Arguing with you has lost it’s appeal. You claim to be on the side of objectivity, yet all you do is state opinion after opinion, and then scoff when Maeglin asks for a cite.
We can continue to discuss when you give me a cite that proves that religion and academia are diametrically opposed.
Then you’ll have to decide whether or not philosophy is actually academic.
Once those two conditions are met, I will review your application and decide whether or not you’re worth discussing anything with.
I just don’t have faith in your ability to debate this issue any further.
Considering how much time has been spent on you even though you don’t even understand the difference between the terms “objective” and “subjective”, you could stand to dial back a notch on the attitude. Frankly, until you acknowledge that subjectivity and objectivity are different things, and you understand what each idea means, discussing anything with you is a flying, somersaulting waste of time. My cite is any English-language dictionary in the entire world, help yourself to the one of your choice.
To quote another poster, “your slightly superior is showing.” Put some pants on it.
My point was that the OP was not about closed minded hostile anti intellectual religous people.
Hmmmm I have my doubts. what seems to be happening is that our current president and his cronies are interested in packing the courts with judges who will make decisions based on political debt and advantage with less regard to justice. The debate on the patriot act is a great example. Have you noticed that Bush’s recent appointee {the one who called the Geneva convention outdated in support of the use of torture} is now calling for making all of the patriot act permanent. Thats why I laughed so hard at your comment about why presidents appoint judges.
Thats a different thread though.
Feel fairly certain about that do ya? The courts and the goverment weren’t much interested in social justice for blacks until the pendulum of public opinion shifted and people had the courage to protest unjust laws at the risk of their lives.
I suppose, but we do have to get along to move the country in one direction or the other. The Conservatives have been very effective while the liberals haven’t been. The OP was a speculation, that there may be division between the more open minded spiritual minded liberals, and the more academic minded liberals. We were supposed to be discussing if that were true and what we might do about it to make liberals more effective as a group. I thought it was worth discussing but we never managed to get around to it.
Nice of you to apologize. All is forgiven.
I’m still not sure about that
I suppose, and yet the OP was about something more subtle than open hostility.
again, not what the OP was about. I’m not convinced you got his point.
That may be true in some cases. Sometimes they might share a common attitude.
The one that says. “I know whats best if they’d only listen to me.” It’s just as unattractive in either group.
Some religion. True spirituality is about seeking the truth and that means discarding old beliefs that don’t hold up.
AS in a discussion that speculates about problems in communicartion? I just can’t figure whay it doesn’t belong there.
Nothing to do with the OP. You say you don’t agree with his point, yet in your little alphabet here, you haven’t really addressed it.
I agree. It’s not time well spent to put too much effort into changeing the minds of the closed minded.
The question is how effectively are they working together? Are there barriers?
What can be done about them?
I’m talking about improving it among people who do want it. The OP was about subtle and possibly unrecognized divisions among the open minded who do want to work together buut may have problems doing so effectively.
Those definitions are not in opposition to the way I had defined them.
I am sorry if I communicated it in such a way as to imply some inherent difference to those definitions.
I was going by the definition as “The object as it is” = objective and “The object as it is experienced” = subjective
For instance, “the Empire State building is 26 blocks from my house” is an objective property of the Empire State building in relation to my house. Whereas “The Empire State Building is close to my house”, is a subjective property of the Empire State Building and my house.
If anyone is interested in getting back to the OP. It specifically had to do with racism. For instance, it is more socially accetpable to dismiss the Baptist faith than it is to dismiss someone for being black. However, a large portion of black people happen to be Baptist. You can substitute Black with Hispanic, and Baptist with Catholic.
Social indocrtination DOES happen within Academia. This might not be an inherent property of science, but I believe that it is an inherent property of Academia when defined as a cultural institution, rather than as defined as the pursuit of knowledge. So I was looking for a discussion about Academia’s role in this. I am specifically talking about Academia, I am not talking about religious bigotry, that is a hijack. Certainly there are people who are bigotted against Academia, this thread is not about them, it is about the ways Academia as an institution is a source of bigotry and then, when that is discussed then perhaps a discussion of “why” is in order, and that may lead us back to bigotted religious organizations, but only in as far as they would be the motivation for a reactionary Academic culture. The properties of Academia being discussed need not be universal to all Academics, they only need be entrenched within the institution for purposes of this discusson.
First I will note that I am asking you to understand subjective and objective. With regard to your other “proofs”, I will only discuss things I actually said and you actually said. When you disprove words that you’ve put into my mouth, you really haven’t demonstrated anything at all.
