Empiricism and Inequality

Not quite philosophy discussions, debates, various thought experiments and other topics of interest.

Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 12th, 2015, 4:55 pm 

Daktoria » Wed Aug 12, 2015 3:49 pm wrote:
mtbturtle » August 11th, 2015, 4:06 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:32 pm wrote:What does a source have to do with anything?


Understanding what you are talking about. Where your ideas came from. They might just be clearer than you've been.

|
Honestly, you come off as a wise guy at this point. Anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows that people don't keep track of everything they've read.


Ok I'm done. I tried to be polite and ask you questions about what you meant and was even willing to read some background materials if they were available but I don't need the insults and attitude.



On top of that, anyone who's literate and has read an abundance of literature knows there are certain concepts you understand the gist of over time. You don't cite everything.


Since you are using an idosyncratic definition it is up to you to supply that definition and to make an argument about why the rest of us should abandon the standard definition and adopt yours. So far there has been no such analysis or argument offered and we had to pull a simple definition out of you.

next time you question others' literacy here expect to be banned.

The rest is just a screed about academics. In fact that is how most of these threads comes across and since you are resorting to personal insults perhaps it's time I close it down.


I'm not questioning your literacy there. I'm saying that people who read have lives. They don't just dedicate their time, energy, and attention to keeping records about where they've accumulated ideas.

Your expectation of citations is very unrealistic.


No it isn't and I don't remember where I picked up this unique definition of empiricism, rather than the tirade would have been more appropriate.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 5:18 pm 

How is it realistic to expect people to cite everything they've ever learned?
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 5:25 pm 

I mean the bottomline is people aren't gods. People have limited attention spans. They learn, and then they apply what they learn in their lives.

If you expect people to cite everything they've ever learned, then you're holding people back from applying what they learn in the real world. You're basically saying that people need to maintain a permanent catalog in their minds of where they found information. They wouldn't be entitled to use their minds temporarily.

Don't get me wrong. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, if people always learned about concepts along with a narrative behind those concepts, then yea, it would be realistic. People would be expected to respect those who discovered concepts, and how they discovered them...

...but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where people learn objectively, not subjectively. We don't teach people the story behind concepts. We just teach people concepts.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 12th, 2015, 5:27 pm 

Daktoria » Wed Aug 12, 2015 4:18 pm wrote:How is it realistic to expect people to cite everything they've ever learned?


I did not ask you any such thing.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 12th, 2015, 5:33 pm 

Daktoria, I don't remember the exact citations of every fact I ever learned either, but if I make a statement of fact and someone asks for a reference, I am obliged to make some effort to find one, or else be willing to concede the point at hand. We are all confounded by your definition so we would be interested to see where you got it from and what the justification is for defining empiricism in that way. So, you can make some effort to find one or a few sources which lead you to develop this definition, or you can say ok guys, maybe you don't define empiricism the same as I do, so let's agree on a definition for the purposes of this conversation.

At this point it's rather like me claiming that all oranges are rotten on the inside, but as the conversation goes on it turns out that all the oranges I've ever seen are ones I've picked out of a dumpster. We would like to know if your definition happens to be sourced from a proverbial dumpster.

Edit: Also, this is from the PCF forum guidelines:

a) When you assert a position on something, you must be prepared to demonstrate basic scholarship behind that position. It's okay if you aren't prepared to write a review article, but you should be prepared to provide up to date references beyond wikipedia or a blog.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 5:55 pm 

mtbturtle » August 12th, 2015, 4:27 pm wrote:
Daktoria » Wed Aug 12, 2015 4:18 pm wrote:How is it realistic to expect people to cite everything they've ever learned?


I did not ask you any such thing.


People don't know in advance which things they know have to be cited versus which they don't. If you expect someone to cite something, then you expose everything someone knows to having to be cited.

Some things are obvious like concrete evidence, but abstract concepts are things we eventually take for granted. We apply them in our lives, and anticipate that others will just get what we're talking about.

