Total posts: 1,971
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How does the Hoover Dam qualify as natural by the Wiktionary definition you pointed to earlier?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are actually the first to get past the nuts and bolts and into the more philosophical angle that I intended for this thread. This thread has crossover potential into the Philosophy forum, but I am specifically talking about “natural” as in physical substances and structures rather than actions, behaviors, and instincts.
To restate the conundrum a different way: aren’t humans a part of nature, or do we work in opposition to the natural world? Either way, nature “gets the final say” so to speak. I hope we can all agree on that…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
What makes the ISS and Chicken McNuggets not natural as opposed to the Hoover Dam, which you see as natural?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Nearly every description in the English language has multiple uses and interpretations, that doesn’t make them useless. Words are just tools for conveying ideas and concepts, if it did the job that’s all we need, if it didn’t then try another one.
I’m not saying the word is useLESS. I’m saying that it presently is not a highly useful or uniquely informative adjective. I doubt it was intended to be so. I’m also saying that it is an easily misunderstood and misused adjective. This thread is demonstrating that far better than I expected or intended. I actually wanted to get more into the philosophical aspects of this, as RM has done, but more to do with “nature” as in “the natural world” rather than “what comes naturally” as RM explores it.
To answer your question, I do not consider a beaver damn natural because it was constructed by a thinking agent. Some might disagree. That’s not really important because in the context it’s most often used, it merely contrasts with the human process of altering the chemical makeup of substances in ways that are harmful to the human body.
What makes beavers “a *thinking* agent” (emphasis added)? It seems to me that you are overcomplicating this for yourself, but that, too, supports my point about the word “natural.”
As to your latter point, I agree as far as it goes. The problem is that people have extrapolated that to mean “natural = good” and “not natural = bad”, and that isn’t necessarily the case. Also, your mention of “the human process” supports both my best understanding of the word as stated in my OP, and, again, leads to my stated quasi-philosophical conundrum: are not we humans a part of nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
How about an automobile? Bleach? The plastic jug the bleach comes in?
Created:
Posted in:
It seems to me that a lot of people don’t really know what “natural” means. “Uh, it means occurring in nature?” or guesses along those (tautological) lines. So, then, is a beaver dam natural?
“Yes, I think.”
Honey?
“Sure.”
An automobile?
“No!”
Why not?
“Because Man makes cars!”
Aren’t we humans… also a part of nature?
“Uh…”
How about… uranium?
“Uh…”
So many products these days claim to be “100% natural.” Why is that necessarily good? Oil is natural, and we tend to see it as toxic and damaging to nature, rather than “natural” in the good sense, rather than being “in harmony with nature.” Yes, I know that we humans go out of our way to dig it from deep in the earth— same with uranium.
My point here being: “natural” is not a very useful or informative descriptor. It is often misunderstood and misleading. I believe it is merely a layman’s term meaning “not man made or caused by man.” But, really, aren’t we humans also a part of nature?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If Trump in early 2021 backed vaccines and even vaccine mandates, the right would be saying, "Get vaccinated; it's your patriotic duty. We should force you to get vaccinated you pussy."
It doesn’t seem so:
People seem to like Trump because he advocates for what they already believe to be true and sensible. The above demonstrates what happens when he does not do this…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You forgot to mention getting the US out of Afghanistan in your list of Biden’s accomplishments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I gotta give credit where credit is due. Your post #79 is perhaps the best substantiation of a point I’ve seen you make on this forum. I even learned something new with your OJ trial insight. It helps that I already agreed with the point beforehand, but in any case, well done.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I’ve seen how he votes!
Do you have some examples of how he has voted against your wishes and those of the Republican Party?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
… that immigration drives down wages (disagree, and if there is an impact on wages, it's negligible);… but forcing a small business owner to hire more expensive workers is somehow okay even if that hurts their business.
How do you reconcile these two apparently contradictory claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think about the Christian Science Monitor article I posted on this subject in post 35?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Your point is what then, exactly? Should I simply ignore you?
Created:
Posted in:
Excellent post, Resurget.
I also submit this excellent article which discusses this same issue. I hope that those who disagree with me find more agreeable middle ground here:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I made no mention of “fake science.” You seem to insist on missing my point. I’m talking about virtue signaling with the word “science” being the virtue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Just make sure they say the magic words before you trust what they say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
They'll tyrannise us with right course of action then.
You are assuming it is the “right course of action” because the person of influence merely utters the word “science.”
This sentiment exemplifies the problem I am pointing out here…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
We have a lot bigger and realer problems in science denial
That’s just it— the issue I am highlighting here contributes to, rather than mitigates science denial.
I guess one either gets this, or one doesn’t…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Thanks for asking.
My point is that authority figures who say “Listen to the science” are in danger of using a catchphrase in place of actual leadership. They are in danger of implying “Obey me without question because… science.”
You bring up the vaccine as an example. Ok— should a person who just had COVID get the vaccine right away? The data show otherwise, yet people of influence insist “Everyone get the vaccine asap! It’s science!”
How about prioritizing who gets the vaccine first? What does the data say about who the highest risk groups are? Did policymakers “follow the science” when prioritizing vaccine recipients?
Science is a great tool, but it does not make decisions, automatically generate practical solutions, weigh pros and cons, consider unintended consequences, etc. Merely saying the word should not be confused for leadership nor should one assume that mentioning science = the person mentioning it must be doing all the right things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You miss my point, I’m afraid. It is right there in straightforward prose, but let me know if you need me to clarify anything further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- "Listen to the Science" is not an admonishment, per se. The phrase just asdvises folks to "pay attention to the body of collected data regarding this subject."
I might agree insofar as it does not have to be an admonishment technically, but that aspect is actually beside my point. What single word might you use to label such a direction? Ha, “direction” might be an alternative descriptor! You can substitute “direction” in my OP for admonishment, if you like.
"Use the Science" is far more imperative semantically than "Listen to the Science." Listening happens before decision-making and doesn't necessarily influence the decision whereas "Use the Science" implies a specific course of action. Therefore, "Use the Science" is far closer in meaning to "Obey the Science" than "Listen to the Science.”
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. However, now that you bring it to my attention, I realize that I wouldn’t like it if people of influence said “Use the science,” either. It would still come off as superior, preachy, and being beyond question.
I will now say that I would prefer it if people just present good ideas and strategies. Don’t tell me (to listen to the science); show me (how you yourself are using all the available data, weighing the pros and cons, managing risk, unintended consequences, etc) in other words…
Created:
Posted in:
Sounds reasonable at first… science is as close to objective investigation as we can get, and it would behoove us humans to heed its lessons. As time goes on in the COVID era, however, it is starting to sound more and more like “Obey the science,” or worse, “Obey me.”
Science is a tool. Tools do not issue commands, make tough decisions, make prescriptions, make moral arguments, weigh all the pros and cons, account for unintended consequences, etc. People— leaders in particular— do (or should do) those things. You never hear anyone admonish anyone else to listen to any other tools. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You might conceivably be advised to “listen to the computer,” but that would take on a disturbing tone if taken to the lengths that “listen to the science” has taken. I can tell you that in my work, we back up the computer’s directions with our own cross checks.
The problem is that the people who say “listen to the science” or “follow the science” often have an underlying ideological agenda. They tend to cherry pick the available data. Science doesn’t create or side with ideologies; people do. So, in effect, these people are saying “listen to the science (obey me), because I, too, follow the science.” That just leads to authoritarianism with an effective tool as the presumably unquestionable justification— the person in question may not even be using science in the most optimal way, and the results of scientific studies should never be implied as being unquestionable.
I would much prefer “Use the science” be the admonishment. Use the tool… to your advantage. What a concept! Just don’t confuse using science as constituting effective leadership.
