Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ad Hominem. I would have thought you could do better than that.

I really wanted you to make a good case perhaps something along the lines of Ayn Rand.

You are being ‘less than honest’. You are thoroughly closed to considering the notion of downsides to the ascent of women into decisive positions over the last 20-30 years. I did present a short video where the question is broached by a woman academic no less. You refused to entertain it. (Video is an important and common means of communication in our present and on this and other forums).

Then you launched into absurd references to Taoism and other nonsense while simultaneously misunderstanding both what I presented and projecting all sorts of garbage.

Et voilà…

This type of impasse should be seen as illustrative of resistance and self-deception, largely on the part of lefty-progressive hyper-liberal sorts, who refuse to understand why the ground is shifting under their feet and adamantly refuse to examine the reasons.

The counter-movement has begun Belinda.

[Belinda]

Ad Hominem. I would have thought you could do better than that.

I really wanted you to make a good case perhaps something along the lines of Ayn Rand.

You are being ‘less than honest’. You are thoroughly closed to considering the notion of downsides to the ascent of women into decisive positions over the last 20-30 years. I did present a short video where the question is broached by a woman academic no less. You refused to entertain it. (Video is an important and common means of communication in our present and on this and other forums).

Then you launched into absurd references to Taoism and other nonsense while simultaneously misunderstanding both what I presented and projecting all sorts of garbage.

Et voilà…

This type of impasse should be seen as illustrative of resistance and self-deception, largely on the part of lefty-progressive hyper-liberal sorts, who refuse to understand why the ground is shifting under their feet and adamantly refuse to examine the reasons.

The counter-movement has begun Belinda.

Social psychology presents reasons.

I simply don't do videos even if Jesus Christ, Joseph, and Mary were presenting the video. I would try hard to watch a video if Socrates were the presenter.

I discussed how Yin is eternal whilst Yang is superimposed upon Yin. I did so because I had not understood that you were interested in the female sex ( as in unsuited for positions of power,) Please note adequate training in martial arts makes any woman better than an untrained man in hand to hand combat.

Male supremacy has, with a few notable exceptions , traditionally been got by force not by reason. The sexes are now equally powerful now that brain power gets things done more than do big muscles and thick bones.

[Immanuel Can]

Social psychology presents reasons.

Jordan Peterson, who is himself an acclaimed clinical psychologist, you'll know, calls social psychology "the most corrupt of all the disciplines." I can't say for sure, since it's not my area, and it would have to be very corrupt indeed to compete with the various "studies" studies, or with education. But it's a damning perspective, for sure.

[Belinda]

Social psychology presents reasons.

Jordan Peterson, who is himself an acclaimed clinical psychologist, you'll know, calls social psychology "the most corrupt of all the disciplines." I can't say for sure, since it's not my area, and it would have to be very corrupt indeed to compete with the various "studies" studies, or with education. But it's a damning perspective, for sure.

You are another traditionalist. Of course you would say that!
From ChatGPT:

Peterson doesn’t reject social psychology entirely, but he is deeply skeptical of its ideological biases, overgeneralizations, and focus on group identity over individual differences. He tends to prefer frameworks that combine empirical rigor with an understanding of individual psychology.

ChatGPT:

psychology

"the most corrupt of all the disciplines." ?
ChatGPT said:

Yes, Jordan Peterson has indeed referred to social psychology as “the most corrupt of all the disciplines.” In a 2022 interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Peterson, a clinical and personality psychologist, criticized social psychology for its ideological leanings and methodological flaws. He stated:

“One of the differences is that personality and clinical psychology isn’t a corrupt enterprise whereas social psychology fundamentally is.”
The Online Scholar Fact Check

Peterson argued that social psychology has been undergoing an internal crisis due to the failure of many of its foundational studies to replicate. He also criticized the field for its ideological bias, claiming it is the most “social justice/left-leaning part of psychology,” and for producing methods that lack conceptual clarity.

This criticism is consistent with Peterson’s broader views on academia. He has frequently expressed concerns about what he perceives as the dominance of postmodern and neo-Marxist ideologies in various disciplines, including sociology and gender studies, which he believes have led to a decline in academic rigor and objectivity.
Wikipedia

While Peterson's views have been influential among his supporters, they have also been met with criticism from many in the academic community, who argue that his assessments are overly generalized and dismissive of legitimate scholarly work.

Bias in scholarly works is a recognised phenomenon. We are all human. Perhaps biology is the 'hardest' science.

[Immanuel Can]

Social psychology presents reasons.

Jordan Peterson, who is himself an acclaimed clinical psychologist, you'll know, calls social psychology "the most corrupt of all the disciplines." I can't say for sure, since it's not my area, and it would have to be very corrupt indeed to compete with the various "studies" studies, or with education. But it's a damning perspective, for sure.

You are another traditionalist. Of course you would say that!

Anytime you try to start a rebuttal with the word "you," remind yourself that you're not talking about the subject at all, but merely going ad hominem and failing to make any point relevant to the actual discussion.

