have mentioned before that it is ok to criticize a person, but not the general consensus. However, I still hold that at this point in human progression that the general consensus of academia in a subject is now more advanced, no matter what subject whether it be physical science, social science, economics. The original point of contention that this discussion came about was Fragony rejecting all the sources that claimed that Nazism was right wing with a good dose of leftist economic policy mixed in. My original point which I don't think has been refuted is that the overall collective narrative of academia is for the most part impartial, unbiased and much more accurate and reliable then your own intuition. In the collective narrative everyone's bias and ideas are challenged and scrutinized and only the stuff that has been proven beyond all doubt gets puts in the textbook (it may not be this rigid for the social sciences but it is still pretty damn neutral). Could you look it up? Certainly, however you are not going to know 1/10th of what they know about the subject just from an entire day or week of reading wikipedia and other sources. Let's leave out the discussion of what makes someone an expert. Because you are making the point that it is to be a much more subjective than empirical manner.

In regards to how do I know expertise is possible? I am just going by the definition of expert. Someone who basic knows their stuff to a very high degree. When dealing with academic subjects, it's just likely that those who have been award high degrees for their pursuit of such knowledge would in fact, know there stuff to a high degree. Are there outliers? Yeah, you pointed one out. So criticize and debunk the individual not the consensus that is put out, which is what ultimately Fragony was doing.

Ah well, this is the kind of thing tellos ended up saying. Yes this is all fine, don't dismiss expert opinion just because you don't like it, don't challenge established knowledge with a scientific consensus in a field you don't know much about, yadda yadda. But I think that says very little about a question that is very important.

The weatherman example makes the main point. I can't know what the weather will be better than him. My predictions will never match up. But, quite possibly, I can know that his prediction is worth a lot less than he thinks it is. I can know that the psychology researcher is biased in favor of his subject. I can know that the economist is defending his pet theory. I can know the political pundit is talking out of his ***. I can know that an argument is fallacious and that a conclusion is a platitude dressed up to look profound.

I think you are severely underestimating your own ability and overestimating the expertise of educated people. Instead you should think about what their knowledge makes them trustworthy on and what it doesn't.

We live in the information age. The main bonus is that we have incredible amounts of information at our fingertips--the problem is filtering it. "Accept it if they have a PhD" is an awful filter.

I think their knowledge makes them trustworthy on bring up the facts of the subject. Of course, it is a good thing we live in the information age to check whether their interpretations are correct. I have to ask you where that quote comes from because if it came from a book he wrote then it is quite obvious that you would go into the book knowing that it is going to be his view of the facts. I really doubt you found that statement from a textbook did you?

Yes, people with PhDs are human. Perhaps I glorified them a bit too much. But active resistance to what the men with PhDs say unless you try to double check their ground breaking research with wikipedia, is in my opinion, backwards.

The problem of determining your own filter is that peoples filters imo, are worse than taking a PhD's word at face value. I might be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that suggests the public is better at gathering information for themselves then when someone sits in front of the tv or microphone and tells them what the latest findings are and what they might mean.

If all this knowledge does not amount to anything because we still have concluded that they are prejudiced, biased humans like the rest of us, then there really is nothing that makes them any more trustworthy then the regular joe. But I refuse to believe this because it is only by these prejudiced but educated humans that humanity has become better then it was 1,000 or 100 or 50 or 10 years ago. Why should I not trust the men who have made our lives better?

[al Roumi]

Don't have the time to keep up, but this appears to be Stupid Law Proposal Number Two

Good grief. Of course, weapon-handling and the ability to draw and fire from the hip are skills rather essential to the prosecution of democracy.

Even suggesting congress replace the auditorium benches with a flat field for armoured pope-mobile like dodgems would be more sensible.

[Furunculus]

your world view is tainted if anyones is. you called furnunclus and told him on that yet you meander along in your blisssfully unaware life telling people you are completely unbiased and know absolutely the political climates of the major US parties.

Why is it that every time I argue with someone right wing on this forum that isn't CR, they inflate what I am saying to mean something that I quite frankly didn't say. I said he has confirmation bias. I didn't not say he was an ignorant neanderthal living in a cave, only that his perspective is not as unbiased as he thinks. My world view is not that tainted.

you don't suffer from confirmation bias, and your view is thus pure and untainted? how nice for you, lol!