Science is a tool. Tools do not issue commands, make tough decisions, make prescriptions, make moral arguments, weigh all the pros and cons, account for unintended consequences, etc. People— leaders in particular— do (or should do) those things. You never hear anyone admonish anyone else to listen to any other tools. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You might conceivably be advised to “listen to the computer,” but that would take on a disturbing tone if taken to the lengths that “listen to the science” has taken. I can tell you that in my work, we back up the computer’s directions with our own cross checks.
The problem is that the people who say “listen to the science” or “follow the science” often have an underlying ideological agenda. They tend to cherry pick the available data. Science doesn’t create or side with ideologies; people do. So, in effect, these people are saying “listen to the science (obey me), because I, too, follow the science.” That just leads to authoritarianism with an effective tool as the presumably unquestionable justification— the person in question may not even be using science in the most optimal way, and the results of scientific studies should never be implied as being unquestionable.
I would much prefer “Use the science” be the admonishment. Use the tool… to your advantage. What a concept! Just don’t confuse using science as constituting effective leadership.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
For anyone who might be interested, here is a good debate on the question “Do free societies need postmodernism?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Seeing that it is now 6 years old, it has certainly aged well… which unfortunately means that the academic and media zeitgeist has not aged well. It is a short, Orwellian message filmed in the style of the “Black Mirror” sci fi series. The fact that it offends the very people it parodies and warns against only further bolsters its message.
This short film is not saying “This is where we are now,” rather it is saying “This is where we are heading.” For those who think that this vision of math class is ludicrously exaggerated, I present this document from a Seattle school district:
One of the few changes I’d make would be titling it (Post)modern education.
Created:
-->
@Lunar108
I know, right? I recall an interview with a Middle Eastern feminist expressing her disappointment with this.
One of the internal contradictions of PC/postmodernism is the open criticism of Westernism while wearing kid gloves regarding other cultures— or simply remaining reticent about them, at least. Also, there is the possibility that putting focus on the Middle East would show how well women have it in the West, which is not in their interests…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Ah, right. It could conceivably have gone from college academia to students to social media to mainstream media. I think even the article itself alludes to the influence of social media. Also, there’s the college students of yesterday becoming the professionals of today contributing to the phenomenon…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Just took the time to read that insightful and well-researched Tablet article. My question is: what lead to the dramatic acceleration in wokeism in print media in the last 10 years? Off topic, I know…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
At this point I think it’s a safe assumption that a democratic administration = your country doesn’t get to have a border.
Not that long ago, the Democratic Party had generally the same view toward border security that the GOP has. I even recall Bernie Sanders having a different stance. Then, through a combination of PC ideology, political expediency, and the desire to oppose Trump on everything, that changed to what we currently have.
As I stated on page one, the desire of the Biden admin to disincentivize immigration from Cuba, from where immigrants tend to be anti-leftism, shows how cynical and political their immigration policy is.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I am always happy with justice being applied equally. I am with you if it is applied unequally…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
The semantics games of the movement is tedious. CRT, you say? There’s no denying the concept exists, but “it’s not taught in schools (to kids), damnit!” Inculcated in teachers? Well… yes, but that’s entirely different! Woke, you say? “Why is the right so obsessed with these terms (the left originated)!” Or, as AOC likes to claim, “‘Woke’ sounds so dated now. Ok, boomer…” Anti-racism, you say? Well, if you disagree with “anti-racism,” guess what that implies?
Can we not discuss the issue without the evasiveness? Why the hiding behind semantics? I think we can guess…
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The general sentiment seems to be that supporting Trump’s policies means being blamed for every personal quirk and flaw of Trump himself. This was true of the “Covington kids” and Nick Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse (never mind that he never even voiced explicit support for Trump; it was merely inferred by the media), and, most importantly, Ron Desantis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I definitely want Mr. Smollett to pay back what he owes the police for wasting their valuable time. Like you, it also irks me that many are so eager to believe in hate crimes. Even when the hoax was largely exposed, many responded, “Yes, but hate crimes still happen with alarming frequency!” Ok, but staging a hate crime must fill a need— a need to be seen as a victim. This is where identity politics has taken us: putting victimhood on a pedestal…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Cool! I would also add Glenn Loury and Coleman Hughes. They have all discussed these issues with each other, too, I believe…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Linguistics Professor John McWhorter speaks very intelligently about this issue. Here is one of his shorter interviews (< 20 minutes) if you’re interested:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, being caught in blackface is an absolute livelihood ender. That is unless you are a lefty such as Canadian PM Trudeau, Joy Behar, and the former governor of Virginia. Trudeau even managed successfully to blame his poor judgment on his white privilege.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not even realizing how much power and privilege you have is yet another aspect of your privilege.