When others don't get what we're talking about, we aren't supposed to have to cite what concepts mean. We're supposed to construct consensus by discussing the ideas themselves.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 6:05 pm 

Paralith » August 12th, 2015, 4:33 pm wrote:Daktoria, I don't remember the exact citations of every fact I ever learned either, but if I make a statement of fact and someone asks for a reference, I am obliged to make some effort to find one, or else be willing to concede the point at hand. We are all confounded by your definition so we would be interested to see where you got it from and what the justification is for defining empiricism in that way. So, you can make some effort to find one or a few sources which lead you to develop this definition, or you can say ok guys, maybe you don't define empiricism the same as I do, so let's agree on a definition for the purposes of this conversation.

At this point it's rather like me claiming that all oranges are rotten on the inside, but as the conversation goes on it turns out that all the oranges I've ever seen are ones I've picked out of a dumpster. We would like to know if your definition happens to be sourced from a proverbial dumpster.

Edit: Also, this is from the PCF forum guidelines:

a) When you assert a position on something, you must be prepared to demonstrate basic scholarship behind that position. It's okay if you aren't prepared to write a review article, but you should be prepared to provide up to date references beyond wikipedia or a blog.


Well yes, that's where the line gets drawn on citations. Concrete evidence needs to be cited so we know that indeed it's true. Just because someone says so doesn't make it true, and yes, people can have questionable methods.

Abstract concepts are different. There is no concrete benchmark that tells us what a concept must be. When discussing ideas, we need to understand that there is no need for a word to be followed by other words. The definition of a word is a process, not just a result.

When people are disputing how a word is defined, that is something which must be discussed then and there. People are welcome to repeat how a word is defined from a source if they're willing to, but merely citing a definition is an illogical appeal to authority. Just because a source claims an idea to be something doesn't make it so.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Paralith on August 12th, 2015, 6:28 pm 

....well gosh Daktoria, I'm so glad you agree that definitions need to be discussed. So, let's discuss it!

And no, a single source claiming a certain idea is not a guarantee that the idea is correct and True. Which is why that's not what the guidelines say, and not what I said. When we have a source, we can evaluate it. We can discuss it. We can provide further sources, or even counter sources, and discuss them. Because a conversation isn't going to go very far if one of the members just says "No, all oranges are rotten! ALL OF THEM!" again and again. Or if someone counters with, "Oranges at the grocery store aren't rotten." And the response is "Those aren't REAL oranges!" etc.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3039
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 12th, 2015, 9:35 pm 

Paralith » August 12th, 2015, 5:28 pm wrote:....well gosh Daktoria, I'm so glad you agree that definitions need to be discussed. So, let's discuss it!

And no, a single source claiming a certain idea is not a guarantee that the idea is correct and True. Which is why that's not what the guidelines say, and not what I said. When we have a source, we can evaluate it. We can discuss it. We can provide further sources, or even counter sources, and discuss them. Because a conversation isn't going to go very far if one of the members just says "No, all oranges are rotten! ALL OF THEM!" again and again. Or if someone counters with, "Oranges at the grocery store aren't rotten." And the response is "Those aren't REAL oranges!" etc.


Right. That's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Really, I'm not trying to be difficult here. I'm just trying to discuss the essence of empiricism. That's why I keep focusing on the flow of time in the discovery of evidence. Yes, we learn about facts in reality from experience, but that's only part of the picture.

I mean it's really annoying when people say, "Give me a dictionary definition, or else you're wrong."

Sorry, but dictionaries don't encapsulate the entirety of what a word really means. Yea, they're a nice introduction, but that's it. We don't stop where we started.

Likewise, we could compare and contrast a bunch of dictionaries, but that still doesn't dig deeper at what we're discussing. Are Oxford, Cambridge, and Webster really the end all to be all of language?
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 12th, 2015, 9:48 pm 

Thank you Daktoria. I have argued for a long time that people should be forced to use words within the constraints of the commonly accepted meanings, usually without much success. You have made my point in flaming trails across the sky by asserting your right to use words any way you want and to not even tell people how you are using them. Thank you.

But, since I am old and do not have an infinite number of years to waste deciding whether a particular exhalation is a breath of fresh air or merely a fart, I have no further wish to discuss any of this nonsense. Good day.
CanadysPeak
 
Lomax liked this post


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby BadgerJelly on August 13th, 2015, 5:40 am 

If any of you know anything about philosophy in general it is that it is not constrained by concrete definitions when it comes to word use. What the difficulty of philosophy is is being able to understand how someone is using a word and to apply their use of it over your, or other common usage.