[Idaho]

so what, how does this make them intellectually moribund?

you argument has two logical conclusions:
1. that despite universal sufferage the gov't are using black heicopters with mass mind control rays to bring about unrepresentative election results.
> in which case we should have a revolution
2. that despite being adults of legally sound mind the electorate are still a bunch of idiots who cannot be trusted to vote over their own governance.
> in which case create a benign technocratic dictatorship (the EU?)

i don't accept either of those argument, and nor should you.

so i am left struggling to understand how the most successful and lon-standing force in british politics can yet be intellectually moribund, with the implication that they have always been so...........

Those are the two logical conclusions? Neither strike as very logical.

[Furunculus]

Those are the two logical conclusions? Neither strike as very logical.

how are the Tories intellectually moribund? demonstrate.

[Fragony]

It wasn't me who pulled the Godwin. The first person to bring up Hitler is the Godwin and that is Fragony, defending the right by declaring Marx and Hitler to be evil leftists. I then corrected him saying I believe most scholars place him on the right side of the spectrum. Now you are claiming that I painted Hitler on you as if it was a trump card I pulled out.

This is exactly what I am saying when I told you Vuk that you see what you want to see. The very first mention of Hitler is from Fragony doing exactly what you are claiming me, SFTS and HoreTore are doing.

I have more to say, but I have to go to a meeting and then dinner. Brb, 4 hours lol.

Did no such thing, just pointed out it's unlikely to be found on rightwingers bookshelve. Seems like he's a loony after all anyway no, we will see as things progress

@TA, I'm quite familiar with political theory, but I just don't buy them. Doesn't mean I don't understand them. Got a few theories on that btw

[Centurion1]

Why is it that every time I argue with someone right wing on this forum that isn't CR, they inflate what I am saying to mean something that I quite frankly didn't say. I said he has confirmation bias. I didn't not say he was an ignorant neanderthal living in a cave, only that his perspective is not as unbiased as he thinks. My world view is not that tainted. Considering I have subscribed to every train of political thought in my life at some point, I would say I am somewhat well rounded. Before how I was now, I was a libertarian, before that I was a nanny state socialist, before that I was a neoconservative. Universities are not really politically polarized, it all depends on where you go. You think University of Arizona is some haven for liberals and doesn't have a large proportion of conservatives? Do you know what you are talking about? No one lives like a university student? Umm reality check here dude. Everyone lives like a university student. Here in America, once you hit college you get saddled with debt and have to live under a tight budget unless you are rich. And then you graduate, get a job and live with a slightly larger budget, still saddled with debt for many years. Then you pay it off and some other problem like new furniture, a house or a medical emergency puts more debt on you. Life begins at college in many ways. If you recognize you are biased, then why not attempt to shed that bias. That should one of the important lessons to learn at uni. Let's check my list again and see where you are wrong:

Oh im sorry you decided to adhere to marxism for a few weeks so your an expert on communism you decided you were a conservative for a year and therefore you are the worlds premier expert on conservatism. This all prevents you from being the archetypal liberal who knows whats best for all of us. Furthermore your obviously an upstanding young man who doesnt have an ounce of bias in his body.

Excuse me while i go barf.

And yeah i know what im talking about. UNIVERSITY IS NOT REAL LIFE. GET OVER IT. Dorm life and even living off campus is not how life is when your out of university. Your saddled with debt unless your rich? yeah not always buddy watch your step.

want a list of liberal hate speech.

Obama
Frances Fox Piven
Richard Kirsch
roland martin
Norman Leboon
"Rev." Jeremiah Wright
Charles Barron
Michael Feingold
Spike Lee
Howard Dean
John Kerry
PETA
Farrakhan
Randi Rhodes

.........

oh an by the by theres supposedly a 2-1 difference between republicans and democrats at the university of arizona. really even environment your right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The original point of contention that this discussion came about was Fragony rejecting all the sources that claimed that Nazism was right wing with a good dose of leftist economic policy mixed in. My original point which I don't think has been refuted is that the overall collective narrative of academia is for the most part impartial, unbiased and much more accurate and reliable then your own intuition.

I haven't refuted it, I've just said it isn't important.

Have you read louis's threads where he criticizes the standard, textbook explanation of the causes of the 2nd world war? What use is it responding to him with "the overall collective narrative...etc". People criticize the collective narrative in all manner of ways, and those criticisms should be judged on their own merits. This isn't some life or death game where we have 5 seconds to push a button corresponding to the right answer. If all you know about a question is what the academic consensus is, then you don't know the answer to it.

I think their knowledge makes them trustworthy on bring up the facts of the subject. Of course, it is a good thing we live in the information age to check whether their interpretations are correct. I have to ask you where that quote comes from because if it came from a book he wrote then it is quite obvious that you would go into the book knowing that it is going to be his view of the facts. I really doubt you found that statement from a textbook did you?

Peer reviewed article. Textbooks commonly abridge and summarize badly and include wrong information.

The problem of determining your own filter is that peoples filters imo, are worse than taking a PhD's word at face value. I might be wrong, but I have seen no evidence that suggests the public is better at gathering information for themselves then when someone sits in front of the tv or microphone and tells them what the latest findings are and what they might mean.

This isn't a problem. The less you know, the more open your filter should be. Most people would be better suited to examining their own biases than watching out for the bias of the author it's true. But we're better than that.

In regards to how do I know expertise is possible? I am just going by the definition of expert. Someone who basic knows their stuff to a very high degree. When dealing with academic subjects, it's just likely that those who have been award high degrees for their pursuit of such knowledge would in fact, know there stuff to a high degree.

There are some historical periods where there are very few sources to go off of. Are there any experts on those periods? Are there any experts on happiness, truly? Or consciousness? Or curing aids? Or on making advanced weather predictions, or advanced stock market predictions?

You can know more than anyone else about a subject, and be more adept than anyone else at a skill, and still suck.

****************

If you read a book or article written by someone on a topic, they won't just make a claim. They will be making an argument and they will be trying to explain why it is correct. THAT requires much much more skill than judging the finished product. Compare composing a song or writing a book with reviewing it. And anyone with a grasp of reasoning can judge that argument.

edit: I don't know why my posts turn out this long. Anyway, there are easy concepts and subjects that don't require expertise. The stuff that is hard enough to require it is HARD--and doesn't become easy for someone just because they are educated. It is possible that it is beyond our capability as humans. It is certainly possible that our attempts at solving it can come up short. An expert economists belief about what will happen to the stock market may be the equivalent of a weathermans belief about what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now--and he may not know it. Education doesn't always lead to humility, quite the opposite. Skepticism is very important, especially since we build on top of our beliefs throughout our lives. So accepting a phd's best guess because you can't make a better one is terrible.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@TA, I'm quite familiar with political theory, but I just don't buy them. Doesn't mean I don't understand them. Got a few theories on that btw

I know you are. I was pointing out that “common sense” evaluations of expert opinions are going to differ quite heavily according to taste more than merit of the actual opinion: I used you specifically in the example because I know you have a taste for Apple products (revolutionary&magical) which I do not share.

[a completely inoffensive name]

you don't suffer from confirmation bias, and your view is thus pure and untainted? how nice for you, lol!

I constantly recognize my confirmation bias and I challenge it every day.

Do you even know why I am here, using my free time to talk to all of you? It's not because I am a masochist. I am trying to improve myself and get closer to the truth by seeking out people with different views than me and getting into arguments with them. I am putting my ignorance and my ideas out here to be ripped apart so that I might be better and more knowledgeable than everyone over time. Look at the thread where rory kindly pointed out I knew nothing about the relationship between the government and the pharma industry, you know what I did? I acknowledged my ignorance and asked him to inform me about it.

EDIT: If I knew anybody genuinely interested in politics in RL I wouldn't be on here as much.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh im sorry you decided to adhere to marxism for a few weeks so your an expert on communism you decided you were a conservative for a year and therefore you are the worlds premier expert on conservatism. This all prevents you from being the archetypal liberal who knows whats best for all of us. Furthermore your obviously an upstanding young man who doesnt have an ounce of bias in his body.

Excuse me while i go barf.

And yeah i know what im talking about. UNIVERSITY IS NOT REAL LIFE. GET OVER IT. Dorm life and even living off campus is not how life is when your out of university. Your saddled with debt unless your rich? yeah not always buddy watch your step.

want a list of liberal hate speech.

Obama
Frances Fox Piven
Richard Kirsch
roland martin
Norman Leboon
"Rev." Jeremiah Wright
Charles Barron
Michael Feingold
Spike Lee
Howard Dean
John Kerry
PETA
Farrakhan
Randi Rhodes

.........

oh an by the by theres supposedly a 2-1 difference between republicans and democrats at the university of arizona. really even environment your right.

It wasn't really a few weeks, is was more like 8-10 months. Not that much better, but I did learn a lot about the philosophy during that brief time. I am not saying I know better than him I am simply trying to strive for the objective truth here and Furn was giving me his perspective on the matter. My point I was trying to make was simply that I have always attempted to purposely go out of my way to learn as much as possible from the exact opposite side of the political spectrum. I once was a neocon who felt we needed to get rid of the liberals who want to take away our freedoms and protect the homeland. Then I got schooled by someone who knew better then me and I learned from him. Then I became a angst filled anti-capitalist teenager who wanted greed abolished from Earth. Then I got schooled by someone who knew better then me and I learned from him, etc. Fast forward 3 years and now I am a gun loving, left leaning moderate who wants to try and establish a solid foundation of public support projects while keeping the integrity of the free market in place. Now I am here getting schooled by Sasaki and everyone else here and I will learn from this. That's all I am saying. I do have a bias, I just try my best to leave it at the door so to speak when I try to make a point. Too often I simply see people who make a decision on how they want to see the world and the hold onto it for their entire life. It makes me pessimistic and frustrated.

I don't see how university is not real life. I have to get a job or go broke and become a failure. How is this not the driving motivating factor of life? To be fair, many people have their parents buy most of the stuff for them, but for many people it isn't that case.

I hope you don't think I harbor any real anger at you because you seem to be very angry right back at me. I'm sorry if I was a bit of a **** at you in my last reply.

I looked at your list and see some problems with it, however I want to see if you still have a solid point. If you could kindly give me links to something hate filled that Obama and a couple other of those people have said that would be great. This might be my bias, but I can't think of a single thing obama has said that is hate filled.

EDIT: I don't recall saying that conservatives had a majority at University of Arizona, only that they have a large proportion. 1 in 3 is a big proportion and and I am just saying I don't think you can say uni's are inherently liberal training institutions if 33% manage to self identify as conservatives in some of them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I haven't refuted it, I've just said it isn't important.

Have you read louis's threads where he criticizes the standard, textbook explanation of the causes of the 2nd world war? What use is it responding to him with "the overall collective narrative...etc". People criticize the collective narrative in all manner of ways, and those criticisms should be judged on their own merits. This isn't some life or death game where we have 5 seconds to push a button corresponding to the right answer. If all you know about a question is what the academic consensus is, then you don't know the answer to it.



Peer reviewed article. Textbooks commonly abridge and summarize badly and include wrong information.



This isn't a problem. The less you know, the more open your filter should be. Most people would be better suited to examining their own biases than watching out for the bias of the author it's true. But we're better than that.



There are some historical periods where there are very few sources to go off of. Are there any experts on those periods? Are there any experts on happiness, truly? Or consciousness? Or curing aids? Or on making advanced weather predictions, or advanced stock market predictions?

You can know more than anyone else about a subject, and be more adept than anyone else at a skill, and still suck.

****************

If you read a book or article written by someone on a topic, they won't just make a claim. They will be making an argument and they will be trying to explain why it is correct. THAT requires much much more skill than judging the finished product. Compare composing a song or writing a book with reviewing it. And anyone with a grasp of reasoning can judge that argument.

edit: I don't know why my posts turn out this long. Anyway, there are easy concepts and subjects that don't require expertise. The stuff that is hard enough to require it is HARD--and doesn't become easy for someone just because they are educated. It is possible that it is beyond our capability as humans. It is certainly possible that our attempts at solving it can come up short. An expert economists belief about what will happen to the stock market may be the equivalent of a weathermans belief about what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now--and he may not know it. Education doesn't always lead to humility, quite the opposite. Skepticism is very important, especially since we build on top of our beliefs throughout our lives. So accepting a phd's best guess because you can't make a better one is terrible.

I have read this like 6 times and I still don't have a good reply to it. I think I will have to concede here. I haven't seen Louis's posts about the causes of WW2, I don't recall a thread about that, what was the name of the thread?

[Centurion1]

t wasn't really a few weeks, is was more like 8-10 months. Not that much better, but I did learn a lot about the philosophy during that brief time. I am not saying I know better than him I am simply trying to strive for the objective truth here and Furn was giving me his perspective on the matter. My point I was trying to make was simply that I have always attempted to purposely go out of my way to learn as much as possible from the exact opposite side of the political spectrum. I once was a neocon who felt we needed to get rid of the liberals who want to take away our freedoms and protect the homeland. Then I got schooled by someone who knew better then me and I learned from him. Then I became a angst filled anti-capitalist teenager who wanted greed abolished from Earth. Then I got schooled by someone who knew better then me and I learned from him, etc. Fast forward 3 years and now I am a gun loving, left leaning moderate who wants to try and establish a solid foundation of public support projects while keeping the integrity of the free market in place. Now I am here getting schooled by Sasaki and everyone else here and I will learn from this. That's all I am saying. I do have a bias, I just try my best to leave it at the door so to speak when I try to make a point. Too often I simply see people who make a decision on how they want to see the world and the hold onto it for their entire life. It makes me pessimistic and frustrated.

I don't see how university is not real life. I have to get a job or go broke and become a failure. How is this not the driving motivating factor of life? To be fair, many people have their parents buy most of the stuff for them, but for many people it isn't that case.

I hope you don't think I harbor any real anger at you because you seem to be very angry right back at me. I'm sorry if I was a bit of a **** at you in my last reply.

I looked at your list and see some problems with it, however I want to see if you still have a solid point. If you could kindly give me links to something hate filled that Obama and a couple other of those people have said that would be great. This might be my bias, but I can't think of a single thing obama has said that is hate filled.

EDIT: I don't recall saying that conservatives had a majority at University of Arizona, only that they have a large proportion. 1 in 3 is a big proportion and and I am just saying I don't think you can say uni's are inherently liberal training institutions if 33% manage to self identify as conservatives in some of them.

The institution is liberal even if the populace is not. Now find me a number on the percentage of liberal professors.

As to something hateful Obama said. yeah it was more of a flippant addition because premier politicians usually know better and let their underlings have hateful speech but i found the bibles guns and antipathy comment quite ignorant and hateful. Sure he wasnt saying anything like break their kneecaps but it was nonetheless hateful in its own way.

and what other names do you have trouble with because trust me they have hate speech.


EDIT: ACIN i believe it was the treaty of versailles thread.

[Reenk Roink]

There are some historical periods where there are very few sources to go off of. Are there any experts on those periods? Are there any experts on happiness, truly? Or consciousness? Or curing aids? Or on making advanced weather predictions, or advanced stock market predictions?

You can know more than anyone else about a subject, and be more adept than anyone else at a skill, and still suck.

****************

If you read a book or article written by someone on a topic, they won't just make a claim. They will be making an argument and they will be trying to explain why it is correct. THAT requires much much more skill than judging the finished product. Compare composing a song or writing a book with reviewing it. And anyone with a grasp of reasoning can judge that argument.

edit: I don't know why my posts turn out this long. Anyway, there are easy concepts and subjects that don't require expertise. The stuff that is hard enough to require it is HARD--and doesn't become easy for someone just because they are educated. It is possible that it is beyond our capability as humans. It is certainly possible that our attempts at solving it can come up short. An expert economists belief about what will happen to the stock market may be the equivalent of a weathermans belief about what the weather will be like 2 weeks from now--and he may not know it. Education doesn't always lead to humility, quite the opposite. Skepticism is very important, especially since we build on top of our beliefs throughout our lives. So accepting a phd's best guess because you can't make a better one is terrible.

Your point about uncritical acceptance of PHD's from the high academy is definitely a good one, and there are few things more frustrating than dealing with that from someone in a discussion. For example, the citing of Cambpell (although many are even unaware WHO they are citing when they cite this) when discussing the similarities of the virgin birth of Mithras and that of Christ. Campbell is definitely an authority, probably still THE authority, but perhaps one can go back and see his argument and interpretation of the story of Mithras and see that calling it a virgin birth seems quite... arguable to say the least. Uncritical acceptance is only left for religious authority figures, for instance, the Pope and other authorities within the Holy Church. Nobody else is deserving (except Mom of course).

But at the same time, it must be noted as it seems to be getting lost from the point you are making, that many academic experts are certainly upfront with the limitations of their work. I've especially seen this in history, which contrasts with the co-opting of history for political purposes which is quite widespread, especially outside of academia. So you have various experts, pointing out in their prefaces quite clearly, that this locality and time period does not have a wealth of remaining evidence and the conclusions are based on certain models and reconstructions, which of course may well be totally wrong. Sure the rest of the work clearly assumes whatever was stated earlier and makes no mention of it, but academic works tend to run on as is, so that is perfectly acceptable. And of course, novelty is valued highly in western academia, so the inferences in many works tend to be a bit more liberal. Still, most scholars seem to have an idea that despite their studies being incomplete and biased in many ways, there is some benefit with continuing on. As well as the fact that ALL human intellectual endeavors can be characterized with the same deficiencies.

These people are not called experts because they have actually mastered all that there is to know in their field. They are called experts because they know somewhere near as much as a person can know within the particulars of their field at the current time.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree, an upfront acknowledgment of the limitations of their work and spending time perhaps discussing the criticisms of it are two of the biggest things I look for. Or at least, that general honest attitude.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I agree, an upfront acknowledgment of the limitations of their work and spending time perhaps discussing the criticisms of it are two of the biggest things I look for. Or at least, that general honest attitude.

THATS GAY YOUR A HOMOSEXAUL THE TWO BIGGEST THINGS I LOOK FOR ARE SOMETHING ELSE YES SIREE....





Edit: I'll go get my medication its wearing off I see...

Edit2: But first I'm going to perform my moderator duties in the Monastery.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another 'cause' for the shooting; not guns or speeches, but pot!

After horrific shootings, we hear calls for stricter regulation of guns. The Tucson shooting should remind us why we regulate marijuana.

Jared Lee Loughner, the man held as the Tucson shooter, has been described by those who know as a “pot smoking loner.”

He had two encounters with the law, one for possession of drug paraphanalia.

We are also learning that Loughner exhibited signs of severe mental illness, very likely schizophrenia.

The connection between marijuana and schizophrenia is both controversial and complicated.

CR

[Megas Methuselah]

Lots of hate. Don`t hate.

[PanzerJaeger]

I lost interest in this thread about two pages ago when it succumbed to Godwin so forgive me if this has already been posted, but here is a new video shot by the killer.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I lost interest in this thread about two pages ago when it succumbed to Godwin so forgive me if this has already been posted, but here is a new video shot by the killer.

Disturbing. I see what that fellow student of his meant when she said that she would sit close to the door, bag in hand, ready to make a run for it, whenever she shared a class with this guy.


I wonder...
If there had been a sustained agressive campaign against teachers, their takeover of America, the 'unconstitutionality' of schools - would Jared Lee Loughner have gone on a college rampage?Another Virginia Tech?



Also, I see people like this all of the time, which is a frightening thought. Brrr...

Their ramblings, so confusing to me, but making perfect sense to them. Never do they accept or understand that their ramblings are not understood by other people.
That sense of knowing more than others, of seeing through the system, of intellectual superiority, not mitigated by any sense of realistic assesment. Their conspirational thinking. Their contempt, their looking down on others. Their despise, anger at all who are part of the conspiracy.

They keep themselves in check with some revenge thought: they 'will go to the papers and then once the truth is out - oh boy!'. Or they harbour violent fantasies. They are ticking bombs.

[Fragony]

Another 'cause' for the shooting; not guns or speeches, but pot!



CR

Well at least it will be absolutely unthinkable that this story gets any more attention in teh quality press here at least, various knowledgionists must feel kinda stupid banging that drum

ps Palin is still guilty of inciting violence, among others

[Furunculus]

I constantly recognize my confirmation bias and I challenge it every day.

Do you even know why I am here, using my free time to talk to all of you? It's not because I am a masochist. I am trying to improve myself and get closer to the truth by seeking out people with different views than me and getting into arguments with them. I am putting my ignorance and my ideas out here to be ripped apart so that I might be better and more knowledgeable than everyone over time. Look at the thread where rory kindly pointed out I knew nothing about the relationship between the government and the pharma industry, you know what I did? I acknowledged my ignorance and asked him to inform me about it.

EDIT: If I knew anybody genuinely interested in politics in RL I wouldn't be on here as much.

while that is very touching, and agreeable as a personality trait, what is not so agreeable is that you do not even consider the fact that others in this forum might be doing exactly that same thing.

[HoreTore]

others in this forum might be doing exactly that same thing.

*raises hand*

[Furunculus]

permission to speak in class................

[a completely inoffensive name]

while that is very touching, and agreeable as a personality trait, what is not so agreeable is that you do not even consider the fact that others in this forum might be doing exactly that same thing.

It is true I never did, I apologize for not taking that into consideration.

[Furunculus]

apology accepted, i too come to this forum precisely because i am challenged by viewpoints moulded in very different environmental settings.