It's interesting: one of the old knocks on women in debate situations is proposed by those who suggest they cannot separate a statement of fact from their personal opinion of the speaker, so they can't hear hard truth from anybody they don't happen to find congenial...and if true, that would be a major fallacy and intellectual fault, a true limitation of capacity. It would mean they can be fooled by those they feel liking for, can't hear from those they do not find congenial, and can't understand when a factual matter, not a person, is at question.

I'm sure you're aware of this. Consequently, I should think you'd be careful not to demonstrate that fault, and thereby lending credence to the criticism. But it seems you do so regularly -- as, indeed, you do here.

Maybe you should stop that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I discussed how Yin is eternal whilst Yang is superimposed upon Yin. I did so because I had not understood that you were interested in the female sex (as in unsuited for positions of power,) Please note adequate training in martial arts makes any woman better than an untrained man in hand to hand combat.

I have lots of familiarity with Chinese philosophy through the I-Ching. Your assertion that yin is original and yang secondary is flatly absurd. You reverse engineer an Occidental somewhat New Age or feminist interpretation onto an Oriental philosophy that, if anything, would describe both as necessary.

I did not say ‘unsuited for positions of power’. I said simply that, according to some, and one female academic I referenced, that the results have not all been good. And that the negative aspects can be presented and considered.

The question about “roles” is definitely one that has come to the surface recently.

Male supremacy has, with a few notable exceptions, traditionally been got by force not by reason. The sexes are now equally powerful now that brain power gets things done more than do big muscles and thick bones.

Even here you only hear “make supremacy” which I think reveals your Marxian orientation. I am not referring to male supremacy or any forms of supremacy. I am presenting a view that the ascent of women into decisive positions has had a negative aspect. Nor have I denied a positive aspect. The culture of wokeness, according to the woman academic, is one result. Thus feminization of attitude, as well as toleration and encouragement of various behaviors, can be examined. I suggest that these are being critiqued and countermanded in the present.

Not a minor issue.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Bias in scholarly works is a recognised phenomenon. We are all human. Perhaps biology is the 'hardest' science.

I am uncertain what you mean by this. But there is a great deal of scholarship — by women in science fields like evolutionary biology — that point out that men and women are biologically very different.

If therefore biology is ‘the hardest science’ then these essential differences are true because ‘hard’.

Thus contaminated and prejudiced sociologically-derived perspectives, inflected with ideological assertions, could be questioned with a ‘harder’ rigor, if that makes sense.

[Will Bouwman]

It's interesting: one of the old knocks on women in debate situations is proposed by those who suggest they cannot separate a statement of fact from their personal opinion of the speaker, so they can't hear hard truth from anybody they don't happen to find congenial...and if true, that would be a major fallacy and intellectual fault, a true limitation of capacity. It would mean they can be fooled by those they feel liking for, can't hear from those they do not find congenial, and can't understand when a factual matter, not a person, is at question.

I'm sure you're aware of this. Consequently, I should think you'd be careful not to demonstrate that fault, and thereby lending credence to the criticism. But it seems you do so regularly -- as, indeed, you do here.

Maybe you should stop that.

Charming. So we can add sexist halfwit to revisionist right wing conspiracy theorist fundamentalist religious idiot. As nearly all philosophers of science, and philosophers generally, since Thomas Kuhn have acknowledged, you can't separate the thought from the the thinker. Anyone who believes what they believe is privileged is philosophically inept. Like you.

[Immanuel Can]

It's interesting: one of the old knocks on women in debate situations is proposed by those who suggest they cannot separate a statement of fact from their personal opinion of the speaker, so they can't hear hard truth from anybody they don't happen to find congenial...and if true, that would be a major fallacy and intellectual fault, a true limitation of capacity. It would mean they can be fooled by those they feel liking for, can't hear from those they do not find congenial, and can't understand when a factual matter, not a person, is at question.

I'm sure you're aware of this. Consequently, I should think you'd be careful not to demonstrate that fault, and thereby lending credence to the criticism. But it seems you do so regularly -- as, indeed, you do here.

Maybe you should stop that.

Charming. So we can add sexist halfwit to revisionist right wing conspiracy theorist fundamentalist religious idiot.

And apparently, you don't know what ad hominem is, and are happy to prove that some men can be equally silly and off topic.

Well, at least you've eliminated any concern of sexism.

[Immanuel Can]

Bias in scholarly works is a recognised phenomenon. We are all human. Perhaps biology is the 'hardest' science.

Actually, in the hierarchy of "hardness," it is generally recognized that the order is as follows: physics, chemistry, biology (in that order), then the "practical" sciences like engineering and economics, and the "professional" studies like law and medicine, and then the "soft" sciences, including things like psychology, sociology, history, and so on down.

The general attempt is to rank them by the level of their susceptibility to manipulation: the studies closer to pure mathematics being the hardest to pollute with irrelevancies, and the "studies studies" group at the bottom, almost entirely made up for ideological reasons and lacking any distinctive, formal discipline of their own.

Bias is easy at the end of the train. It's not impossible at the top, but much, much harder to pull off without detection, because of the rigorous and disciplined nature of the subject. Physics, for example, is checked both by mathematics and by physical reality at nearly every point. Chemistry either works or does not. Biology either keeps things alive or kills them. So those reality checks keep those disciplines more "hard" and less dishonest. Even in subjects like Business, the ability to produce value checks the wildness of theories and constrains what can be believed.

But the rest? Not so easy to do. And Social Psychology really fits down near the end of the "soft" sciences, and nowhere near the "hard" ones.

Therefore, bias is not at all equally distributed, and not always so easy to sustain. It's always possible in extremis, of course, (if one is prepared to falsify one's data or tell outright lies for ideology's sake, for example) but much more difficult in some subjects than in others.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Charming. So we can add sexist halfwit to revisionist right wing conspiracy theorist fundamentalist religious idiot. As nearly all philosophers of science, and philosophers generally, since Thomas Kuhn have acknowledged, you can't separate the thought from the the thinker. Anyone who believes what they believe is privileged is philosophically inept. Like you.

No, no! That’s ME. IC is an imposter. Quasi-evil. A pretender. A poseur!

Please, keep it real Wilbur …

[Alexis Jacobi]

Actually, in the hierarchy of "hardness," it is generally recognized that the order is as follows: physics, chemistry, biology (in that order), then the "practical" sciences like engineering and economics, and the "professional" studies like law and medicine, and then the "soft" sciences, including things like psychology, sociology, history, and so on down.

The general attempt is to rank them by the level of their susceptibility to manipulation: the studies closer to pure mathematics being the hardest to pollute with irrelevancies, and the "studies studies" group at the bottom, almost entirely made up for ideological reasons and lacking any distinctive, formal discipline of their own.

Seems about right. Where would you place “truths determined by religious proclamation and revelation” on that hierarchy? Or “truths determined by faith”?

[Immanuel Can]

Actually, in the hierarchy of "hardness," it is generally recognized that the order is as follows: physics, chemistry, biology (in that order), then the "practical" sciences like engineering and economics, and the "professional" studies like law and medicine, and then the "soft" sciences, including things like psychology, sociology, history, and so on down.

The general attempt is to rank them by the level of their susceptibility to manipulation: the studies closer to pure mathematics being the hardest to pollute with irrelevancies, and the "studies studies" group at the bottom, almost entirely made up for ideological reasons and lacking any distinctive, formal discipline of their own.

Seems about right. Where would you place “truths determined by religious proclamation and revelation” on that hierarchy? Or “truths determined by faith”?

There are other disciplines I didn't include. Literary Studies, for example, or Philosophy, or Fine Arts, or Ethics, or Logic or Pure Mathematics. That's because they aren't "sciences." They don't pretend to be. But they do address things that are real and important: they just can't use "the scientific method" to do it, because that method is tailored to naturalistic events, reproduceable experiments and physical phenomena.

The mistake made by the "Enlightement" thinkers was to suppose that since scientific method worked so wildly well for physical and technical problems, it might eventually answer ALL kinds of problem. But it doesn't: and science itself never promised that, and isn't at fault for not delivering it.

You want to know God? Don't expect to find him in a beaker, or pinch him with vernier calipers, or spin him out in a centrifuge. He's not a specimen. He's a Person, and one that transcends human powers to know exhaustively. Human science can point to Him, but never will it comprehend him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Obviously, spiritual experience -- what sense one has of God, one's spiritual experiences that confirm the presence, the signs one receives, the dreams and all of the material and scope of spiritual experience -- cannot really be put on the hierarchy that you offered. (Which by the way is entirely rationally produced. Indeed it shows Enlightenment thinking by presenting as such a rationally-conceived hierarchy).

But the fact is that if one were forced to choose one of the hierarchical positions that of revelation and scriptural presentation would have to appear on the very subjective, and even tainted side, of this hierarchical scope. Belief is subject to the most outrageous distortions. Just like sociology and other pseudo-disciplies.

I cannot see a way, unless one forces the issue, for a given religion to be presented, or seen, in any way similar to physics, mathematics and chemistry truths.

Indeed the more that one relies of physics, mathematics and chemistry -- the more that one's understanding of things flows out of that order, the less likely it is to *believe in* the Stories presented by religious tales. Though there is always a way for a man to have faith, but that faith resides in a very different dimension.

[Alexis Jacobi]

A word about the fine art of Ad Hominem. The world would be far less interesting without ad hominem. The issue with those who handle ad hominem clumsily, indeed as mere brutes, is that they cannot distinguish the necessary insult from what the insult is critiquing. Yes, the man is saying the inanity, and befouls himself with it. He calls forth the insult. BUT, the thing being critiqued is not located in that mere idiot. Any number of idiots could spout forth the inanity. This must be understood. And Wise Men make the distinction. They are not captured by the rhetorical twist in the insult and they can clearly distinguish the objective principles that the idiot cannot grasp, or will not grasp -- in fact obstinately refuses to grasp! -- no matter the beatings and beratings received. The Wise don't lose sight of the IDEAS that are really at play. And the best ad hominem, like Cyrano de Bergerac's better insults, come from a very high conceptual locality.