It is a two way street. Daktoria will probably find that stating as clearly as possible what his/her point is without using the term "empiricism" may help in others understanding of what is being said.

Philosophy is most certainly not a case of looking for a dictionary to understand something.

I have had disagreements here in the past about something as simple as "belief" and gone on to show how various different philosophers have seen fit to use the term. There is certainly a need to use a common meaning for some words or we'd take forever reading something. It should be appreciated that any word can be used in a unique way if the author requires it. All too often assumptions are made on both sides about what is being said. We can refer back to philosophical definitions to help guide us (and there is rarely one meaning to a term in philosophical history).

Daktoria -

I am not sure what your point is here. Can you sum it up and steer clear of using the term "empiricism" in order to reduce the confusion?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5602
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby mtbturtle on August 13th, 2015, 6:29 am 

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words" - Orwell

"philosophical analysis doesn’t get off the ground unless we are reasonably clear on what it is that we are talking about. Indeed, much of philosophical analysis aims at clarifying concepts and their relations." -Pigliucci

"Everything that can be said can be said clearly" - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Philosophy 's task is “to make [thoughts] clear and to give them sharp boundaries”. Wittgenstein
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 9742
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 13th, 2015, 6:38 am 

Badger, I do like to deceive myself from time to time that I know a piddling something of philosophy, but not really so much. What I do know is that language matters. In some instances, calling a thing by its correct name is a matter of life or death, but usually only a matter of our ability to empathize, understand, enjoy, or interact. Who would ever stare with rapture at van Gogh's Light Pollution at the Nuthouse? People may use words as they wish; I in turn may choose to not hear.
CanadysPeak
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Natural ChemE on August 13th, 2015, 7:41 am 

Daktoria,

Paralith wasn't asking you to cite a dictionary. She was asking you to provide any definition so long as it allows us to figure out what your statements about "empiricism" mean.

We've been asking for a definition for much of the thread. Without knowing what you mean by "empiricism", your statements are essentially meaningless. Normally readers infer definitions from usage and context, but we all seem to be unable to infer a definition for "empiricism" that would make what you've written make sense.

Your writing is unintelligible for lack of obvious meaning, so please clarify by providing the definition for "empiricism" that you've used when making statements with it.
Natural ChemE
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: 28 Dec 2009


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Positor on August 13th, 2015, 8:36 am 

Here is Wikipedia's statement of A. D. de Groot's empirical cycle. Note the importance of continual testing.

I wonder if Daktoria's understanding of "empiricism" agrees with this.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 13th, 2015, 12:28 pm 

CanadysPeak » August 12th, 2015, 8:48 pm wrote:Thank you Daktoria. I have argued for a long time that people should be forced to use words within the constraints of the commonly accepted meanings, usually without much success. You have made my point in flaming trails across the sky by asserting your right to use words any way you want and to not even tell people how you are using them. Thank you.

But, since I am old and do not have an infinite number of years to waste deciding whether a particular exhalation is a breath of fresh air or merely a fart, I have no further wish to discuss any of this nonsense. Good day.


No, I haven't argued that at all. Words don't mean anything you want. The point is definitions of words have foundations, and there are implications from those foundations. The definition of empiricism starts with the foundation of how we experience facts in reality in the discovery of evidence, but the implication of that foundation is understanding the flow of time in how we discover that evidence. We aren't gods who take snapshots of reality all at once. We take samples over time, and while we take samples, we live our lives and make decisions with the samples that we take (which leads to the problems I'm describing in this discussion). This is a universal condition that applies to all people regardless of our particular perspectives on reality.

On the other hand, this doesn't entitle us to claim that empiricism is something totally different like panpsychism. That would be uncivil deconstruction.

Likewise, we have to be careful about "commonly accepted meanings." Sometimes, people imply specific results from the general foundations of words. For example, many empiricists are also emotivists because they acknowledge emotions as a natural experience that's evident following the discovery of facts in reality. They are also populists because they acknowledge some emotions as more common than others. They are also coherentists because they acknowledge some emotions are more coherent with each other than others.