Having said that, here’s something that you actually said:
Alright then. I can help you by telling you that the above is not the definition of subjective or objective. You have described the definition of reality vs. perception. These are terms that are useful in talking about subjectivity/objectivity, but they are certainly not interchangeable.
No, this is simply not true. Distance from your house is not a property of the Empire State Building, objective or otherwise. The Empire State Building was the Empire State Building before your house was 26 blocks from it, and it will still be the Empire State Building after your house is no longer 26 blocks from it.
However, to move the discussion along, we will correct your statement to say “Distance from my house to the ESB is an objective property, and its precise nature is 26 blocks.” This is objective because it doesn’t matter whether the measurement is taken by you or me, it is still 26 blocks. That is objective. Having said that…
No, this is also untrue. “Close to my house” is also not a property of the Empire State Building. However, “close” is a relative term. Therefore, by itself it really means nothing. 26 blocks means “close” to you, but to me it sounds like a terribly long way to walk. My perception is that it’s far, your perception (for whatever reason) is that it’s near. But the perception doesn’t matter, because if either of us decides to measure the distance… it comes out to 26 blocks. Objectively. End of story.
I really am interested in hearing your views, but if you don’t use the commonly accepted language used to describe these ideas, there is no way you can communicate them to someone else and be sure that your intentions were understood. I am not trying to disprove your ideas or change your spirituality, I am only trying to show you that if you use highly nonstandard terminology, your ideas sound like gibberish, and it sounds as if you can’t understand anyone else’s ideas. Half this thread has been spent getting your terminology on the same page as everyone else’s and the original intent of your OP has been lost. And that’s a shame, because I think I understood it, but it has been lost in your garbled way of describing it.
This is a fair observation. You could have just started by saying that among academic or university activists, atheism/agnosticism is a very common world view, but this represents a conflict when they try to relate to highly religious ethnic groups.
That is a fair enough topic for discussion, It’s a point worth making and it’s one that I think university activists don’t think about enough. But then you had to go and imply that not only does this worldview make academics bigots and possibly racists, that the worldview itself is self-contradictory and flawed. You also included the casual dismissal of the entire academic system, which does have its flaws but has produced some of the most important thought in the world, both scientific and otherwise. You then proceeded to demonstrate that your grasp of the terms in this discussion is not strong enough to tackle these subjects coherently. I’m sorry, but if you imply that someone is a bigot, a racist, or deluded as to how they see the world, expect some discussion on it. If you try to redefine the basic terminology used to talk about knowledge for your own purposes, expect vigorous discussion on it.
NattoGuy: I have no problem with you correcting my terminology, that is fine. However, I don’t agree that “half this thread” has been spent getting my terminology on the same page as everyone elses. I may have been misusing subjective and objective, but you completely ignored my call of bulls*** on your cite of “any english dictionary”, so I’d say a lot of it has been spent coming to a common understanding of terms, because your definitions are hardly the accepted definitions.
One thing that’s great about my position, is that it is easy for me to step back and say that my terminology might have been incorrect. The problem with yours is you are locked into a claim, because you have stated it as being unequivocably true, when neither you nor Lissa has really done a good job of showing me any “facts”, and have scoffed when asked to actually provide some. I’ve provided cites, you have backed up your position very poorly when you are the one supposedly presenting the “academic” position. I don’t have so much of an issue with being wrong, but you need to actually address the point I am making before I will say that I am or am not. I appreciate the help you all have given me in solidifying my understanding of the language, but you have done absolutely NOTHING to add to the subject at hand, except for prove that which you seem to be seeking to disprove.
So now that my understanding of subjective and objective has been increased. Would you like to please show me any evidence, any evidence at all that science and spirituality, or academia and religion are in any way diametrically opposed. You have asserted this, you have defended Academia, now put your money where your mouth is and start showing me some cites.
After you show me some cites, would you like to try something new like addressing the OP?
Your making an assumption about my position due partially to my poor writing skills, and partially to your poor reading comprehension skills.
All you have done is accuse me of something you yourself are doing. Please address the diametric opposition.
It’s too bad really, I thought you were going to actually address the OP, instead you just used it as an example to show me once again how superior your vocabulary is to mine. (which I am still dubious about)
I never implied that Academia is universally bigotted. That’s you reading too much into what I said. For that I am not responsible. Now if no one else had understood what I wrote, then I might start recanting, but the fact is that other people DID understand what I wrote, and tried to relate it to you in their voice, and you roundly ignored them too.
So I have a poor vocabulary, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. You are right, that would make it very difficult to debate a topic this subtle.
Address the diametric opposition, or else I am done with you too.
Well Mwas, I thought you made a valid importent point. It’s unfortunate that a couple of folks who never got it were able to monopolize the thread.
Perhaps we can try again another time.
I think I wouldn’t call it racism although I get your point. To me what you’re referring to is a communication problem. Spiritual liberals and Academic liberals need to work together more effectively. If a large group of Spiritual liberals feel that the leaders of the Democratic party aren’t really listening and don’t really care about their thoughts or feelings then we can’t work togther effectively. I’ve experienced that here in TN.
Incidently, I appreciated what you said about science being objective and religion being subjective and objective.
Replies to three of you, consolidated into one post for her pleasure.
Scott_plaid:
I neither said this nor do I understand this assertion.
I contended that academia should not be represented as a monolithic, dare I say “reified” thing. Lissa agreed. What’s the problem?
I guess it would be mean if it were something I actually did. I honestly have no idea how you are inferring this from my posts.
NattoGuy:
Probably. I do not think I have had a very good introduction to the literature. Most of what I have read I believe is of poor quality with respect to intellectual rigor and clear communication. I have no particular issues with its subjectivity: I was first trained as a historian. Historians in my experience tended to be far more honest when they were simply making up stories. Furthermore, many sociologists are pushing back hard on the very tools that might increase the rigor of the discipline. They claim that to adopt “rational choice” is to give in to the “imperialism” of the discipline of economics and to ignore “the collective.”
Um, ok.
Lissa:
I do not believe that study in any particular discipline necessarily implies learning. Garbage in, garbage out.
It is not strictly insulting. Diversity of method and approaches is very good. Constant paradigmatic debates are not. I suppose one has to take the good with the bad. No disrespect to your husband.
My graduate training is in political science and economics. Believe me, I hear you. Political Science is also an absolutely mongrel discipline. Where I was trained is dominated by rational choice. The few people left who do case studies/marxist theory/sociolegal studies etc. don’t even talk to the quantitative people. It is really shameful.
Yes and no. People fight so hard because the stakes are so low. Furthermore, it is not too difficult to point to occasions when the pursuit of these resources directly conflicts with the expressed purpose of academia, very broadly defined, the education of humanity and the advancement of human knowledge. The incompatibility of incentives does not produce optimal results.
I think you missed a key word there. Institutionally.
Regarding moral/cultural relativism, I had always believed that was more dearly beloved by cultural anthropologists. I got along real well with them too, as I am sure you can tell.
So, am I the only one who read this to mean that she is basing her feelings about “capital-A Academia” on sociology? Seriously, I welcome input from others.
I took offense at how I read how you addressed her. The fact that she agreed with you on a subject, or that it may have been unnecessary, to be offended on her behalf, after I have already posted does not enter into the fact.
Either I am totally misreading these, or you have a bad memory.
P.S. Remember post 92?
P.S.S. I am sorry if I am referring to people by “her”, or “she,” incorrectly.
You are probably the only one. My point, which I am confident was not lost on Lissa, is that the discipline of sociology has tools which undermine the assertion that “Academia” is either one way or another. The very existence of the discipline gives the lie to these kinds of views.
You are enjoined either to keep your offense to yourself or to share it in a more appropriate forum.
The former. To turn the very fact-based tools that are supposedly the core of academia back on itself is to realize that academia may not be so “fact-based”.
Yeah , yeah, I get it, you enjoined me this, you enjoined me that. I get it. I still believe that the tools of sociology can not be used to judge the whole of academia. Again, I welcome other’s opinions on this, and I again remind you that you have not answered post 92.
Scott, why in the world do you think that Maeglin has any need or reason, much less compulsion, to respond to a rhetorical question in a chest-beating exchange between you and mswas?
Thanks, tom~. I really was scratching my head. Ironically, I have known mswas irl for almost ten years, and I can’t say anyone has ever confused us before.
You are also welcome to believe that a hammer cannot be used to pound a nail. While you are perfectly entitled to your beliefs, this belief is a non-starter.
Your theory remains incorrect and I’m still not sure what the role of racism is in this discussion. But at least this short version makes the problem clear.
It’s a coincidence. Dismissing the views of a group of people, some of whom happen to be black, is not racist. Dismissing the views of a group of people because they are black is racist. It’s not racist even if all of them are black, although I can see where that would invite questions. The two things are not remotely the same.
I do not think I have had a very good introduction to the literature. Most of what I have read I believe is of poor quality with respect to intellectual rigor and clear communication. I have no particular issues with its subjectivity: I was first trained as a historian. Historians in my experience tended to be far more honest when they were simply making up stories. Furthermore, many sociologists are pushing back hard on the very tools that might increase the rigor of the discipline. They claim that to adopt “rational choice” is to give in to the “imperialism” of the discipline of economics and to ignore “the collective.”