Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science now

Anthropology, History, Psychology, Sociology and other related areas.

Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 9th, 2017, 6:23 pm 

Braininvat » July 9th, 2017, 2:26 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 9th, 2017, 9:37 am wrote:
Braininvat » July 9th, 2017, 8:27 am wrote:T4L, the above post is what I meant when I mentioned adversary positions sharpening your own.

I think SG's questions are reasonable, and always need to be asked when we consider the tradeoffs between liberty and progressive initiatives.


So brainvat, you think calling drivers licenses and gun licenses tantamount to totalitarianism is expanding the view and moving the conversation foward? Really?


I'm not sure what you view as normal discourse at a MB, but I see a serious problem here, with what you posted..

1. The equating of driver's licenses with totalitarianism was not contained in any of SG's postings. So you are asking me to form an opinion on something that SG did not actually write.

2. You complain that SG is not fairly representing your position, then you promptly misrepresent his position and, indeed, weaponize your ludicrous interpretation ("driver''s licenses are totalitarian") of SG in order to get me to condemn it.

I think a couple deep breaths are called for here.


Funny you say that Brainvat, the association I made was NOT mine, it was his. He made the association that my advocating for things like drivers licenses and gun licenses was tantamount to totalitarianism, not me. So actually, your frustration with the confusion supports my stance... I agree with you its a mis-representation, and it was someguy1 that made the mis-representation. THanks for arguing my point.

Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 9th, 2017, 6:30 pm 

someguy1 » July 9th, 2017, 3:43 pm wrote:
BioWizard » July 9th, 2017, 2:36 pm wrote:
someguy1 » 09 Jul 2017 03:16 pm wrote:What government commission decides who's naughty and who's nice? And how does that not inevitably turn to a means of abuse and social control?


If we are to accept that we are fundamentally incapable of deciding naughty and nice, how can we justify what we do to people we incarcerate?

Almost everything can be abused. In my own mind, that is never by itself the question.


Isn't there a difference between someone receiving due process in a court of law, versus simply being barred from civic rights (voting, holding office, ...) on the word of some government commission?

I really wish the advocates of these ideas would be specific. What are the penalties being proposed? Denial of the vote? Denial of eligibility for holding office? Not allowed in the 8-items-or-less checkout line? And on whose say-so? Due process in court is one thing. I haven't heard any specific proposals.

Another common source of abuse is in rural counties where the bad guys gain political control and accuse some local politician they don't like of crimes. That's why the electoral process is separate from the criminal justice system.


I was very specific someguy1, try reading what I wrote. I will post it for the third time here, try actually reading it and responding to it rather than claiming I was vague when I was clear:

As for the "plan" -- I don't think I have all the answers, I just wanted to pose the risk and discuss if we agreed that it's a serious risk and that directionally understanding who is responsible and who isn't and teaching people to be responsible or taking away power seems like the right direction to go... but since you're putting me on the spot and I'd like to think I do well under pressure, I will propose that I think we need to do the following:

1. Agree on what is "good" and "evil" - for both individuals and society (my definition above is my best attempt).
2. Have some way of evaluating whether people are doing "good" or "evil"
3. Have an education system that helps people do "good" (this includes not only soft skills training and emotional psychological training, but also training currently unemployable people so they can add value to society (helping society progress is part of my definition of good, as it was to one of the moderators in another forum).
4. Ensure through democratically powered means that people who do excessive amounts of "evil" do not end up in positions of power (destructive capability)

Let me know what you think of this, or feel free to propose an alternate plan if you agree with the problem but not the solution, or feel free to challenge whether the problem I'm posing is a real problem or not... I think it's pretty evident that it is but happy to debate any piece you all have issues with.

I actually have quite a good start on defining good from evil, its located here:
https://goo.gl/kSajGC

If you don't consider a 4 point plan with a 7 page definition of good (focused on point 1) detailed enough, can you clarify what you're looking for? Do you want me to write a 50 page dissertation? If you disagree with step one, let me know why. If you agree with step one, try adding your opinions on where you disagree with my definitions of good and evil. Maybe then we can make some progress. I'm honestly trying to come to consensus somewhere, and if you'd read my advice to you on how to argue you would be looking for the same, but perhaps you ignored that because you don't agree with it? You seem to have made no mention of it. Can I ask your opinion specifically about what I posted? Where you should try to reiterate your understanding of what I'm trying to post and state what you agree with, before disagreeing? Does that seem unreasonable to me? Seems quite reasonable to me.

Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2017, 6:59 pm 

thinker4life » July 9th, 2017, 4:23 pm wrote: Seems quite reasonable to me.


I'll look at your 7 page plan when I get a chance next couple of days. I would like to know exactly what social mechanism you use to look at an individual and rate them good or evil, and what sanctions you impose on those regarded as evil.

I'd also appreciate a simple yes/no answer as to whether you think the Chinese plan is a reasonable real-world implementation of your idea. You can look at my original link and Google around for many other articles about the same topic. They're really doing this. Everyone gets a social score. How does that match or differ from your concept?

This is from the very short Wiki article on the subject.

Wiki wrote:The Social Credit System is a proposed Chinese government initiative for developing a national reputation system. It has been reported to be intended to assign a "social credit" rating to every citizen based on government data regarding their economic and social status. Xinhuanet has reported that the plan for the system "focuses on credit in four areas, including administrative affairs, commercial activities, social behavior, and the judicial system."


Also:

Wiki wrote:Some reports have stated that the ratings may use information gathered from Chinese citizens' online behavior.