Obviously, these implications are problematic because while it's plurally common that people have emotions, that people can have common emotions, and that people can have emotions that cohere, it is NOT UNIVERSALLY common that these conditions exist. Therefore, the definition of empiricism would become prejudiced.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 13th, 2015, 12:36 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 13th, 2015, 4:40 am wrote:If any of you know anything about philosophy in general it is that it is not constrained by concrete definitions when it comes to word use. What the difficulty of philosophy is is being able to understand how someone is using a word and to apply their use of it over your, or other common usage.

It is a two way street. Daktoria will probably find that stating as clearly as possible what his/her point is without using the term "empiricism" may help in others understanding of what is being said.

Philosophy is most certainly not a case of looking for a dictionary to understand something.

I have had disagreements here in the past about something as simple as "belief" and gone on to show how various different philosophers have seen fit to use the term. There is certainly a need to use a common meaning for some words or we'd take forever reading something. It should be appreciated that any word can be used in a unique way if the author requires it. All too often assumptions are made on both sides about what is being said. We can refer back to philosophical definitions to help guide us (and there is rarely one meaning to a term in philosophical history).

Daktoria -

I am not sure what your point is here. Can you sum it up and steer clear of using the term "empiricism" in order to reduce the confusion?


The point is very simple.

Empiricism involves discovering evidence by experiencing facts in reality. As empirical people, we discover facts over time.

As people in society, we experience facts discernibly (albeit not distinctly since we coexist) from each other within our own lifetimes.

An equal society must acknowledge people's discernible lifetimes where each one gets treated with respect.

Empiricism leads to inequality in society because empirical equality inevitably tells some people that they must give parts of their lifetimes to others just to discover facts. It doesn't let everyone in society remain in charge of their own lifetimes. Instead it lets some people take charge of others' lifetimes.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 13th, 2015, 12:49 pm 

mtbturtle » August 13th, 2015, 5:29 am wrote:"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words" - Orwell

"philosophical analysis doesn’t get off the ground unless we are reasonably clear on what it is that we are talking about. Indeed, much of philosophical analysis aims at clarifying concepts and their relations." -Pigliucci

"Everything that can be said can be said clearly" - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Philosophy 's task is “to make [thoughts] clear and to give them sharp boundaries”. Wittgenstein


Exactly. My point here is to sharpen the definition of empiricism by taking it a step further than simply acknowledging how we discover evidence by experiencing facts in reality. We must clarify what it means to discover evidence as people in reality. Therefore, we must acknowledge how evidence is discovered over time, and how different people live within discernible lifetimes.

Claiming that the problem here is simply a matter of insufficient resource allocation towards discovering facts in reality ignores the very reality of the world we live in. Where are those resources supposed to come from? How is it equal to claim that some people must give up their time so others can use it to discover more facts?
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 13th, 2015, 12:58 pm 

Positor » August 13th, 2015, 7:36 am wrote:Here is Wikipedia's statement of A. D. de Groot's empirical cycle. Note the importance of continual testing.

I wonder if Daktoria's understanding of "empiricism" agrees with this.


Right, that's obvious.

The point is how do we apply that to society? Different people will come up with different observations, hypotheses, testing methods, and evaluations. We need to understand the difference between practicing empiricism as individuals versus comparing that practice among individuals.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby BadgerJelly on August 14th, 2015, 1:03 am 

I do not think equality is possible in an absolute sense. We try to move towards equality if it benefits us. In any society there will be more freedom for some than for others.

There are many ways to approach this problem. We could suggest dividing like people with like people. Although I imagine that some people would be against this and thetefore left out of this scheme.

We can only approach the idea of equality not meet it. It then becomes a question of what comprimises are best ... and we are back at square one trying to discern what comprimises suit the najority.

The pursuit of equality will always lead to some being better off than others. The majority will rule and the minority will try and rock the boat.

Our personal freedom is always constrained by the society wr live in. Freedom is slavery ;)

Empathy is something that helps the idea of equality along. Empathy only reaches as far as our knowledge of others does.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5602
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 14th, 2015, 1:02 pm 

BadgerJelly » August 14th, 2015, 12:03 am wrote:I do not think equality is possible in an absolute sense. We try to move towards equality if it benefits us. In any society there will be more freedom for some than for others.

