[PUG] RANT: Reality has a Liberal bias...

[Billy]

Smart, generally rational people can be Biblical literalists, just as "liberal Christians" and atheists can be stupid and irrational. People simply tend not to question those beliefs much, so they usually stick with what they learned growing up. I'd wager your acquaintances are no smarter than mine, and I know a number of Biblical literalists.

I dunno dude, a grown up who believes in talking snakes and bearded sky wizards doesn't sound so rational to me. Even the priests I know from the church I was confirmed in aren't biblical literalists... I don't understand how anyone can be and still be considered "rational". But I also live in Connecticut, we're pretty elitist.

 

[randomsomeone]

The highest levels of education are often obtained outside of school. That is where you have to integrate what you have learned in theory into actual practice.

An excelllent point....one I run into in the world of religion. People learn certain creeds or recitation of prayers in Catholic school....and they what? It'd be like memorizing multiplication tables and then stopping as if that were all there was. Geez....use the math to build a bridge, or send a spaceship to Mars, or manage a business. The memorizing part was just meant to get us started....good, not an end in itself!!!

 

[acd]

The more I study human beings, the more I realize humans like to follow a script. Religious beliefs and political ideologies simply serve as a way for human beings to mindlessly serve as actors in this world, fulfilling roles that were written for them by directors who may have lost touch with reality themselves.

Everyday, I find myself challenging every label that I have felt ascribed to myself. INFJ, gay, liberal, social worker, etc. it all seems like the labels have become more important than the being. I am who I am, too complex to be narrowed down and pidgeon holed into some convenient category for others to stereotype in some misguided attempt to control or pass judgment. It's not like I don't do the same. But I'm tired of it. Maybe I just need to view the world holistically. That seems to be the only thing that people on opposite sides of the religious and political spectrum agree on. Love your neighbor.

I am impressed with this conclusion. Take yourself seriously in this.

 

[drsolace]

I dunno dude, a grown up who believes in talking snakes and bearded sky wizards doesn't sound so rational to me. Even the priests I know from the church I was confirmed in aren't biblical literalists... I don't understand how anyone can be and still be considered "rational". But I also live in Connecticut, we're pretty elitist.

Mmm I'd say they would still be considered rational, at least in some sense.

While their method of explaining how the world is may not be rational. How they interact with the world may still be.

 

[daydreamer]

I'm just worn out. I debate with social conservatives and traditionalists, and provide the strongest peer reviewed evidence I can to back up my assertions and I provide reasoned arguments supported by age old philosophical propositions but it is not enough. I'm told it is all "biased". It doesn't matter how perfectly objective and analytical the study is or how well it follows the scientific method, it is biased unless it supports their viewpoint. If is it particularly damning to their worldview, then it is "PC" the sweet and short way to dismiss everything as politically correct, and thus somehow not true. I have yet to find anyone who can explain to me the reasoning behind this, but it seems sufficient to them.

Has thinking become a value? When I was a child, I never would have thought that there would exist a group of people who are proud that they don't think. In fact, not only are they proud that they don't think, but they are proud that others can't make them think. Now I'm not trying to stereotype here, but it seems whenever I push anyone from these particular right wing groups on the facts that they take a position that reasoning and logic are inferior to their religious faith and internal moral compass. How on earth can they reduce thinking to a value?

I'm notorious for being a smartass, and occasionally just an ass, but nothing I can ever say or do could ever demean a person as much as them tossing their own ability to think and reason for themselves.

The more I study human beings, the more I realize humans like to follow a script. Religious beliefs and political ideologies simply serve as a way for human beings to mindlessly serve as actors in this world, fulfilling roles that were written for them by directors who may have lost touch with reality themselves.

Everyday, I find myself challenging every label that I have felt ascribed to myself. INFJ, gay, liberal, social worker, etc. it all seems like the labels have become more important than the being. I am who I am, too complex to be narrowed down and pidgeon holed into some convenient category for others to stereotype in some misguided attempt to control or pass judgment. It's not like I don't do the same. But I'm tired of it. Maybe I just need to view the world holistically. That seems to be the only thing that people on opposite sides of the religious and political spectrum agree on. Love your neighbor.

They don't listen to you because of the bolded, italicized, and underlined words.

In addition, if you use ABC CNN CNBC KUSI or KPBS right winged people won't believe you. Because the media itself is left winged

I suggest what you do is to listen to some conservative radio stations and see the logic to the right winged side. I've done this with the left, their so biased

For just the italicized words, what's wrong with that? What happens if a religion tells people to love others, do you think that's bad? Even though people might follow a label sometimes, sometimes that label can help us. I think without religion, life is honestly, to me, hopeless (but that's just my opinion).

For just the underlined words, what about you labeling yourself as an INFJ? Seems like you use labels as well. Also calling people "right winged".

 

[Satya]

They don't listen to you because of the bolded, italicized, and underlined words.

Ooooooook.

In addition, if you use ABC CNN CNBC KUSI or KPBS right winged people won't believe you. Because the media itself is left winged

They are viewer biased. They show what people will watch and as long as it doesn't hurt their advertisement sales. MSNBC and FOX are genuinely biased. Nonetheless, I don't watch any of them. If you read the rest of my post you would have noticed the "peer reviewed evidence" part. A news source is not a source.

I suggest what you do is to listen to some conservative radio stations and see the logic to the right winged side. I've done this with the left, their so biased

I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaug. It's enough to make me gag. The guy distorts facts, sometimes maliciously lies, and uses classic emotional appeal tactics. When his callers disagree with him, he cuts the sound so they can't hear what he is saying so that they will look like idiots who can't coherently reply to the points he makes. Is that the kind of objectiveness you are talking about? Or perhaps I should listen to the likes of Michael Savage? Frankly, all conservative radio amounts to is decrees of how the country is falling into socialism, rants about the gay agenda, justifications for torture against terrorists, and demands for the right to own guns. Throw in a bit of religious doctrine, and that's about the limit to modern conservative radio objectivity.

For just the italicized words, what's wrong with that? What happens if a religion tells people to love others, do you think that's bad? Even though people might follow a label sometimes, sometimes that label can help us. I think without religion, life is honestly, to me, hopeless (but that's just my opinion).

Yes, I think it is bad that religion has to tell people to love one another. I feel it is bad that people think they need religion to tell them to love people. I think it is bad that religion is one of the main things in this world that keeps people from loving one another. Next question.

For just the underlined words, what about you labeling yourself as an INFJ? Seems like you use labels as well. Also calling people "right winged".

Duh! Apparantly you didn't read the part where I said..."It's not like I don't do the same. But I'm tired of it."

 

[Satya]

I am impressed with this conclusion. Take yourself seriously in this.

That might prove difficult. ilovethewind does a good job demonstrating why.

 

[arbygil]

Maybe the question is, Satya, do you care about people too *much*? You want them to think rationally and expect them to, and when they don't they let you down? And then maybe you want to condemn them for their stupidity?

Either side isn't fair.

We can't sit idly by when we confront an injustice, but nor can we use logic to convince people we're right if they're going to be stubbornly antagonistic. Plus, you can't fight fire with fire. "Being an ass" (using your quote) towards folks for their limited views isn't going to change their thinking. You're a social worker. You have the same types of folks who get into the same situations every day - whether they refuse to leave an abusive household or they abuse drugs, or they constantly fall into debt due to misuse of finances. Can you hate them for it? Are you going to "be an ass" because they should know better? Hopefully not! Sometimes you do have to use compassion because each situation is different. None of us, not one of us, knows it all. We're always learning something new about ourselves and others. And sometimes you have to let people believe what they want to believe or fall because they need to fall...other times, you might have to shrug and say, "I don't have all the answers, but here's what I believe. Take it with a grain of salt, or ignore it."

Sometimes you have to ask why a person believes what they believe before you can talk to them about your own beliefs.

 

[acd]

I think before anyone makes a statement about the liberal media, they need to look into who owns all those news sources and media outlets and then look into their investments and political contributions. Just try it out.

Anyway. My initial comment in reference to your bolded words still stands....
regardless if you want to call yourself a smart ass or an ass and people want to agree with you.

 

[myst]

What makes people wrong is when they hold a belief that a) does not conform to reality. What makes people "unjustified" (or "thoughtless") in their belief is when they don't have enough evidence or knowledge to warrant believing it.

And as we've discussed in many many threads, there are things that are absolute: objectively true. If you say "there is nothing that is absolutely or objectively true" then you contradict yourself, because if that statement was true, it would be absolutely/universally/objectively true, and so contradict itself.

Because there is an objective truth, we try to find what facts fit into that truth. When someone holds a belief opposite of that, or in opposition to the most reliable and effective methods to determine objective truth, we say they are just plain wrong or thoughtless, respectively.

Knowing this, and combining it with a true desire to enlighten, educate, and help the minds of others develop, and it becomes a much more complicated issue then just, "You have no right to try to change others." It almost becomes a duty to try.

I know where Satya is, I was just there not long ago. I still have much of that desire in me. The best solution I've found is to just abandon the thoughtless to their self-chosen fate, but be there for when they are ready. Surround yourself with those that are ready/have already traversed. That's all you can really do.

How do you prove that truth is objective? With facts? How do you prove they're true? More facts? And so on to infinity. Is it possible to prove truth is objective? If not, how do you know it is?

Also, when you say thoughtless, do you mean just "illogical" or do you mean the "inconsiderate" connotation of thoughtless too?

 

[Satya]

How do you prove that truth is objective? With facts? How do you prove they're true? More facts? And so on to infinity. Is it possible to prove truth is objective? If not, how do you know it is?

This is what pisses me off. People have no idea what the scientific method does. They think the purpose of science is to prove things, but the reality is that science exists as a constant quest to disprove whatever the evidence indicates is likely to be true.

You don't prove anything! Anyone who says they can prove anything is a liar. You present evidence that indicates that something is more likely true than it isn't. Science is about probability, about disproving, not proving. In science, the law of gravity can be disproved, but it can never be conclusively proven. The probability that the law of gravity is true is astronomically high due to the huge amount of evidence that supports it, but it could easily be disproved with the addition of new evidence against it. Physicists don't strive to prove the theory of relativity, they strive to disprove it. Biologists don't strive to prove the theory of evolution, they strive to disprove it. That is why such theories have such high certainty. People have been gathering evidence in the pursuit to dispove them for so long, and have failed to do so, so the probability that they are true remains very high. It doesn't mean that the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution have been proven, only that they have yet to be disproved and so they remain viable theories.

When I provide evidence to disprove something you say, and you can't provide an alternative explaination, then you have failed to uphold your theory. It has been invalidated. I'm not trying to prove that anything is objectively true, I'm simply disproving whatever subjective belief you hold to be true. I could never prove that God does not exist, but I can disprove your version of God by coming up with evidence or reasoning which invalidates your explaination.

 

[Julia]

There isn't much use trying to convince someone if they are set in their view. All of my family are hard-core Right-wing, and I keep my reactions rather minimalistic when they make political comments. I might ask a question, or just say "um-hum". It hurts to see how the media manipulates everyone. I feel especially badly for the way the Right-wing manipulates the underlying fear memes in Christian theology. I get to hear all the anxiety they instill in the little old ladies in my family. It pisses me off. Manufactured consent is the expertise of democratic societies. If you aren't controlling by force, you control by mental coercion. Obviously this works on all sides of the political spectrum, but those who have the most to gain financially, have the most invested in getting the unwashed masses (and this includes people making decent money) to do their bidding in the poll booths. The class wars manufactured by the elite are transparent and yet so effective. They have the hard-working middle class all in a tizzy over the social welfare mom who manages to con the government out of an extra pound of cheese each month instead of focusing on the corporate thieves who pay you 50K a year, but make an additional 50K off of your efforts. They've taken much more of your money than the homeless and social welfare peasants ever could.

 

[myst]

This is what pisses me off. People have no idea what the scientific method does. They think the purpose of science is to prove things, but the reality is that science exists as a constant quest to disprove whatever the evidence indicates is likely to be true.

You don't prove anything! Anyone who says they can prove anything is a liar. You present evidence that indicates that something is more likely true than it isn't. Science is about probability, about disproving, not proving. In science, the law of gravity can be disproved, but it can never be conclusively proven. The probability that the law of gravity is true is astronomically high due to the huge amount of evidence that supports it, but it could easily be disproved with the addition of new evidence against it. Physicists don't strive to prove the theory of relativity, they strive to disprove it. Biologists don't strive to prove the theory of evolution, they strive to disprove it. That is why such theories have such high certainty. People have been gathering evidence in the pursuit to dispove them for so long, and have failed to do so, so the probability that they are true remains very high. It doesn't mean that the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution have been proven, only that they have yet to be disproved and so they remain viable theories.

When I provide evidence to disprove something you say, and you can't provide an alternative explaination, then you have failed to uphold your theory. It has been invalidated. I'm not trying to prove that anything is objectively true, I'm simply disproving whatever subjective belief you hold to be true. I could never prove that God does not exist, but I can disprove your version of God by coming up with evidence or reasoning which invalidates your explaination.

Hi Satya,
You express your opinions quite vehemently

You certainly have a lot of thoughtful points, which I don't need to point out to you obviously.

Duty didn't mention science, he mentioned truth. So my response was about truth as well. You said you're not trying to prove anything is objectively true. So I would think we basically agree, except for that you said my statement pissed you off.

 

[flux]

When I provide evidence to disprove something you say, and you can't provide an alternative explaination, then you have failed to uphold your theory. It has been invalidated. I'm not trying to prove that anything is objectively true, I'm simply disproving whatever subjective belief you hold to be true.

Really? The same way you obviously took to heart my theory of "honey, you know you're right. Just let it go already!"

 

[Duty]

How do you prove that truth is objective? With facts? How do you prove they're true? More facts? And so on to infinity. Is it possible to prove truth is objective? If not, how do you know it is?

Also, when you say thoughtless, do you mean just "illogical" or do you mean the "inconsiderate" connotation of thoughtless too?

I prove it with logic, not observable facts. Logic is the foundation of truth and knowledge, and we could not make any sense of the world (or even coherently construct sentences) without logic. It is necessary to our understanding of the world. A simple proof by contradiction shows that "all truths are subjective" contradicts itself (because, if it were true, it would be an objective truth and therefore make itself false). If an argument is contradictory, basic logic tells us to slap a "not" in front of it, so: "not all truths are subjective" must be true. This sentence is logically equal to: "there exists at least some objective truth." See, logic.

With that said, I'll go further and claim that all truths are objective. For something to be true, it must be objective. The difference between objective and subjective is often misunderstood, but pretty simple really. Subjective beliefs are ones you cannot object or dispute because they're unmeasurable. Measuring can be as simple as a 0 or 1 value: false and true, or it can be a matter of physics (mass, displacement, temperature, or time), or some other mathematical measurement. Objective truths, then, are ones that can be measured.

Truths are by definition objective, unless you use the phrase "subjectively true," or some variation thereof, but then it becomes a different subject. It's just written into the definition of truth that it must be objective: in the 0 or 1 sense of things.

 

[Satya]

Hi Satya,
You express your opinions quite vehemently

You certainly have a lot of thoughtful points, which I don't need to point out to you obviously.

Duty didn't mention science, he mentioned truth. So my response was about truth as well. You said you're not trying to prove anything is objectively true. So I would think we basically agree, except for that you said my statement pissed you off.

Er...sorry. When you get down to it, truth is just a set of assumptions. Logic systematically works with assumptions and evidence to come to the most self evident set of assumptions and we call that "truth".

 

[midnightmelody]

I prove it with logic, not observable facts. Logic is the foundation of truth and knowledge, and we could not make any sense of the world (or even coherently construct sentences) without logic. It is necessary to our understanding of the world. A simple proof by contradiction shows that "all truths are subjective" contradicts itself (because, if it were true, it would be an objective truth and therefore make itself false). If an argument is contradictory, basic logic tells us to slap a "not" in front of it, so: "not all truths are subjective" must be true. This sentence is logically equal to: "there exists at least some objective truth." See, logic.

With that said, I'll go further and claim that all truths are objective. For something to be true, it must be objective. The difference between objective and subjective is often misunderstood, but pretty simple really. Subjective beliefs are ones you cannot object or dispute because they're unmeasurable. Measuring can be as simple as a 0 or 1 value: false and true, or it can be a matter of physics (mass, displacement, temperature, or time), or some other mathematical measurement. Objective truths, then, are ones that can be measured.

Truths are by definition objective, unless you use the phrase "subjectively true," or some variation thereof, but then it becomes a different subject. It's just written into the definition of truth that it must be objective: in the 0 or 1 sense of things.

Theory of Knowledge! That is my favorite class at school.

 

[myst]

hmmm interesting

I prove it with logic, not observable facts. Logic is the foundation of truth and knowledge, and we could not make any sense of the world (or even coherently construct sentences) without logic. It is necessary to our understanding of the world.

Okay, so how do you know logic exists? (I'm not disagreeing with you that it exists, just asking how you know.)

A simple proof by contradiction shows that "all truths are subjective" contradicts itself (because, if it were true, it would be an objective truth and therefore make itself false).

Yes, I understand your point that it doesn't make sense to say truth is absolutely subjective because that's a self contradiction.

With that said, I'll go further and claim that all truths are objective. For something to be true, it must be objective. ... Truths are by definition objective, unless you use the phrase "subjectively true," or some variation thereof, but then it becomes a different subject. It's just written into the definition of truth that it must be objective: in the 0 or 1 sense of things.

If you're just defining truth as objective, it doesn't give a lot of meaning to what you're saying, right?

 

[Duty]

Theory of Knowledge! That is my favorite class at school.

Do you mean high school? I wish my high school had any philosophy courses...


I went and studied epistemology and logic in college. I majored in philosophy for the couple years I went. I love the stuff too.

Problem is that nobody listens. If you explain that you are an engineer then people listen to you in that area, if you say that you're a doctor the same thing happens. But everybody thinks they know it all when it comes to philosophy, knowledge, ethics, and the like. Or, they're like my grandfather and just think that sort of thing is absolutely useless (mathematicians, computer scientists, cognitive scientists, systems scientists, and many other more "formal" disciplines would highly disagree).

 

[midnightmelody]

Do you mean high school? I wish my high school had any philosophy courses...


I went and studied epistemology and logic in college. I majored in philosophy for the couple years I went. I love the stuff too.

Problem is that nobody listens. If you explain that you are an engineer then people listen to you in that area, if you say that you're a doctor the same thing happens. But everybody thinks they know it all when it comes to philosophy, knowledge, ethics, and the like. Or, they're like my grandfather and just think that sort of thing is absolutely useless (mathematicians, computer scientists, cognitive scientists, systems scientists, and many other more "formal" disciplines would highly disagree).

Well, I take Full-IB, and it is a requirement. It's not really a full-blown course, though. I wish it were. We get packets from a Theory of Knowledge book, have discussions on the packet, and then post comments on a "wiki". It kind of bothers me though, because they all tend to believe this ESFP girl who has no idea what she is talking about.

I go to a Catholic School so...yeah.

I think logic is useful, but I am sketpical to what degree it isn't influenced by the biases of the human mind. The human mind has to form biases to survive. I'm not sure if it is possible for anything to be as "pure" as logic.