Is this or is this not the kind of system you wish for? I'm trying to understand your idea through this real-world example, which seems very much on point.
Last edited by someguy1 on July 9th, 2017, 7:08 pm, edited 6 times in total.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 9th, 2017, 7:01 pm 

thinker4life » July 9th, 2017, 5:30 pm wrote:1. Agree on what is "good" and "evil" - for both individuals and society

Done!
That's what constitutions are supposed to do. The constitution that Americans are so proud of (while so few of them know what's in it) is only one of many. Nations generally base their system of laws on a set of moral precepts that they "hold to be self-evident" (and usually isn't, to other nationalities). The laws they enact reflect what values they support and which acts they disallow.
A further comment on the US constitution: its framers excluded everyone not of their sex, ethnicity, language and economic stratum, not just from voting, but from any political representation whatever (which did nothing to prevent the oppression of Black and Hispanic or the genocide of native populations, so I wouldn't use that example in its favour). It simply didn't occur to them to disbar such unsuitable persons from public office. Many of its shortcomings have been remedied - not all.
2. Have some way of evaluating whether people are doing "good" or "evil"

It's usually done in courts of law. Penalties vary.
3. Have an education system that helps people do "good" (this includes not only soft skills training and emotional psychological training,

This is what seems to cause all the upset. Why don't you just recommend reinstituting old-fashioned civics classes, and adding a vigorous course in psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, philosophy, law, and critical thinking?
I wouldn't be averse to a comprehensive citizenship readiness test along with the SAT.
(Not administered by the local white sheriff and his muscle-headed deputies!!)

but also training currently unemployable people so they can add value to society

That's on-going. More people become unemployable as old jobs disappear and new people appear. That's a whole other ball-game.
4. Ensure through democratically powered means that people who do excessive amounts of "evil" do not end up in positions of power (destructive capability)

That's the matter under discussion. Specifics urgently required.

(PS - You're not doing yourself any favours by being confrontational. I suggest, in the friendliest possible, that you concentrate on building your own idea and worry less about who said what.
And now, I have to go watch colourful Brits bake colourful bickies.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 9th, 2017, 7:14 pm 

Serpent » 09 Jul 2017 06:01 pm wrote:I suggest, in the friendliest possible, that you concentrate on building your own idea and worry less about who said what.


That's a very good suggestion.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2017, 8:05 pm 

I'm curious in general to know what people think about the Chinese plan. I almost thought of top-posting it to the political forum. I think it's such a fascinating case study as to the great cyber-totalitarianism to come.

On paper it sounds enlightened and wonderful. Human society is based on trust. When we lived in caves we could trust the members of our tribe; and when we lived in villages we knew our neighbors. Today we have no way to know who someone is. We accept the validity of credit scores. If I'm going to lend you money I'm entitled to know your history of paying back your debts.

Why not extend that to the social realm? What kind of websites to you look at? What do your neighbors say about you? What clubs and organizations to you belong to? What do you watch on tv, what kind of food do you like to eat?

Shouldn't we as individuals have the right to know these things about the people we come in contact with? After all virtually all this information is in databases that you implicitly consented to be part of. Google can sell your searches and Amazon can sell your purchase history to the highest bidder.

This is where society is going. You can't say it's racial or political because it's not. In fact it's FAIR. You do what you do and everyone knows about it and makes their own judgment about how to do business or interact with you. It's based 100% on your actual behavior. It's objective. It's inevitable, given the computers that run our lives.

I find it horrible. Frightening. Terrifying. The Chinese have an autocratic government. They allow local freedom when it serves their purposes but when they put their foot down about something, that's how it is. They would come up with something like this.

It's happening in the US too, but implicitly. In Western culture no politician would dare ADMIT that the government is doing any such thing. Which of course they already are. I would not be surprised.

What do people think about this? To me, it's exactly what the OP is talking about. It's a perfeclty fair and rational system based on sound social science and based solely on people's actual behavior, regardless of race or creed or social position.

Who could object?

Well I object.

I am curious to know what people think about this. It's not just China. It's the way all our lives are controlled by algorithms.

Algorithms are political. That's my tl;dr. There is no "good." That's an illusion. Each of the factors seems good -- he pays his rent, his neighbors say he's a nice guy, he reads the New York Times but never Breitbart. Yes let's add to his score.

OP you say you have a seven page definition of the good. I remember from the great novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the phrase, "And what is good, Phaedrus?" I learned my Plato through Pirsig.

So you say you have a definition of "the good." I say that people have been asking that question a long time; and that more evil has been done by people implementing their own concept of the good, than by those who simply left everyone else alone.

ps -- Didn't mean for that to turn into a rant. I really want to know what people think about this Chinese social reputation system?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 9th, 2017, 9:03 pm 

someguy1 » July 9th, 2017, 7:05 pm wrote:I'm curious in general to know what people think about the Chinese plan. I almost thought of top-posting it to the political forum. I think it's such a fascinating case study as to the great cyber-totalitarianism to come.


You already know that's not confined to China.

What do you think of the American system of data collection? If you want to object, start with your national security agencies.... or vote for an honest representative. How do you know he's honest? From his record. How can you know his record? Google him.

It doesn't matter whether you find it terrifying. Anybody who wants to know anything about you, or post any opinion of you, or tell any lie about you, already can.

That whole flotilla has sailed!
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 9th, 2017, 9:27 pm 

Hang on - isn't the discussion on privay and reputation systems more or less tangential to the subject? Most tests of competence aren't based on unbridled data collection and privancy invasion. People pass competence tests before attaining high skill jobs all the time, without anyone having to look at their porn search history (not that someone doesn't - just that it isn't terribly relevant here).

On a separate note, some1guy do you have Netflix? If so, there's an episode from this show Black Mirror (3rd season) that you might enjoy (or be further freaked out by):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2017, 10:08 pm 

BioWizard » July 9th, 2017, 7:27 pm wrote:Hang on - isn't the discussion on privay and reputation systems more or less tangential to the subject? Most tests of competence aren't based on unbridled data collection and privancy invasion. People pass competence tests before attaining high skill jobs all the time, without anyone having to look at their porn search history (not that someone doesn't - just that it isn't terribly relevant here).