There are many ways to approach this problem. We could suggest dividing like people with like people. Although I imagine that some people would be against this and thetefore left out of this scheme.

We can only approach the idea of equality not meet it. It then becomes a question of what comprimises are best ... and we are back at square one trying to discern what comprimises suit the najority.

The pursuit of equality will always lead to some being better off than others. The majority will rule and the minority will try and rock the boat.

Our personal freedom is always constrained by the society wr live in. Freedom is slavery ;)

Empathy is something that helps the idea of equality along. Empathy only reaches as far as our knowledge of others does.


In a sense, that's right. We need to understand that equality is a matter of relating with our peers. That doesn't mean everyone lives the same absolute way of life. It means understanding how people go about living our lives, and protecting that faculty. Some have more freedom no differently from how some birds can fly higher and faster than others. Nature confines us, but that still doesn't mean we're not free. We compromise in understanding how nature confines different people differently.

The majority in a sense is enslaved to civic responsibility where we make sure that people don't push their natural constraints upon others. The point is to depend on the majority because those of us who are civil understand that any of us could be targeted by pushers. If I push my natural constraints upon another, it's your duty to stand up for another because you could be in another's shoes. You empathize with who I'm pushing because of your sense of the other.

The point of empiricism here is to understand how people are exploring facts in reality within their own lifetimes. They explore their own natural constraints, and when they choose to do so, they cooperate in actualizing their potential within them. A civil society respects experimental design in the course of people discovering the evidence of those natural constraints...

...but we mustn't allow people to push their experiments upon others. Responsible government has to be rational so the people can be empirical in their own lifetimes. That way people aren't lived vicariously through by others' lifetimes.
Daktoria
 
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby vivian maxine on August 14th, 2015, 1:11 pm 

I used to tell my students: Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you don't prevent others doing as they please.

But there are limits to that, plus we know it doesn't always work that way. Too many push the philosophy "My Way", while others push some very strange "My Way's" - ways that common sense tell us cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. And sometimes granting new freedoms backfires on us - right to own a gun? There is no perfect solution.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2823
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby doogles on August 14th, 2015, 6:37 pm 

vivian maxine wrote:I used to tell my students: Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you don't prevent others doing as they please.

But there are limits to that, plus we know it doesn't always work that way. Too many push the philosophy "My Way", while others push some very strange "My Way's" - ways that common sense tell us cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. And sometimes granting new freedoms backfires on us - right to own a gun? There is no perfect solution.


I think we all agree that because we are born with drives that tend to make us selfish by nature, we have to have rules if more than a handful of people live in close proximity.

I see 'freedom' then as the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules that govern of us at every level.

In this sense democracy is 'freedom' theoretically. All local council ratepayers have an equal vote in electing their own representatives on councils. And all citizens of democrattic countries have an equal vote in selecting their representatives at State or Federal levels.

We don't have freedom in other peoples' homes or in hotels or other public places where the owners or the landlords set the house rules. We have to abide by their house rules if we enter their premises. But we do have a freedom of choice of whether we enter their premises or not.

All Associations have their Constitutions and Rules of conduct of meetings ensuring that everyone has the opportunity for an equal say on matters of action by the Associations.

Children do not have 'freedom' till they reach voting age. They have to do as they are told unless they are granted permission to have their views expressed on any matter.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 17th, 2015, 3:47 pm 

vivian maxine » August 14th, 2015, 12:11 pm wrote:I used to tell my students: Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you don't prevent others doing as they please.

But there are limits to that, plus we know it doesn't always work that way. Too many push the philosophy "My Way", while others push some very strange "My Way's" - ways that common sense tell us cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. And sometimes granting new freedoms backfires on us - right to own a gun? There is no perfect solution.


Exactly. A lot of people confuse libertinism with liberty. They take the results from their own empirical experiments, and just lash out in forcing others to go along with their results.

They don't understand how different people design experiments differently, and have different standards for burden of proof. Some people are willing to accept weaker evidence to prove hypotheses. Other people are more critical and require stronger evidence to prove hypotheses.

On top of that, different people interpret instruments differently when it comes to proving hypotheses.

The point about liberty is to make sure people are free to design and interpret experiments as they see fit. The role of government isn't to conduct experiments, but to protect how the people conduct experiments such that the people don't push their experiments onto each other.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 17th, 2015, 3:52 pm 

doogles » August 14th, 2015, 5:37 pm wrote:
vivian maxine wrote:I used to tell my students: Freedom is the right to do as you please, so long as you don't prevent others doing as they please.

But there are limits to that, plus we know it doesn't always work that way. Too many push the philosophy "My Way", while others push some very strange "My Way's" - ways that common sense tell us cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. And sometimes granting new freedoms backfires on us - right to own a gun? There is no perfect solution.


I think we all agree that because we are born with drives that tend to make us selfish by nature, we have to have rules if more than a handful of people live in close proximity.

I see 'freedom' then as the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules that govern of us at every level.

In this sense democracy is 'freedom' theoretically. All local council ratepayers have an equal vote in electing their own representatives on councils. And all citizens of democrattic countries have an equal vote in selecting their representatives at State or Federal levels.

We don't have freedom in other peoples' homes or in hotels or other public places where the owners or the landlords set the house rules. We have to abide by their house rules if we enter their premises. But we do have a freedom of choice of whether we enter their premises or not.

All Associations have their Constitutions and Rules of conduct of meetings ensuring that everyone has the opportunity for an equal say on matters of action by the Associations.

Children do not have 'freedom' till they reach voting age. They have to do as they are told unless they are granted permission to have their views expressed on any matter.


Everyone isn't born selfish. Some are, but others aren't.

Heck, some people don't even have a sense of self-respect. They're so self-sacrificing that they'll throw their lives away just to help others.

Others are just balanced. They have self-respect and self-interest, but they neither implode or explode in denying their own personal boundaries or pushing the boundaries of others.

Unfortunately, an empirical society will never understand this. It jumps to conclusions about people's external behavior in presuming the underlying internal attitude. It interprets what people do without consideration to the diversity of human nature in why people do it.

The point about equality is making sure that regardless of how human nature specifically manifests itself in someone, everyone's treated with respect in general. People can be what they are without concern that others will force them to be someone who they're not.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby TheVat on August 17th, 2015, 4:16 pm 

You still seem to be attacking bad interpretation and/or analysis of empirically derived data, rather than empiricism itself. This confusion, combined with vague generalization, like "different people interpret instruments differently...." make this thread wander around like a drunkard. Can we wrap this up?
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 17th, 2015, 4:32 pm 

Braininvat » August 17th, 2015, 3:16 pm wrote:You still seem to be attacking bad interpretation...


I didn't say anything about "bad" interpretation there. I said different interpretation. You can have multiple qualified people who interpret evidence, but just have different styles of interpretation.

You seem to be assuming that just because people are qualified means they'll have the same style. Therefore, you're assuming if people interpret evidence differently, then they must be bad.

In reality, that's not automatically the case.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby TheVat on August 17th, 2015, 4:48 pm 

It appears that someone who has no clue what I am talking about has been posting under your name, doctor. Hope you find them.
User avatar
TheVat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby Daktoria on August 18th, 2015, 2:06 pm 

Braininvat » August 17th, 2015, 3:48 pm wrote:It appears that someone who has no clue what I am talking about has been posting under your name, doctor. Hope you find them.


I don't have to be a doctor to recognize passive-aggressive insults.

The real problem seems to be that I do know what you're talking about. You don't like that I'm calling you out on it.
Daktoria
 


Re: Empiricism and Inequality

Postby CanadysPeak on August 18th, 2015, 4:50 pm 

Daktoria » Tue Aug 18, 2015 2:06 pm wrote:
Braininvat » August 17th, 2015, 3:48 pm wrote:It appears that someone who has no clue what I am talking about has been posting under your name, doctor. Hope you find them.


I don't have to be a doctor to recognize passive-aggressive insults.

The real problem seems to be that I do know what you're talking about. You don't like that I'm calling you out on it.


Nothing passive aggressive about that insult. I wish I had said it.

Daktoria, what are you on about? Can you please get to a point, any point, even several points? God, man, you're torturing the poor electrons.
CanadysPeak
 


PreviousNext

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests