@Seban678 I have no problem taking action from scientific consensus, so long as it is reasonable and doesn't violate fundamental human rights (like eugenics). My point is toward the identity and convictions of laypeople in the public who bicker and complain and make headlines.
So you are saying that you seek pleasure, and no doubt economic gain through your ventures here on Neatorama and elsewhere to the exclusion of measures of importance and superficiality and possibly ethics? Just wondering if it's all about personal satisfaction or if there is any notion of duty or a higher-purpose.
That's right, I forgot that Americans copy other cultures traditions without retaining any of the historic or cultural meaning or significance and turn it into some self- gratifying fools folly. In the running of the bulls, the bulls are herded from one area to another where they will be slaughtered the next day.
I used to listen to Rammstein quite a bit, but I have to admit to liking Die Toten Hosen, Die Artzte, Die Prinzen, Herbert Grönemeyer and Massive Töne as well.
Mein Bester Freund - Die Prinzen (A Cappella) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7DyDTYAb3g
That looks interesting, somewhat reminds me of Erich Fromm's work (See: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness). I've heard of Becker but not studies his work, I'll have a closer look at this soon. Thanks.
Well, see that kind of intellectualizing is markedly different from falling into a state of complete uncertainty and despair, struggling vehemently to break out of your biases and delusions with the same determination a victim of strangulation tries to get out of their attackers grip.
If you are content to believe "I could never free myself" and are complacent to your prison, then even if you check that with some more intellectualizing about cognitive biases, you are still in a prison. Intellect is a compartment of the mind, one can arrive at all kinds of conclusions in the intellect and then act from a more base emotion that runs completely contrary to the deliberations of the intellect. The task of the philosopher is to assimilate his convictions into the fabric of self, such that the desires and the distortions cease to arise.
I worked for Teletech and Stream International, two leading call centres in Canada. Our clients were Americans, as reps we earned $9/hr, and our American equivelants earned upwards of $25/hr to do the same thing. Our India counter-parts made pocket change.
I applied for a technical support position at MRO software, who hires their own support staff and pays them a healthy salary of $70,000/year. It might have worked out, but it didn't, never-the-less I realized how much I was getting shafted.
The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.[6]
Ever heard of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam? Combined they amount to the fallacy of appealing to "scientfic consensus" as if that alone were evidence of anything conclusive.
Scientific Consensus Definition: The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon *at a given time* by *most* scientists specialized in a given field.
Source: GreenFacts
More: Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
•all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress, •the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".
But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.
_______________________
It is a kind of error to go from "scientific consensus" to "You global-warming deniars are wrong", the latter statement reflects an intellectual certainty unwarranted by consensus. The response it begs seems to be "Interesting, why do you feel that way?" Because maybe there is yet something the "scientific consensus" is not taking into account which the "denier" is taking into account. Wikipedia relates to evolving consenses:
How Consensus Can Change Over Time
Among the most influential challengers of this approach was the historian Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental data always provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one — a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts.[7] However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods.[2]
Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth.[8] These points of view, while provoking much discussion, have generally not caught on, even with philosophers.[citation needed]
See: Theories and sociology of the history of science
I love the irony of heavy metal music, particularly Ozzy.
"It's in the lives that we lead Setup for money and greed A little isn't enough we have to use it all up Success, excess, the truth is inconvenient
Burn into the air and atmosphere Watching the rain come down Turn your head away ignore the fear Watching the ice crash down
Our father's justice gets closer How could you fuck us all over Rape, steal and murder God bless the almighty dollar
Death, doom and disaster The point of no return No earthly life ever after Is it too late to learn?"
Heavy metal tends to sound like angry music performed by raving lunatics who'd love nothing better than to "rape, steal and murder", and frequently the people attracted to this type of music are those very people, which is what makes it ironic that Ozzy's message is the exact opposite of that mentality. Which is why Ozzy is über famous and rich with millions of fans, and straight-talkers are relegated to the insane asylums.
Mein Bester Freund - Die Prinzen (A Cappella)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7DyDTYAb3g
"Will you be faithfully together until death do you part?"
"No!"
That looks interesting, somewhat reminds me of Erich Fromm's work (See: The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness). I've heard of Becker but not studies his work, I'll have a closer look at this soon. Thanks.
Well, see that kind of intellectualizing is markedly different from falling into a state of complete uncertainty and despair, struggling vehemently to break out of your biases and delusions with the same determination a victim of strangulation tries to get out of their attackers grip.
If you are content to believe "I could never free myself" and are complacent to your prison, then even if you check that with some more intellectualizing about cognitive biases, you are still in a prison. Intellect is a compartment of the mind, one can arrive at all kinds of conclusions in the intellect and then act from a more base emotion that runs completely contrary to the deliberations of the intellect. The task of the philosopher is to assimilate his convictions into the fabric of self, such that the desires and the distortions cease to arise.
I applied for a technical support position at MRO software, who hires their own support staff and pays them a healthy salary of $70,000/year. It might have worked out, but it didn't, never-the-less I realized how much I was getting shafted.
- Paul Feyerabend
Ever heard of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam? Combined they amount to the fallacy of appealing to "scientfic consensus" as if that alone were evidence of anything conclusive.
Scientific Consensus
Definition:
The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon *at a given time* by *most* scientists specialized in a given field.
Source: GreenFacts
More:
Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
•all scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur and can be necessary for science to progress,
•the position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.
Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".
But when the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position is lacking, the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.
_______________________
It is a kind of error to go from "scientific consensus" to "You global-warming deniars are wrong", the latter statement reflects an intellectual certainty unwarranted by consensus. The response it begs seems to be "Interesting, why do you feel that way?" Because maybe there is yet something the "scientific consensus" is not taking into account which the "denier" is taking into account. Wikipedia relates to evolving consenses:
How Consensus Can Change Over Time
Among the most influential challengers of this approach was the historian Thomas Kuhn, who argued instead that experimental data always provide some data which cannot fit completely into a theory, and that falsification alone did not result in scientific change or an undermining of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus worked in the form of "paradigms", which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the nature of the theory itself which connected various researchers in a given field. Kuhn argued that only after the accumulation of many "significant" anomalies would scientific consensus enter a period of "crisis". At this point, new theories would be sought out, and eventually one paradigm would triumph over the old one — a cycle of paradigm shifts rather than a linear progression towards truth. Kuhn's model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of theory change, demonstrating through historical examples that scientific consensus was never truly a matter of pure logic or pure facts.[7] However, these periods of 'normal' and 'crisis' science are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different modes of practice, more than different historical periods.[2]
Lastly, some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, have maintained that scientific consensus is purely idiosyncratic and maintains no relationship to any outside truth.[8] These points of view, while provoking much discussion, have generally not caught on, even with philosophers.[citation needed]
See: Theories and sociology of the history of science
"It's in the lives that we lead
Setup for money and greed
A little isn't enough we have to use it all up
Success, excess, the truth is inconvenient
Burn into the air and atmosphere
Watching the rain come down
Turn your head away ignore the fear
Watching the ice crash down
Our father's justice gets closer
How could you fuck us all over
Rape, steal and murder
God bless the almighty dollar
Death, doom and disaster
The point of no return
No earthly life ever after
Is it too late to learn?"
Heavy metal tends to sound like angry music performed by raving lunatics who'd love nothing better than to "rape, steal and murder", and frequently the people attracted to this type of music are those very people, which is what makes it ironic that Ozzy's message is the exact opposite of that mentality. Which is why Ozzy is über famous and rich with millions of fans, and straight-talkers are relegated to the insane asylums.