On a separate note, some1guy do you have Netflix? If so, there's an episode from this show Black Mirror (3rd season) that you might enjoy (or be further freaked out by):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive


I saw one epi of Black Mirror and found it too disturbing and exploitive and never watched again. I'm sure it's a show I'd like if I didn't not like it, if that makes sense.

No I don't find this discussion tangential, I find it on point. OP wrote:

thinker4life » July 4th, 2017, 2:25 pm wrote:Come up with a common definition of who is responsible enough to handle power
Help society identify people who are not responsible enough to handle power early
Find ways to help all those who can be helped so they will be taught to be more responsible, so we can empower people up to the level of responsibility they obtain and no more
Isolate and take power/influence away from those who can’t be helped by society’s best efforts, limiting their influence to do harm to society ...


Isn't the Chinese system a real-world implementation of exactly that?

Everything I've written is exploring the real life practical meaning of implementing the ideas in that paragraph. I find it a recipe for the worst totalitarian abuses. OP takes exception not only to that opinion; but initially objected strenuously to my even having expressed it at all, since it violated the flowers and kittens utopianism the OP intended. [OP did describe himself as an optimist, so my characterization is fair]. I like flowers and kittens too. I just want the OP and others to examine the various ways such noble-sounding sentiments have been and could be implemented in the real world.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 9th, 2017, 10:22 pm 

someguy1 » 09 Jul 2017 09:08 pm wrote:I'm sure it's a show I'd like if I didn't not like it, if that makes sense.


I totally get that, actually. Some episodes I don't finish.

some1guy wrote:Isn't the Chinese system a real-world implementation of exactly that?


I wouldn't know - I haven't seen what that is yet. All I've seen so far is your apocalyptic interpretation of T4L's general proposal, and T4L's objection to it. He could be thinking of nothing more than some sort of minimum sanity test, followed by a brief course in leadership and management for all I know.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 9th, 2017, 10:28 pm 

BioWizard » July 9th, 2017, 8:22 pm wrote:I wouldn't know - I haven't seen what that is yet. All I've seen so far is your apocalyptic interpretation of T4L's general proposal, and T4L's objection to it. He could be thinking of nothing more than some sort of minimum sanity test, followed by a crash course in leadership and management for all I know.


Sure, that would be fine with me. For example when foreigners become citizens they have to learn how many branches of government there are and how long Senators serve for and what's the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I would support sending all native-born American adults to such a class too. So sure, if we're talking civics class for adults, I'm all for it. Like driver's ed, which sadly isn't taught in many high schools and should be. Or traffic school, where if you get a ticket in some states you can pay the fine and go to a class and the ticket doesn't count against your insurance rates or "points" against your license. That's fine too, I think all drivers should go to continuing education. Driving's dangerous and many out there have no clue.

I agree that I took a pessimistic read on the OP's proposal. But like I say I have history on my side. Chairman Mao wasn't teaching driver's ed in his re-education camps.

And OP explicitly suggests sanctions imposed on those who can't pass the class. Surely I can ask for specifics. What criteria for being judged incorrigible or unteachable? Exactly what sanctions? Why is my challenging those points regarded as "apocalyptic?"
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 10th, 2017, 12:30 am 

someguy1 » July 9th, 2017, 9:28 pm wrote:I would support sending all native-born American adults to such a class too. So sure, if we're talking civics class for adults, I'm all for it. Like driver's ed, which sadly isn't taught in many high schools and should be. Or traffic school, where if you get a ticket in some states you can pay the fine and go to a class and the ticket doesn't count against your insurance rates or "points" against your license. That's fine too, I think all drivers should go to continuing education. Driving's dangerous and many out there have no clue.

Driving's too dangerous to leave to people without a clue, but control of the biggests, baddest, modernest, most expensive army in the history of the whole freakin galaxy just needs any moron over 35 who happened to be made in the USA and can raise enough political capital to squeak past the electoral college?

And OP explicitly suggests sanctions imposed on those who can't pass the class.

It doesn't actually. Just says don't give them nuclear weapons.

Surely I can ask for specifics. What criteria for being judged incorrigible or unteachable? Exactly what sanctions? Why is my challenging those points regarded as "apocalyptic?"

Because you didn't. You raised apocalyptic scenarios that were not invariably on point. Several examples were from the actual past of the constitutional republic that you want to protect from the dire specter of despotic government.

History is on your side, if your contention is that no human beings can be trusted to govern human beings. In the absence of an alien invasion, we'll have to figure out how to live with this circumstance. People sometimes come up with more or less harebrained ideas for improving how we go about it. They need to be challenged, questioned, forced to defend their thesis. They do not need to be barraged by a bushel of freshly-picked historical fruit.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 10th, 2017, 7:49 am 

someguy1 » July 9th, 2017, 9:08 pm wrote:
BioWizard » July 9th, 2017, 7:27 pm wrote:Hang on - isn't the discussion on privay and reputation systems more or less tangential to the subject? Most tests of competence aren't based on unbridled data collection and privancy invasion. People pass competence tests before attaining high skill jobs all the time, without anyone having to look at their porn search history (not that someone doesn't - just that it isn't terribly relevant here).

On a separate note, some1guy do you have Netflix? If so, there's an episode from this show Black Mirror (3rd season) that you might enjoy (or be further freaked out by):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive


I saw one epi of Black Mirror and found it too disturbing and exploitive and never watched again. I'm sure it's a show I'd like if I didn't not like it, if that makes sense.

No I don't find this discussion tangential, I find it on point. OP wrote:

thinker4life » July 4th, 2017, 2:25 pm wrote:Come up with a common definition of who is responsible enough to handle power
Help society identify people who are not responsible enough to handle power early
Find ways to help all those who can be helped so they will be taught to be more responsible, so we can empower people up to the level of responsibility they obtain and no more
Isolate and take power/influence away from those who can’t be helped by society’s best efforts, limiting their influence to do harm to society ...


Isn't the Chinese system a real-world implementation of exactly that?

Everything I've written is exploring the real life practical meaning of implementing the ideas in that paragraph. I find it a recipe for the worst totalitarian abuses. OP takes exception not only to that opinion; but initially objected strenuously to my even having expressed it at all, since it violated the flowers and kittens utopianism the OP intended. [OP did describe himself as an optimist, so my characterization is fair]. I like flowers and kittens too. I just want the OP and others to examine the various ways such noble-sounding sentiments have been and could be implemented in the real world.


Someguy1, do you really believe the Chinese system has consensus amongst the chinese people? Is the definition of what constitutes a "good" or "evil" person of a common definition that the vast majority of people can relate to? No, clearly not, that's not how China works. We live in the US, we have the opportunity to do better, and base our own laws/rules/certifications/etc on consensus based decisions. The Chinese system is nothing like what I'm proposing... Again you're throwing out your own strawman argument and of a one party system's attempt to control its people as somehow related to my proposal, when its not. Start your own thread on the chinese system, in this thread respond to what I said or don't respond at all.

Why is it that when someguy1 accuses me of being a totalitarian for a completely non-partisan post, the moderators don't tell him not to misconstrue other people's post (it took Serpent to do that.). What I get frustrated that he's accusing me of being a supporter of totalitarianism based on my politically agnostic post, I'm told to calm down. Is this how you always run these boards?
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 10th, 2017, 8:01 am 

someguy1 » July 9th, 2017, 9:28 pm wrote:
BioWizard » July 9th, 2017, 8:22 pm wrote:I wouldn't know - I haven't seen what that is yet. All I've seen so far is your apocalyptic interpretation of T4L's general proposal, and T4L's objection to it. He could be thinking of nothing more than some sort of minimum sanity test, followed by a crash course in leadership and management for all I know.


Sure, that would be fine with me. For example when foreigners become citizens they have to learn how many branches of government there are and how long Senators serve for and what's the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I would support sending all native-born American adults to such a class too. So sure, if we're talking civics class for adults, I'm all for it. Like driver's ed, which sadly isn't taught in many high schools and should be. Or traffic school, where if you get a ticket in some states you can pay the fine and go to a class and the ticket doesn't count against your insurance rates or "points" against your license. That's fine too, I think all drivers should go to continuing education. Driving's dangerous and many out there have no clue.

I agree that I took a pessimistic read on the OP's proposal. But like I say I have history on my side. Chairman Mao wasn't teaching driver's ed in his re-education camps.

And OP explicitly suggests sanctions imposed on those who can't pass the class. Surely I can ask for specifics. What criteria for being judged incorrigible or unteachable? Exactly what sanctions? Why is my challenging those points regarded as "apocalyptic?"


My proposal is closer to what BioWiz is saying than someguy1. I believe in educating the population about facts and realities where there is a bi-partisan consensus on those facts. Like how the government is run, etc.

What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "good" and "evil". The founding fathers didn't tell us the guiding principles they used to create the constitution or the declaration of independence, they didn't tell us *why* we have the right to bear arms. I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations. Again, this requires the following:

1. Agree on what is "good" and "evil" - for both individuals and society (my definition above is my best attempt).
2. Have some way of evaluating whether people are doing "good" or "evil"
3. Have an education system that helps people do "good" (this includes not only soft skills training and emotional psychological training, but also training currently unemployable people so they can add value to society (helping society progress is part of my definition of good, as it was to one of the moderators in another forum).
4. Ensure through democratically powered means that people who do excessive amounts of "evil" do not end up in positions of power (destructive capability)

If we can agree that steps 1-4 make sense if the definition of good and evil is supported by a vast majority of us citizens (it clearly isn't and wasn't in China or any other totalitarian regime... I'm proposing something that I'd be killed for if I were in China or Russia. so comparing this with their solutions is naive at best and intentionally misdirective at worst), then the next step is to define good and evil. Let's see if we can agree that if the definition of good and evil has majority consensus that it makes sense for our laws to abide by our majority consensus definitions of good and evil. Someguy1, is that such a hard pill to swallow? This is the same logic that puts murders in jail and requires a driving test to get a drivers license... both of those things are laws driven from majority consensus defintions of good and evil "people who kill intentionally shouldn't be free to roam the streets and kill more people" - consenus definition of evil. "People who are going to cause lots of car accidents aren't responsible drivers and shouldn't be allowed to drive" - consensus decision.

All I'm proposing is to come up with a commonly agreed upon definition of good and evil to guide what laws, certifications, etc. should be put in place. Does this make sense and sound less than totalitarian to you?

Please try to re-state what I'm saying in my own words, like the advice I gave you, to prove you understand what I'm saying before you attack it. Then try saying the parts of what I'm saying that you agree with, also like the advice I gave you about reasonable debate. Only then, try sharing where you dissent -- based on what I wrote and the intent you think I mean in my writing without misconstruing it.

Kind regards,
Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby BioWizard on July 10th, 2017, 8:37 am 

thinker4life wrote:Why is it that when someguy1 accuses me of being a totalitarian for a completely non-partisan post, the moderators don't tell him not to misconstrue other people's post (it took Serpent to do that.). What I get frustrated that he's accusing me of being a supporter of totalitarianism based on my politically agnostic post, I'm told to calm down. Is this how you always run these boards?


T4L, each moderator has their own style for approaching things. I have called some1guy on his mischaracterizations and asked him to reconsider. I've also backed up Serpent on the good advice he gave you.

Moderators are human beings. We build relationships and friendships with long time members, which can complicate things when we have to judge a clash between a long time member and a new comer. Not to mention our own internal biases about things. But we do try to be fair. You're also doing well and you have an exellent long time member helping you - so please hang in there.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12507
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 10th, 2017, 9:07 am 

thinker4life » July 10th, 2017, 7:01 am wrote:My proposal is closer to what BioWiz is saying than someguy1. I believe in educating the population about facts and realities where there is a bi-partisan consensus on those facts. Like how the government is run, etc.


Why bi-partisan? What about all the 52 parties you don't hear much about, because the big two have gobbled up the political landscape? What about all the non-partisan non-voters who make up nearly half the population?
Consensus between Dems and Repubs isn't going to happen in their lifetime. You may have to wait till those parties implode or eat themselves from the inside out and fall limp to the ground like empty suits,
then go to the people.

What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "good" and "evil".

There is a fairly extensive body of laws and statutes in effect already. What will you do with them? Lots of viable babies in all that bath-water: use a colander.

The founding fathers didn't tell us the guiding principles they used to create the constitution or the declaration of independence,

Ummm...
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Doesn't seem all that obscure.
However, they were somewhat shortsighted: it didn't occur to them that anyone outside of their class - who was not a gentleman - would ever get within hailing distance of political power.

they didn't tell us *why* we have the right to bear arms.

Yes, they did: because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the protection of the community. (Remember, they were surrounded by Spanish, British, French and Indian enemies. Literally surrounded - in those days, they didn't have to sail all the way around the globe in search of anyone willing to shoot back.)
http://constitutionus.com/
Several of those guys were prolific essayists, diarists, broadsiders, orators and correspondents; they published extensive, closely-reasoned arguments for each of their proposals, and counter-arguments to one another's proposals; more of their writings were published posthumously, as were any number of commentaries, studies, critiques, analyses, treatises, theses and polemics by scholars who came after them.
If you want their rationale, read some books. Or go see Hamilton.

I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations.

27 plugs, so far.

If we can agree that steps 1-4 make sense if the definition of good and evil is supported by a vast majority of us citizens

A slight majority will tell you to read the Bible. Most of them don't know what's in that book, either.
Good and evil are such superstition- and emotion-laden concepts as to be useless in lawmaking. You might try guiding principles or base convictions or some other philosophical underpinning for making laws and evaluating fellow citizens.

Now: How do you 1. phrase the question so that the vast majority can understand it?
and 2. pose the question where all of the people can respond?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 10th, 2017, 8:30 pm 

BioWizard » July 10th, 2017, 7:37 am wrote:
thinker4life wrote:Why is it that when someguy1 accuses me of being a totalitarian for a completely non-partisan post, the moderators don't tell him not to misconstrue other people's post (it took Serpent to do that.). What I get frustrated that he's accusing me of being a supporter of totalitarianism based on my politically agnostic post, I'm told to calm down. Is this how you always run these boards?


T4L, each moderator has their own style for approaching things. I have called some1guy on his mischaracterizations and asked him to reconsider. I've also backed up Serpent on the good advice he gave you.

Moderators are human beings. We build relationships and friendships with long time members, which can complicate things when we have to judge a clash between a long time member and a new comer. Not to mention our own internal biases about things. But we do try to be fair. You're also doing well and you have an exellent long time member helping you - so please hang in there.


Thanks BioWizard!
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 10th, 2017, 9:41 pm 

Serpent » July 10th, 2017, 6:07 am wrote:However, they were somewhat shortsighted: it didn't occur to them that anyone outside of their class - who was not a gentleman - would ever get within hailing distance of political power.


It definitely occurred to them, they deliberately structured their system to "protect the opulent minority from agrarian reform."


The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
- Jame Madison(Father of the U.S. Constitution), Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 10th, 2017, 10:59 pm 

Sivad » July 10th, 2017, 8:41 pm wrote:
It definitely occurred to them, they deliberately structured their system to "protect the opulent minority from agrarian reform."


That's protecting their interest against restructuring. Not making provisions for a populist buffoon.
Okay, they may have seen the possibility and did exclude the "not our kind" from the process.

Americans have a really hard time with the whole founding documents issue.
On the one hand, most of them seem to think their constitution is something utterly unique in the annals of governance, and that it guarantees them all kinds of goodies that other nations don't have and don't understand.
On the other, they deprecate the political and social practices that seemed right and good to their deeply venerated founding fathers and would consider those practices repugnant if they encountered them in another nation.
On the one hand, they're proud of the social progress the US has made over its short history; they often act as if they, personally, broadcast largess upon the yearning, huddled masses.
On the other, they seem just as often oblivious to the resistance of their government to social progress and the price their government extracted from people who demanded the rights they now consider so wonderfully American.

I really do wish the education system did a better of job of orienting its citizens.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 11th, 2017, 12:23 am 

thinker4life » July 9th, 2017, 4:23 pm wrote:Funny you say that Brainvat, the association I made was NOT mine, it was his. He made the association that my advocating for things like drivers licenses and gun licenses was tantamount to totalitarianism, not me. So actually, your frustration with the confusion supports my stance... I agree with you its a mis-representation, and it was someguy1 that made the mis-representation. THanks for arguing my point.



I've been away from the board today and I'm just catching up. I glanced at this and I'm stunned.

* I categorically deny ever equating driver's licenses with totalitarianism. The only thing I said about driving was that it's a shame the high schools can no longer afford to teach driver's ed and that I think it would be a good thing if adults were required to complete ongoing driver's education. If one were so inclined one could review my posts and see that what I've said is true.

* I categorically deny ever saying ANYTHING about guns or gun rights. Not only in this thread, but anywhere on this forum. Or any other online forum where I participate. I have a few hot button issues (US foreign policy in the Middle East for example) and gun rights simply aren't one of them.

Garett you have written falsehoods about what I've said in this thread. I didn't say either those things; and in the case of driving, I expressed a decidedly Statist [opposite of Libertarian] position on the issue.

Another person accused me of being against "government." Did you really miss the post where I said that I think all US-born adults should attend the same type of citizenship class that naturalized Americans must take?

Frankly I drive a lot and I would definitely favor sending a lot of drivers off to re-education camp. Pedestrians too. Today this 30-something female walked directly in front of me across a freeway entrance, SLOOOOWLY, and never once looked up from her phone. What, you think I wouldn't send her to Gitmo?

I'm just astonished at the thoughts and words that people are imputing to me.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 11th, 2017, 2:46 am 

Serpent » July 10th, 2017, 8:59 pm wrote:Americans have a really hard time with the whole founding documents issue.


These days the founders are evil slaveowning white men. Which they were. There is no understanding at all of what the US is about. There's more freedom and opportunity here than there's ever been anywhere in history. And nobody gets that. Everyone wants to play the victim and tear down the very society they live in.

Case in point, Bill De Blasio. Yes he's a big meathead liberal, but he's also mayor of New York City. A cop, a mother of 12 year old twins, was gunned down in cold blood a few days ago. De Blasio skipped her funeral so he could attend G20 and join the protesters.

This is insanity. This is an abrogation of his professional responsibilities so that he can childishly virtue-signal his support for those smashing cars and setting fires.

You know, I really am in favor of civics classes. Think you could sell that idea to liberals these days? Not even the bomb-throwing left, but the actual leaders of the party. They want to blow up the society they're elected to lead.

So this idea that we want citizens to be more well-informed and knowledgeable about their own way of government. That is essentially a conservative idea, is it not? The left just wants to pull down monuments.

Count me pro-civics class. Teach people the value of the thing they're trying to destroy.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 11th, 2017, 3:22 am 

someguy1 » July 10th, 2017, 11:46 pm wrote:There's more freedom and opportunity here than there's ever been anywhere in history. And nobody gets that.


That's debatable. And even if it's true it still leaves a lot to be desired, a lot of room for improvement. At one time the Roman Empire offered the most freedom and opportunity, you think it was a nice society to live in? The best isn't necessarily good, or even satisfactory.

Everyone wants to play the victim and tear down the very society they live in.


That's one way of putting it, I'd say our society does victimize a lot of people and many of those people are attempting to reform it.

those smashing cars and setting fires.


The mischief they do is minuscule compared to environmental deregulation or Wall Street speculation, you're focusing on petty miscreants while the archfiends at large are operating with impunity.
Last edited by Sivad on July 11th, 2017, 3:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Sivad on July 11th, 2017, 3:42 am 

Serpent » July 10th, 2017, 7:59 pm wrote:
Sivad » July 10th, 2017, 8:41 pm wrote:
It definitely occurred to them, they deliberately structured their system to "protect the opulent minority from agrarian reform."


That's protecting their interest against restructuring. Not making provisions for a populist buffoon.


Their brand of elitism paved the way for the populists. That's why I voted Clinton in the last election, I figured if the Sander's phenomenon was the reaction to eight years of Obama then eight years of Hillary should give us progressives the numbers and the outrage to take over the whole country. The hell with the lesser evil stuff, Clinton would have been the perfect evil at the perfect time.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 136
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 11th, 2017, 2:10 pm 

someguy1 » July 11th, 2017, 1:46 am wrote: There is no understanding at all of what the US is about.

It's not about anything. It's a nation, doing its best to gain territory, wealth, influence and advantage among other nations. Having to cope with internal upheavals and external threats as those arise, whether as a result of world event or its own policies.
It copes very well in some circumstances and very badly in others. While successful in some of its international confrontations, it has been heavy-handed, short-sighted and inept in just as many others. As for clashes between power blocks and citizens' interests, pretty nearly every US government, state, federal and municipal, has botched its handling of those.
They've also done a piss-poor job of reconciling political procedure with the constitutional amendments, and the legal structures at federal and state levels.

There's more freedom and opportunity here than there's ever been anywhere in history. And nobody gets that. Everyone wants to play the victim and tear down the very society they live in.

If your society produces enough victims to be in danger of being torn down, maybe it's not living up to its potential. Maybe it's paying more lip service and mythologizing than devoting real action to the concepts of freedom and opportunity.
(Plus, of course that "anywhere in history" must be taken in the context of what History is taught to American children. It's easy to believe in bestness and mostness when you're unaware of otherness.)

You know, I really am in favor of civics classes. Think you could sell that idea to liberals these days?

I don't know. The only place I've heard of any such courses recently (since my septuagenarian contemporaries left school) was on a news-magazine segment on PBS. They probably can't afford to make those excellent series of reports on education and the arts since the latest funding-slashes.

Not even the bomb-throwing left, but the actual leaders of the party. They want to blow up the society they're elected to lead.

This is more incendiary, but not less incomprehensible than your previous classic: "explicitly suggested".

Count me pro-civics class. Teach people the value of the thing they're trying to destroy.

I'd prefer teaching them facts.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 12th, 2017, 7:26 am 

Serpent » July 10th, 2017, 8:07 am wrote:
thinker4life » July 10th, 2017, 7:01 am wrote:
My proposal is closer to what BioWiz is saying than someguy1. I believe in educating the population about facts and realities where there is a bi-partisan consensus on those facts. Like how the government is run, etc.


Why bi-partisan? What about all the 52 parties you don't hear much about, because the big two have gobbled up the political landscape? What about all the non-partisan non-voters who make up nearly half the population?
Consensus between Dems and Repubs isn't going to happen in their lifetime. You may have to wait till those parties implode or eat themselves from the inside out and fall limp to the ground like empty suits,
then go to the people.


My goal is consensus amongst a majority of the people, including all parties. Sorry if I spoke less precisely than I should have.
What I'm also proposing is that as we create laws/rules, that these laws/rules should be done based on a commonly accepted definition of what is considered "good" and "evil".

There is a fairly extensive body of laws and statutes in effect already. What will you do with them? Lots of viable babies in all that bath-water: use a colander.

The founding fathers didn't tell us the guiding principles they used to create the constitution or the declaration of independence,

Ummm...
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
Doesn't seem all that obscure.
However, they were somewhat shortsighted: it didn't occur to them that anyone outside of their class - who was not a gentleman - would ever get within hailing distance of political power.

they didn't tell us *why* we have the right to bear arms.

Yes, they did: because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the protection of the community. (Remember, they were surrounded by Spanish, British, French and Indian enemies. Literally surrounded - in those days, they didn't have to sail all the way around the globe in search of anyone willing to shoot back.)
http://constitutionus.com/
Several of those guys were prolific essayists, diarists, broadsiders, orators and correspondents; they published extensive, closely-reasoned arguments for each of their proposals, and counter-arguments to one another's proposals; more of their writings were published posthumously, as were any number of commentaries, studies, critiques, analyses, treatises, theses and polemics by scholars who came after them.
If you want their rationale, read some books. Or go see Hamilton.


Ok let me rephrase, I'm aware they gave some rational, but its essentially useless in today's modern environment because different people interpret it differently. I'm looking to create some language that brings people together rather than divides people. I'm obviously not doing a good job since you're writing against me and you were originally on my side, but do you understand the intent? Do you see the difference?
I've read books about the founding fathers, one of my favorites was the metaphysical club (which goes throughout american history), by menand... Highly recommend it to a fellow thinker. Sometimes in my arguments I skip steps and make assumptions that I think are safe to make because they would be controversial, I'll try to be more explicit since that seems necessary.

I'm proposing we plug this gap by creating a definition of "guiding principles" (confusionist philosophy, not legalist), that guide the direction of new laws, rules and regulations.

27 plugs, so far.

If we can agree that steps 1-4 make sense if the definition of good and evil is supported by a vast majority of us citizens

A slight majority will tell you to read the Bible. Most of them don't know what's in that book, either.
Good and evil are such superstition- and emotion-laden concepts as to be useless in lawmaking. You might try guiding principles or base convictions or some other philosophical underpinning for making laws and evaluating fellow citizens.

Now: How do you 1. phrase the question so that the vast majority can understand it?
and 2. pose the question where all of the people can respond?



Why don't you help me with #1, I'm clearly not doing a good job myself... so tell me how you would ask it if you understand my intent now.
As for #2, I have plans for that but they're under NDA at the moment, and waiting for me to be able to fund them... Once I can and they're public I'm happy to share (and likely will if I'm still using this forum in 3-5 years time, which is around when I expect I'll be able to make them public).
Last edited by thinker4life on July 12th, 2017, 7:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 12th, 2017, 7:32 am 

someguy1 » July 10th, 2017, 11:23 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 9th, 2017, 4:23 pm wrote:Funny you say that Brainvat, the association I made was NOT mine, it was his. He made the association that my advocating for things like drivers licenses and gun licenses was tantamount to totalitarianism, not me. So actually, your frustration with the confusion supports my stance... I agree with you its a mis-representation, and it was someguy1 that made the mis-representation. THanks for arguing my point.



I've been away from the board today and I'm just catching up. I glanced at this and I'm stunned.

* I categorically deny ever equating driver's licenses with totalitarianism. The only thing I said about driving was that it's a shame the high schools can no longer afford to teach driver's ed and that I think it would be a good thing if adults were required to complete ongoing driver's education. If one were so inclined one could review my posts and see that what I've said is true.

* I categorically deny ever saying ANYTHING about guns or gun rights. Not only in this thread, but anywhere on this forum. Or any other online forum where I participate. I have a few hot button issues (US foreign policy in the Middle East for example) and gun rights simply aren't one of them.

Garett you have written falsehoods about what I've said in this thread. I didn't say either those things; and in the case of driving, I expressed a decidedly Statist [opposite of Libertarian] position on the issue.

Another person accused me of being against "government." Did you really miss the post where I said that I think all US-born adults should attend the same type of citizenship class that naturalized Americans must take?

Frankly I drive a lot and I would definitely favor sending a lot of drivers off to re-education camp. Pedestrians too. Today this 30-something female walked directly in front of me across a freeway entrance, SLOOOOWLY, and never once looked up from her phone. What, you think I wouldn't send her to Gitmo?

I'm just astonished at the thoughts and words that people are imputing to me.


You can deny it someguy1, but the history is there. I wrote an innocent proposal suggesting controls should be put in place to ensure people with power have the responsibility to wield it. A logical person will equate that with drivers licenses and doctors licenses... ensuring the safety of society through controls imposed that have a vast majority of consensus. You equated my proposal with totalitarianism. So I recognize from your post above you didn't mean to make that relation, but that is in fact what you did. It may have been done without your self-recognition that you did it, but you most definitely did it and I most definitely haven't lied.

Now that we recognize nobody is arguing for totalitarianism or for some system that an authoritarian regime in China is implementing can we have a reasonable discussion?
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby Serpent on July 12th, 2017, 11:27 am 

thinker4life » July 12th, 2017, 6:26 am wrote:My goal is consensus amongst a majority of the people, including all parties. Sorry if I spoke less precisely than I should have.

Then you should jump to my last question.

Ok let me rephrase, I'm aware they gave some rational, but its essentially useless in today's modern environment because different people interpret it differently.

Hence the amendments and the Supreme Court.
What's wrong with SCOTUS as authoritative interpreter of the constitution and its later additions?
(Hint: lots. Reflect and be specific in your answer.)
I'm looking to create some language that brings people together rather than divides people.

Start with Spanglish. (Sorry - it was a very low-hanging fruit.) The language already exists, but is not universally spoken. Consensus doesn't, and that's not going to change by reducing political language to religious language, because that dichotomy is one of the reasons for the lack of consensus. What unites people is passion - particularly anger. You can get all sorts reaching for their pitchforks, if you scream "Monster, monster!" convincingly.
Reacting is easy. Thinking is hard.
So, the most likely path to consensual reasoning is informed self-interest. But for that to bring people together, they would have to be aware of many hitherto obfuscated facts, and be generally numerate. That brings us back to Athena's project: educating the masses for democracy.
Actually, we already have a pretty good consensus on this thread regarding civics courses.
I'm obviously not doing a good job since you're writing against me and you were originally on my side,

You do seem easily deflected from developing your central theme. I was never on anyone's "side". I just don't like to see anyone slapped unless they deserve it.
but do you understand the intent? Do you see the difference?

Sure. It's not any more obscure than the reasoning of those long-ago declaration signers. They made an exhaustive, well-articulated list of what the English king had done wrong, according to their understanding of what governance should be and should accomplish.
Do likewise.
I keep asking you direct questions and you keep repeating the same vague, impractical notion. Don't assume everyone understands the same things you do, or includes the same group of symptoms under a single diagnosis. Make a list of what you feel is incorrect* in the present regime, in terms of what you think would be correct*. (*See, I steer clear of the words right and wrong, good and evil, because they're freighted with religious and emotional associations.)
The wheel doesn't need reinventing every generation; it only needs new brake-pads or alignment.

[How do you 1. phrase the question so that the vast majority can understand it?]
Why don't you help me with #1, I'm clearly not doing a good job myself... so tell me how you would ask it if you understand my intent now.

Problem: I would not ask for a single stark value-judgment. I wouldn't conflate governance with character. What I value in a personal relationship might also be desirable in public office (Virtue, as Mossling would tell you - in fact, it wouldn't hurt to check his thread http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=33095 on the subject. Just ignore the parts where I gave him a hard time.) but I don't think a public discussion can include that much subject matter without bogging down in endless quibbles. So I would separate the questions on governance, education and citizenship.
On governance -
I would ask people to consider the three most important functions of government in their own life.
Then I would post the top three most cited responses and ask people to rate the present form of government (not personalities!) in delivering each of those expectations.
Then I would post the results and ask, for each of the most popular functions, what feature of the present form prevents government from effectively carrying out that function.

It would be a lengthy iterative process, but I don't readily see a shortcut.

(Gah! I never get those pesky quote brackets right the first four times!)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
BioWizard liked this post


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 12th, 2017, 5:54 pm 

thinker4life » July 12th, 2017, 5:32 am wrote:You can deny it someguy1, but the history is there.


Then quote the history.

I repeat: I absolutely and categorically deny:

1) Opposing driver's ed or driver's licenses or equating them to totalitarianism. On the contrary, I SUPPORTED ongoing continuing education for adult drivers, being a frequent driver myself. And

2) Any mention whatsoever of guns or gun rights. Like I said, it's just not an issue I care about one way or the other and can't remember talking about it online, ever.

When confronted with your lies you've now REPEATED the lies without evidence.

That crosses the line from

* Accidental misreading of nested threads, a perfectly understandable mistake; to

* Deliberate and malicious lying.

Post your evidence or retract your lies.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby thinker4life on July 12th, 2017, 7:42 pm 

someguy1 » July 12th, 2017, 4:54 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 12th, 2017, 5:32 am wrote:You can deny it someguy1, but the history is there.


Then quote the history.

I repeat: I absolutely and categorically deny:

1) Opposing driver's ed or driver's licenses or equating them to totalitarianism. On the contrary, I SUPPORTED ongoing continuing education for adult drivers, being a frequent driver myself. And

2) Any mention whatsoever of guns or gun rights. Like I said, it's just not an issue I care about one way or the other and can't remember talking about it online, ever.

When confronted with your lies you've now REPEATED the lies without evidence.

That crosses the line from

* Accidental misreading of nested threads, a perfectly understandable mistake; to

* Deliberate and malicious lying.

Post your evidence or retract your lies.


someguy1 » July 7th, 2017, 3:54 pm wrote:
thinker4life » July 4th, 2017, 2:25 pm wrote:

Isolate and take power/influence away from those who can’t be helped by society’s best efforts



Ok lets just start here. Name some specific mechanisms you have in mind here.

As a baseline, we do incarcerate people who have been convicted in a court of law of serious crimes. And convicted felons are denied the vote. That is a behavioral standard. It's a lot different than "people with dark skin must sit in the back of the bus." It's "People who have been convicted of a crime can't walk the streets."

You are proposing something much more ambitious. You say we should

1) Identify people who "can't be helped"; and

2) Take power and influence away from them.

To me, this screams totalitarian abuse. And I have history on my side. But then again I don't have your sunny disposition. So just give me some specific examples of what you mean by writing the phrase I quoted.


Here's your words, calling my suggestion totalitarian when all I was suggesting is democratic controls similar to drivers licenses and medical licenses.

I will send you the bill for the 5 minutes it took me to find it, you may be surprised at how high my hourly rate is, though.

Now retract your claims that i'm a liar and admit that you completely mis-interpreted what I wrote originally, taking the conversation way off topic and making baseless accusations against me.

The first quote was about totalitarian torturers, if you need to see evidence of your misrepresentation twice I can do it, but hopefully proving you wrong once is enough for you to realize your mistake.

Garrett
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Why "soft" science is more important than "hard" science

Postby someguy1 on July 12th, 2017, 8:01 pm 

Garrett, You're a **** liar. Your quotes utterly failed to support your lies. And you appear to be delusional.

ps -- Oh I see I can't say that. You're a farking liar. I think that's from the movie Fargo.

You made two explicit claims: That I equated driver's licenses with totalitarianism; and that I said something about gun rights or gun laws.

Both claims are factually false. You are just embarrassing yourself now.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 481
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests