The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
Anyway Carey, that’s ultimately what our differences boil down to: I’m convinced that objective mathematical truth exists, that it is somehow more real and/or more fundamental than the material, “natural†world that we find ourselves in; whereas you say that mathematical truths are “abstractâ€â€”essentially, whether you’re able to willingly acknowledge it or not, ultimately nothing more than mental and/or social constructs. (BTW Carey, FYI and FWIW, I can’t find where I ever actually stated that Margaret is “immoral,†as she claims, but that she keeps repeating the charge suggest that perhaps there is some sort of shame/guilt self loathing thing going on, so you may want to keep that in mind in your exchanges with her—I think you may be having a positive influence on her, but tread carefully— the slightest misstep and you could be back in the doghouse with me and JB.) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
Quote:
What's this about potentially being in the doghouse with you and JB? When have I not been in your doghouse? |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
Quote:
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Carey, You said,
Quote:
As long as some black people and women are obviously capable of achieving very high competence in any field that any other gender or race can partake in then I believe it is socially irresponsible and immoral to deny to these groups the benefits of their society. Those include decent schools, tax provided scholarships, job and income opportunities, program funds (such Title IX), etc. on an equal basis - no matter what group differences may exist. I also am in favor of intelligently using taxpayer funds to help elevate groups that have suffered discrimination in the past - as a means of attaining a more harmonious and morally benificent society that would have more productive and happier citizens and fewer citizens in jail or living on the streets. Many of the statements in this forum have been oblique or direct attacks on those kinds of policies. They often take the form of in-your-face statements of the superiority of white males compared to women and blacks for various endeavors. Why are those statements even necessary in a scientific discussion? When real scientists discuss those things they are usually aware of the ideological baggage they carry and avoid phrases and statements that encourage ideological feelings in others who may have different views - in respect for the science. But people are free to see that as my silly liberal ideology. I try to keep it out of scientific discussions. Eugenics is perhaps too strong a word - I used it when I was angry. It just nicely encapsulates both racism and sexism so nicely. But that's all morals and politics. I'm interested in the science - which suffers when the winds of ideology rage - and they always pick up in intensity whenever someone says things like tough shit. There's a fine line between vigorous discussion on the merits and contempt - that sometimes seems elusive for you. However, the study of the emotions that underlie these statements and how those emotions affect our behavior choices is a very interesting part of human nature. I am starting another thread based on my Somatic Behavior Choice Hypothesis to explore those issues if you are interested. (So you can carry on your free-will discussion here.) Beware though, that any comments will be judged not just on their merits but according to how well, by their nature, they validate the theory. Margaret |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Not interested in revisiting those. It's enough that I believe that to be true to make my point. Let's move on.
Margaret |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
Quote:
FWIW I believe that Fred was talking about Carey being with JimB and Fred in Margaret's dog house. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
Quote:
E.g., if a wolf kills another wolf, or perhaps kills the offspring of another wolf, for whatever “reason,†we don’t say that its behavior is moral or immoral—it’s simply following its instincts, behaving in a such a way so as to survive and reproduce. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Pinker's Blank Slate
I don't know why this keeps coming up but to clairify - and thanks for defending me, Tom - in this encounter I did not accuse Fred at the time of saying that I was immoral. I responded with a post that asked Fred if he intended to suggest that I and all atheists were immoral - and if not, I suggested that he should moderate his position. Tom has pointed this out previously as well.
Instead, I believe Fred further tried to justify it. He certainly did not retract it. This was after Fred had made repeated assertions regarding Tom's morality in respect to his relationship with his wife where Fred set up an assertion trap where Tom would have to agree to being a philandered if he did not accept Fred's premise about free-will - if I remember correctly. I think the point that Fred is trying to establish is just that - that atheists must be immoral - and he creates logical traps to prove it. I think that's his mission. At some time after that Fred essentially admitted that his purpose being here was to expose all atheists as being immoral (or something very close to that). My memory is not perfect on these points so I invite anyone to correct the record if I didn't get it quite right. But, as far as Fred calling me immoral, I'm way over that. I only refer to it in the spirit of things that would be good to avoid since such statements and counter-statements tend to spiral out of control. I think Fred's recent comments in this thread were well done. I don't agree with them but he stated them well and passionately. The discussion was getting downright interesting. A discussion as to whether certain worldviews are inherently immoral - are inherently volatile and will always lead to acrimony that serves no purpose. We all know how Fred feels about us. Let's talk about free-will as a philosophical concept and not as a value-laden club that can be used to denigrate others. Just a suggestion. Margaret |
|
|