Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Comment of the Day

Headline:
Students told term ‘be a man’ represents toxic masculinity
From the comments:
"What about masculine women? Are the toxic?
Bonus Headline:
High schooler records teacher’s racism lecture: ‘To be white is to be racist, period’

6 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Stan, did you see this yet:

The Skeptic Zone: Silencing The Opposition

Apparently, IMS (or Im going to attack anyone who bans me) thought it was your turn that day to be attacked.

He seems to rotate. One day, it is you. Then the next, Victor Reppert of DI. Then, on another day, he will attack Crude from Crude Ideas. He also thinks that Joe Hinman is a liar.

Stan said...

Both IMS and Hugo refuse to address their logic fallacies. It's as simple as that. IMS is a pretender. He pretends to understand science, but obviously has no education in it. Then he criticizes those who have actually had such courses at the graduate level, as if he is the final word. Hugo is the same way, but courteous. By constant refusal to acknowledge obvious logic fallacies, he takes an untenable position permanently, and locks the conversation into an infinite loop - circular and dependent upon such "principles" as Appeal to Authority, rather than actual analysis. Infinite loops (circularity founded in opinion) degrade rapidly into whoever speaks last, gets the 'win'. And that's where it goes, when fallacies are considered acceptable.

A conversation based on the "win" is anti-rational. And anti-rational, anti-logic (Aristotelian) is the entire basis that those folks base their worldviews upon.

I saw that one of the IMS fans claims that many "logics" apply - apparently to be switched in, whenever needed to defeat rational Aristotelian logic. That is a firm indicator of the necessary defense of a narrative over any value of discrimination toward truth.

JBsptfn said...

Well said. Yeah, he thinks that he is the gatekeeper of science or something. He told Don McIntosh (member of the CADRE) on his blog that Hinman's book (The Trace of God) was pseudo-scientific BS (the reason that Skep was banned from Joe's sites was because he was trashing TTOG).

Also, a few years ago, he was upset on Reppert's blog (DI) because people believed in the Resurrection of Jesus (which he believes is anti-scientific to the core).

yonose said...

Hello everyone!!

I know this is nothing more than my irrational wording of a worldview, but, I'm afraid is not far from reality.

Is it not just weird and simultaneously funny to see too many narcissists congregated in teh tubes, and congregated in conventions, conferences, different blogospheres which work as the echo chambers of unfettered stupidity, and so on and so forth??

You know, every single time I think of it, I can't help but to think that the radicalisms proposed for a philosophy of science, in relation with materialism, positivism, and so on, has had become quite detrimental for the advancement of science.

Paradigmatic fortresses are formed because a dominant, philosophical worldview is taking over science. Whether is religious fundamentalism, or Agnosticism or Atheism, it does not matter. Fundies are Fundies. I just lost the count of how many Atheists old and New, tend to emotionally appraise themselves in the indulgence of thinking that mainstream religions are the cause of stagnation of science, well just because personal prejudices. Honesty regarding those is not enough of a pleasure to reckon with.

Look what we see in modern -and especially, postmodern- times regarding the "advancement" of science. Both are still full of their own bullshit.

The "progress" of science in modern days was a about the two world wars and the empirical process of dealing with economic depressions and ideological struggles, which lead to scientific and technological progress.

It is still not decided from more than four QM interpretations which is the most idoneous. String Theory is still not the best model to describe reality, on top of the Standard Model. And the Higgs mechanism?? I really don't know where to start to see how is it empirically feasible. Maybe it's not.

Gauge Invariance does not count for the solution of non-homogeneous Maxwell-Heaviside equations in classical electrodynamics --e.g. the need to use FDTD method--, and does a disservice to Quantum Electrodynamics as well, by using Hilbert spaces and transforms for the development of its Hamiltionian equation, ignoring the resting mass of the photon and photon-electron energy exchange.

Para-Medicine and anestesiology made huge leaps because of the wars, but, something as ancient and effective as ayurveda was left behind. Most pharmaceuticals come from where??

Plants!! yes, effing Plants!! Algae!! Fungi!!

So the usage of raw ingredients with the purpose of people's welfare, in addition to the transpersonal experiences needed to heal people, which should not be reduced to placebo/nocebo effect only, are then so viciously repressed in favor of such a flawed ideology.

Evidence-Based Medicine has its good points, but at the expense of distorting the relationship of treating people as human beings, instead of guinea pigs. Examinations and examinations and diagnostics, but "barbaric cures" that kill rather and heal.

Devoutly religious materialists were also behind the scheme of treating Chiropraxis and Physiotherapy as methods which were emprically proved to the useful for us people.

They make their own whitch hunting for ideas they do not like. Rupert Sheldrake is another famous example of a PhD in Molecular Biology which had to be "excommunicated" from "the priesthood of the church of science".

Even Thomas Nagel, and atheist philosopher, with his book:

"Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"

Does he give you a clue, doesn't it?

CONTINUE IN THE CONTINUUM :) -->

yonose said...

Atheism from modern times, has almost always been about narcissism and disrespect, prejuices and disrespect of different worldviews. Not about some rational irreverence in a world that desperately needs change.

The ones who themselves believe they are open minded, which also are the closest minded individual in this planet --obviously not everyone, Thomas Nagel is in himself, a good example of an Atheist I surely admire--, but sadly, like most human beings, are closed-minded, with the addition of name calling and pretensions of being the self-annointed guards of "science".

Well,

I've been working recently in the health sector, and I'm sometimes appaled to see some physicians which need a life lesson or two from people way younger than themselves because of their self-righteous attitude. A medic MUST have good social skills to work with people, and many medical skeptics lack those skills, and are so arrogant and smug in their answers when nurses are proved right.

Anyway, people should remember!!

Science is not about the projection of personal prejudices, but there is a risk somebody or some group of people will take over and another paradigmatic fortress will erect from the ashes, as we see right now in almost any field, that not only leaves people jobless, but sliently kills them if some progress is done.

Kind Regards.

yonose said...

Correction!!

Devout Materialists did NOT want the field of Chriopraxis and Physiotherapy to proper!!

Even though those theories --like homeopathy-- were rather sloppy by themselves, in some cases, homeopathy, and in many cases, Chiropraxis and Physiotherapy have shown to be effective, taking into consideration more than the control of any placebo effect.

I still see philosophical materialism, as another ideology which is quite detrimental to Science.

Kind Regards (again!!)