^^^ Man, it’s easy to argue for a concept which cannot be proven false…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There is no reasonable case to be made that either of his impeachments for example were not warranted, if he were any other president he would have been removed from office.
You aren’t taking into account the Mueller investigation and hearings. Its findings weren’t even used in the subsequent impeachment. It was predicated on an entirely different accusation. That investigation and obsession with it was partisan political axe grinding. It set the tone, if you will, and it was hardly a tone of accountability without prejudice.
And Biden’s highly controversial phone call to the Afghani president prior to the US withdrawal of forces would be grounds for Trump’s third impeachment if Trump had acted identically. It’s about as clear cut a political double-standard hypothetical I can think of. It appears Obama was correct when he quipped, “I guess orange really is the new black!”
Why is the political right so obsessed with the Steele Dossier? It was just one of many documents the justice department used as a predicate for their investigations, and it was only taken seriously because it corroborated intelligence were already had.
The investigation into how wrong you are is still ongoing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Instead of leading to greater racial sensitivity, the overuse of the racism accusation will lead to greater apathy and division. Humans are tribal by nature, so it is futile to attempt the erasure of tribalism. The key is to alter the frame, the basis of that tribalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
In “The Crucible,” once you were accused of being a witch, there was only one way out alive: contritely admit to being a witch. Such as it is now with the accusation of racism…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Once you admit to being racist, there is at least hope for you.
The above is the sort of reasoning reminiscent of the classic novel “The Crucible.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Racial sensitivity training has limited effectiveness on adults:
I’m thinking that is why they want to teach it to ever younger children, when they are much more impressionable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
By “trying to unseat a duly elected president” you mean hold the president accountable for blatant and obvious violations of his oath of office that the founding fathers would have abhorred and literally wrote the constitution to protect against.
That sounds noble and all, but what you call accountability, many would call partisan political axe-grinding. The largely fabricated Steele Dossier and the ensuing actions based upon it are an egregious example of accountability, as the Durham investigation is slowly but surely proving. True accountability is applied equally and without prejudice. That is not what we have been witnessing between the last administration and the current one.
Created:
Posted in:
I was well aware our democracy was sliding when our government with help from its de facto propaganda wing spent 4 solid years trying to unseat a duly elected president. Then he finally was unseated via democratic means. It’s as if our own government doesn’t trust our own democratic process.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and I would say that this is the closest thing to a one sentence summary of American cultures core values as you could get.
Agree 100%
The point of my ramblings is that I think liberals are basically just following the philosophical values that America was founded on and that conservatives claim to hold to their logical conclusion, so the conservative is pretty hapless to resist. Distinctions inherently create inequality, and so the less meaningful we can make the distinctions the less relevant the inequality. A new philosophy is needed, along with a spiritual awakening...it's going to happen eventually but don't count on seeing it in your lifetime imo
I don’t think I agree. The Jeffersonian ideal is equality under the law— equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Quite true, people are not literally born equal in traits, talents, abilities, and health. It’s just that as far as the government is concerned, it seeks to maintain equality under the law. Leftists want more than that— they want the government to provide more equal outcomes to those deemed less fortunate (“fortunate” being a very open-ended word in this context), to provide happiness to those who aren’t happy, not just equal opportunity to pursue it. So, I wouldn’t say they are taking the Jeffersonian ideal to its logical conclusion.
Created: