Dutch on islam

[Beskar]

Identity is not "manufactured" in a vacuum, it is constructed by a living society.

Just as the individual chooses what to forget and what to remember when constructing their identity - likewise the society of which they are a part.

Correct, but that is exactly what I am meaning.

From what it appears from your view, Society implies some sort of super-authority for being correct, however society is very much influenced by the media and the resources around us and if anything, the minority.

Using your own example, people tend to forget about how it is Scotland which wanted the union with England and how it was a Scottish King upon joint thrones, it simply does not fit the political agenda of those such as the SNP or those with grievances against Westminster, who overplay the time of Edward Longshanks and a certain Mel Gibson movie. It is the efforts of the vocal minority which pushes these concepts upon a far more passive-majority.

So whilst you are suggesting there is a somewhat overarching majority which stifles those of the minority, it is the opposite, it is the minority which stifles those of the majority and shifts its position.

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

[The Stranger]

Correct, but that is exactly what I am meaning.

From what it appears from your view, Society implies some sort of super-authority for being correct, however society is very much influenced by the media and the resources around us and if anything, the minority.

Using your own example, people tend to forget about how it is Scotland which wanted the union with England and how it was a Scottish King upon joint thrones, it simply does not fit the political agenda of those such as the SNP or those with grievances against Westminster, who overplay the time of Edward Longshanks and a certain Mel Gibson movie. It is the efforts of the vocal minority which pushes these concepts upon a far more passive-majority.

So whilst you are suggesting there is a somewhat overarching majority which stifles those of the minority, it is the opposite, it is the minority which stifles those of the majority and shifts its position.

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

you are as much indoctrinated, you just dont realize it. ofcourse, if you would, you wouldnt have been properly indoctrinated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though to counter your friend, this is not an opinion based or rooted by indoctrination,. This is a more an objective view with in light with the psychological process works.

It was William Temple - and there is no such thing as an "objective" view. You're a mod, not a God.

[Papewaio]

there is no such thing as an "objective" view.

I think that is an opinion, not a fact.

[HopAlongBunny]

So, speaking philosophically,
The objective viewpoint
Can and cannot be?

(to butcher a Python line which is much more clever:p)

[Beskar]

Response: "Yes, I agree" "No, I disagree", "I haven't decided yet", "You either agree, disagree or not currently not made up your mind on this issue".

The last one is the objective point, where it is more illustrating about the responses and facts, not simply an opinion on an issue.

[The Stranger]

I think that is an opinion, not a fact.

facts never have truth value, they are assigned such value after interpretation. it is not a matter of fact, but neither is it an opinion. it is pretty much the fundamental cornerstone of your perception on which you base all your other opinions (even though chronologically you probably had opinions before you had knowledge of this cornerstone, which may be odd, or may not be if it was just implicit all along before you realised it).

and quite frankly debate is almost always going to be fruitless if you both debate from the different viewpoint of a certain foundational proposition and are not willing or capable (if it is even really possible) to go beyond it, or actually to go back, behind it.

[Papewaio]

Don't be too serious. The objective point of view is based on facts.

Therefore if one objects to the objective point of view (pun well intended) one is left with what? Opinions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that is an opinion, not a fact.

That would be true - which in no way devalues my point. Basically, we don't know anything. You could cling to a false concept of objectivity, or you could accept that and view it as a call to tolerance and an open mind.

[Papewaio]

I don't think we absolutely know anything.

I do think some of our assumptions have more data points then others, so some things we can be more certain of.

We can use hindsight to generate a probable foresight.

Of course this assumes our senses and the way our brain makes sense of them reflect the world around us with some accuracy and it isn't all an illusion.

I'm also very certain that those who say there is no reality nor no probable objective truth can be caught out by their own actions over something as mundane as a cup of coffee.

[The Stranger]

We can use hindsight to generate a probable foresight.

that would be induction which has been sufficiently been problematized (actually just downright been proven to be irrational), by goodmans paradox, to be treated/used with caution. atleast in theory, ofcourse its quite pragmatic and i guess thats why its still widely used.

[Papewaio]

I will take an entrenched position and use science with a probalistic model which predicts a law like model with the chance of error included.

I do not think ;) Goodman's paradox negates scientific induction, it merely outlines that not all data sets lend themselves to induction ie All swans are white.

[The Stranger]

touche? :p

(what method of justification would you use then for that probabilistic model? That of Bayes?)

[Papewaio]

Using deduction you might find a better fit then I.

I see scientists a bit like F1 drivers. Sure they can fang their cars around an ideal track but you can't really take them off road nor expect them to be experts about what is under the hood. Having said the we are dealing with models so it is closer to toy cars that we are testing.

Philosophers deal with defining the car engines and the universe is much larger then the models that science uses.

Science that I'm used to starts with a position that any theory can be proved wrong. That models are predictive but not absolute. That whilst we use data sets to predict the future here is inherent limits based on using statistical analysis. The most obvious being to make 100% predictions would require all data points to be known ie you'd need every data point which includes now, past and present to get a 100% prediction. But if you have every data point you don't need a model you have the entire set.

So any system that assumes the scientific model is an absolute is missing one of the key points of science. Science is about making predictive models which by definition are neither absolute nor the entire thing. Maybe if we could slide around time like we can with space we would use a different method or at least one which we can test easier by jumping to future events.

I operate under the assumption that until proven wrong model works. That the current models can be proven wrong. That they can be tested and that they can be replaced. That IFF we knew everything there would be no place for science.

[Zarakas]

Using deduction you might find a better fit then I.

I see scientists a bit like F1 drivers. Sure they can fang their cars around an ideal track but you can't really take them off road nor expect them to be experts about what is under the hood. Having said the we are dealing with models so it is closer to toy cars that we are testing.

Philosophers deal with defining the car engines and the universe is much larger then the models that science uses.

Science that I'm used to starts with a position that any theory can be proved wrong. That models are predictive but not absolute. That whilst we use data sets to predict the future here is inherent limits based on using statistical analysis. The most obvious being to make 100% predictions would require all data points to be known ie you'd need every data point which includes now, past and present to get a 100% prediction. But if you have every data point you don't need a model you have the entire set.

So any system that assumes the scientific model is an absolute is missing one of the key points of science. Science is about making predictive models which by definition are neither absolute nor the entire thing. Maybe if we could slide around time like we can with space we would use a different method or at least one which we can test easier by jumping to future events.

I operate under the assumption that until proven wrong model works. That the current models can be proven wrong. That they can be tested and that they can be replaced. That IFF we knew everything there would be no place for science.

Is phsycology a science?

In my opinion, humanity's history and humanity's future will be determined by the nature and outcomes of human phsycology.

Hence, i believe history repeats itself. The only difference being the technology of the day.

[Papewaio]

Humans history and future is tied to our psychology which is tied to our nature and our environment. We change our environment with our technology. We are also embarking on changing our nature with pharma and DNA technology.

Problem is no matter how good our psychology understanding it is only a small blip of time and entities in the universe. So whilst it will give some measure of our inner 'verse it won't help define post-humans or if they exist aliens very well.

Psychology as a science has less data points and it is considered unethical to gather more in a lot of instances ie purposely separate twins at birth and raise them in distinctly different environments across multiple sets. So it operates with one hand tied behind its back. No one thinks of the trauma to molecules if we separate them post manufacture.

[Empire*Of*Media]

i couldnt read all the posts but,
i dont think immigration from islamic countries must be banned, because most are not extreme or most are from like my country Kurdistan that dont bring their ISLAM into europe! because they want to only live in free!
i think its better to not to let muslims have their disgusting and insulting hejab in europe or letting new mosques and any islamic law like killing or stoning women for only have not Hejab or touching a man!