Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,851
Re: Science is offensive to women and minorities! [Re: liquidlounge]
    #24491568 - 07/18/17 12:09 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

You're welcome to post, but your dialogue about suffering and proposing to PT are drastically off-topic and a little disconcerting.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Science is offensive to women and minorities! [Re: Kurt]
    #24492418 - 07/18/17 06:30 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Kurt said:
About a previous comment:

Quote:

Women and minorities cannot understand logic or objective truths, says a graduate student in her dissertation, so science classes should stop using the scientific method.

Guessing or intuition is how we should proceed to better understand the world? Me no get it. Those sexist, racist white males with their superior science. DAMN YOU! :shakefist:




In what you find so worthy or satire, you seem to imply that science is DEDUCTIVE, or otherwise, you seem motion that such a reasoning in science should EXCLUDE intuition, and guesswork.

Whether or not these are feminine characteristics, any practical science is INDUCTIVE, or not purely deductive in its form of reasoning. It is not merely relying on its form of logical-analytical or mathematical languages to solve problems. Science uses these technical languages practically and as a whole creatively, with plenty of intuition and guesswork, in the experimental (empirical) approach of science.

As science incorporates new data, likewise it includes rather than excludes these particular intellectual virtues; intuition and guesswork. if we are speaking of science in reality, rather than just a stereotype based on an external view to its technical concepts.





It seems like if the OP (OC) could be taken aside from making a  satire or commentary, or aside from the eyerolling, and the rest of this he said she said game in this thread, we might examine a straight forward statement.

Surfing internet articles and social media, and internet forums, it sometimes seems like people might be so focused on following derivative commentary, or the satire of the previous comment, that they become unused to examining general form of content of statements or premises, in a general way.

For instance if we look at the OP as a satire, the derivative comment is always right, whether or not it even accurately represents any somewhat streamlined, and caricatured premise. As a general statement on the other hand, taken in its form of content rather than as media, or communication; it could rightly be said that the OP's comments about science are basically wrong and based on a gross misunderstanding of science, (as a deducative rationalist enterprise, excludng intuition, and guesswork; for instance). Will the OP admit to making any such general statement? Not likely. So the question is, do we readers look to internet personalities, or the content of statements?

Would anybody actually look at these statements, as their form of content, closely or analytically? Maybe not if we are always making a derivative social commentary of who said what, and trying to make fun of whatever the last person said. What if we deconstruct this idea as well?

The form of content; what is OF science, is what we might look to, in statements. Does talking ABOUT science, or about why our culture needs more critical or analytical thinking skills, or about what someone said, actually indicate any practical use of those intellectual skills? OC and the baseline media he is portraying here might say something "about" science, in a kind of extraneous narrative, but is what he says anything of science, or a philosophy of science in terms of the actual content of statements? I am not sure if anyone is used to reading this kind of thing, whether it is the secondary article or what the OP says, and can understand it, because at no point does this level of derivative, idle discussion and culture commentary come to any ground of speaking and listening, and considering grounds of actual argument, when it is only another attempt to deride and represent the last person who said something.

So in terms of general statements, I will attempt a few.

Yes, science proceeds by its technical languages or concepts, as a kind of intellectual reasoning. We may think of these languages/concepts by the way we can learn them, and usually in this day and age, this is necessary to science through formal education. What we actually need, as scientific attitude, is not a rote logical or analytical understanding, but a general level of literacy, and the scientific attitude.

This is to say, we should look at science realistically rather than by a false ideal, as something to beat someone over the head with. These languages, or conceptual paradigms can be drawn up with logical consistency, but science is not rote logic, or its form of institutionalism at all, insofar as as it is based on principle. These principles -empirical principles- should be examined, and well understood as a practical basis, along with the degree of conceptual literacy we need to understand a modern world.

The technicality or logic of scientific languages is in principle founded in a trial and error, or the experimental-empirical approach, and this should indicate that we are not just following the logic of science's languages, or logic, in science. We are also using these languages according to a creative, intuitive, and freely questioning approach to the world. Science is not some idealized rationalist project. It does not proceed rationally or with calculated predictability, all the time, or even for the most part, but in principle, experimentally. The experimental attitude is part of scientific reasoning, the inductions of intuition and guesswork, and recording the results. This is the way science is in a free thinking world.

The dogmas of 20th century ideals of logical/analytical reduction, are entrenched stereotypes of the technicality of scientific languages, viewed naively and externally, without understanding as only what the teacher beats the student over the wrist with. Anyone should be able to take the time to understand the problems with this. Science is in a more flexible, empirically informed pragmatism, than the analyticity of concepts.

I dunno if anyone appreciates what may be considered yet another comment, along the chain of comments. The level and denomination of discussion on the internet and media, is no sign of anything really. But I'd say if you talk ABOUT thinking critically, practice it, don't just endorse it in a general way, as a culture war, practice it a little bit, and look to the form of content of statements. This practice is broader than science, but that is often what we call it as an analytical discipline.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: Science is offensive to women and minorities! [Re: Kurt]
    #24492495 - 07/18/17 07:05 PM (6 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

once in a lifetime said:
I know what you mean - more or less; but - words are all. . . well, they all contain more information than it seems..

Ok I'm rambling so I'll get back on target :smile:

About the o.p. -- both of these are about nothing, basically.

But - the second one doesn't like the first one.


That is my conclusion. :smile:

Hehe :smile:



:lol: :thumbup:

I like the headings in this article. Let's me know something juicy is coming.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/09/29/feminist-phd-candidate-science-sexist-not-subjective/

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale, Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Fairness in Science Ravus 851 12 08/10/05 05:32 PM
by Ravus
* Absolute Truth vs. Science
( 1 2 all )
infidelGOD 2,478 20 01/14/04 01:27 PM
by muhurgle
* Science corrupts/perverts/exploits nature... HidingInPlainSight 1,190 17 01/24/04 04:12 PM
by NiamhNyx
* On Jewish Science, & Gentile Holocaust luciferhorus 1,221 8 05/20/05 08:09 PM
by Huehuecoyotl
* Pseudo-Science Annapurna1 1,767 14 11/18/03 12:30 PM
by trendal
* The Limitations of Science
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Anonymous 6,800 85 01/22/04 12:17 AM
by trippy
* Merging science and spirituality..
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 4,187 33 08/19/02 08:09 PM
by Murex
* Science phi1618 1,500 19 11/09/04 01:28 PM
by psyka

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,465 topic views. 1 members, 15 guests and 40 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.