A Memes is a discreet package of cultural information. They are the way in which societies grow up and evolve and are fore the most part positive things. However, in this age of world wide communication dangerous and memes are increasingly spreading between susceptible hosts, in a manner that is very similar to the spread of the spread of pathogens.
Larger and larger numbers of people are becoming radicalised by religious memes or subscribing to the Rants of dangerous demagogues like Alex Jones. Infection with these memes can have people buying into ideas that are provably false.
How is it, that in this day and age, we have people believing in the coming of Nibiru? That a malign elite wishes to control us all? How is it that creationism, is still attempting to borrow its way into our schools?
Education is a great tool for inoculating people against such Memes, however education is failing far to often in far to many places. Too many people are growing up without the science education needed to understand why the claims of Creationism not only wrong but also do not make sense.
Freedom of speech is a wonderful idea, and in the pre internet world, where access to large public forums and media was limited by the merit off ones argument, such freedom helped to protect our other rights and liberties and was certainly a positive thing. However, in the world of global communication can it be said to still be a positive thing.
As our understandings of human psychology grows and the potential for more aggressive and infectious strains of dangerous memes increases, should we as a population start to revaluate such concepts.
After all, there are already forms of censorship that we accept and in almost all cases encourage.
There are people, who can legally own military assault rifles in the United States who fanatically believe the things that men like Alex Jones say and very likely will one day try to act upon that beliefs. With that being the case, does it not make sense to limit the spread of such ideas in any way we as a society can, despite the fact that it impinges on some liberties? Who's right is greater is greater; Alex Jone's right to free speech and the right to carry arms on the one hand, or on the other the right to life and liberty of those who would undoubtedly suffer and die as a result of any action such a group might take.
Equally, in the case of education, whose right is stronger, the discovery institutes right to freedom of speech or the rights of students to receive a descent education.
Discuss.
In before the lock!
Yap!
In before the lock!
Yap!
I don't think it breaks the terms of use (i might be wrong) and i hope it can remain civil enough that it won't need to be locked.
The problem with your whole premise is that no one is qualified to be the final arbiter of what is harmful and dangerous. Should you be the judge? Well, what if I think that some of your ideas are dangerous? What if I think that something that you want to teach will cause harm to my child over the long run? Am I less qualified to be the one to judge? I don't think so. I agree that crazies with guns are terrifying. Should they act on those crazy ideas, then there is a problem. That is what laws are for. Does that mean that sometimes the crazies will harm others before they can be stopped? Yes, unfortunately it does. The price of having freedom is letting others have it as well regardless of whether or not they deserve it or will use it well. If you try to police speech and thereby thought it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the other side of that process.
|
I think in large part the problem is not necessarily the means by which the information is transferred. Rather, it is, as you said, the knowledge and logic, or the lack thereof, that leads to the fanatical actions. Too many people take what a "stronger power," be that the Church a politician or an otherwise influential person to be exact and unquestionable truth.
The internet, is, unfortunately, far too large to regulate by any one nation, and even more than a thousand people working towards such an end might never get the chance to eat or sleep, even with all their skill and numbers.
Add to this, the drop in teaching ability among certain sectors, though not at all universal, leads to either a drop in educational spread and the increasing number of young people who don't, at least on the face of it, have to do much than simply exist to be successful. I do, of course, point to the Miley Ciruses and Jonas Brothers, but there are, will be and have been others like them. With children, again not at all in the majority, looking to these images and thinking education or expansion of knowledge as superfluous, develop tendencies that do not allow them to differentiate between the "right" (take that as you will) choices and the choices that might lead them to not realizing wrongness, fanaticism and just plain ignorance. With this in mind, the "truth" for them is whatever they see, hear or read, and when that "truth" is not the whole, all encompassing truth on the subject, we have a serious problem on our hands.
Just some thoughts.
I don't think it breaks the terms of use...
Oh, no, you did not break any rules. I just doubt this will remain civil. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
The problem with your whole premise is that no one is qualified to be the final arbiter of what is harmful and dangerous. Should you be the judge? Well, what if I think that some of your ideas are dangerous? What if I think that something that you want to teach will cause harm to my child over the long run? Am I less qualified to be the one to judge? I don't think so. I agree that crazies with guns are terrifying. Should they act on those crazy ideas, then there is a problem. That is what laws are for. Does that mean that sometimes the crazies will harm others before they can be stopped? Yes, unfortunately it does. The price of having freedom is letting others have it as well regardless of whether or not they deserve it or will use it well. If you try to police speech and thereby thought it's only a matter of time before you find yourself on the other side of that process.
Mmm it need not be a person that makes the judgement.
As a hypothetical we could use the mathematics associated with risk assessment and place the decision outside of human choice.
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?
This assumes too much, methinks...
I could argue that the "Green" scare of Global Warming is dangerous as it diverts money and attention away from other issues (let's say curing cancer) to an unproven theory.
I could argue that Creationism provides a counterbalance to "Science" (with a big S, i.e. Science is your god now and cannot be wrong) that keeps it in check and allows us to be human rather than simply robots of logic.
I am highly educated (19 years of education, with no "do over" years for failure...) yet also highly spiritual. Where should I exist in a world where such dangerous memes as religious beliefs are no longer acceptable?
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?
Demolition Man anyone.
|
As a hypothetical we could use the mathematics associated with risk assessment and place the decision outside of human choice.
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathematical sense. Would that be more acceptable?
Then we devolve everything down into a zero sum game. If that was the case there are lots of reform movements that have occured throughout history because at the time the risks seemed to outway the benefit.
I think in large part the problem is not necessarily the means by which the information is transferred. Rather, it is, as you said, the knowledge and logic, or the lack thereof, that leads to the fanatical actions. Too many people take what a "stronger power," be that the Church a politician or an otherwise influential person to be exact and unquestionable truth.
The internet, is, unfortunately, far too large to regulate by any one nation, and even more than a thousand people working towards such an end might never get the chance to eat or sleep, even with all their skill and numbers.
Add to this, the drop in teaching ability among certain sectors, though not at all universal, leads to either a drop in educational spread and the increasing number of young people who don't, at least on the face of it, have to do much than simply exist to be successful. I do, of course, point to the Miley Ciruses and Jonas Brothers, but there are, will be and have been others like them. With children, again not at all in the majority, looking to these images and thinking education or expansion of knowledge as superfluous, develop tendencies that do not allow them to differentiate between the "right" (take that as you will) choices and the choices that might lead them to not realizing wrongness, fanaticism and just plain ignorance. With this in mind, the "truth" for them is whatever they see, hear or read, and when that "truth" is not the whole, all encompassing truth on the subject, we have a serious problem on our hands.
Just some thoughts.
First of all, there are some similarities between meme transfer and Pathogen transfer. There is research that shows that high population density and highly mobile populations are the perfect conditions for the spread of pathogens, so to might the conditions on the internet, which are in some ways very similier be a perfect vector for rapid meme spread.
Study of benign Memes, like many of the 'chan memes', seems to back this hyposis.
Undoubtly your right about acceptance on authority, but unfortunately it is unrealisitic to expect individuals to evaluate all infomation for themselves. We infact seem to be hard wired to accept such things on trust, after all, the proto-human who reacts to an alarm call without checking for themselves has an evolutionary advantage over the proto-human who gets eaten by a preditor because they turned to look.
As for Miley Ciruses and Jonas Brothers; they should be censored on principle. No one deserves to have to listen to that stuff. ;)
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?Demolition Man anyone.
I was thinking Brave New World, but that works as well!
EDIT: Oh, or We! It's been 15 years since I read that one, but it was based on a "mathematical" society as well I believe...
|
|
If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?Demolition Man anyone.I was thinking Brave New World, but that works as well!
EDIT: Oh, or We! It's been 15 years since I read that one, but it was based on a "mathematical" society as well I believe...
I was thinking "I Robot," the movie not the book.
I was thinking "I Robot," the movie not the book.If a behaviour is provably damaging in a mathimatical sense. Would that be more acceptable?Demolition Man anyone.I was thinking Brave New World, but that works as well!
EDIT: Oh, or We! It's been 15 years since I read that one, but it was based on a "mathematical" society as well I believe...
Another good example. All of these get at why this line of reasoning concerns me--someone has to draw the line, whether it be an individual making the decision, a group, or a mathematical formula (that would have been developed by an individual or group based on their own assumptions). Obviously for a society to function some lines have to be drawn in order to preserve the rule of law, but getting down to "your thoughts/beliefs are wrong because they don't line up with my logic" is going too far for me.
This assumes too much, methinks...
I could argue that the "Green" scare of Global Warming is dangerous as it diverts money and attention away from other issues (let's say curing cancer) to an unproven theory.
First and by far the most important on the issue of global warming. 'Unproven theory' is an Oxymoron. I will allow the American academy of science explain why.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
If you want to claim something is 'just an idea', might I suggest you use an accurate term.
As it happens, the hypothesis that the globe is warming has been confirmed to the point of theory by observed data, and that data is largely consistent with predictions based on carbon emissions.
There is, and has been a major consensus amongst climate scientists for the best part of 30 years at this point about the data related to global warming. Climate model from the early 70's based upon predicted trends are playing out with high degrees of specificity. Evidence continues to pile up. Global warming is certainly happening and very likely the result of anthropogenic gases.
You can find an easy to digest summery of the history of climate change and its denial here .
Even if climate change where not real, we can use risk analysis mathematics to calculate if we should act upon it. This field of mathematics was actually opened up by Pascal's wager. Unlike Pascal's wager, however it is sound. You can find an interesting and fairly fun example of the risk analysis involved here . This is why; your argument based on curing cancer does not really work.
I could argue that Creationism provides a counterbalance to "Science" (with a big S, i.e. Science is your god now and cannot be wrong) that keeps it in check and allows us to be human rather than simply robots of logic.I am highly educated (19 years of education, with no "do over" years for failure...) yet also highly spiritual. Where should I exist in a world where such dangerous memes as religious beliefs are no longer acceptable?
I'd rather not get into a deeper discussion of creationism, however strongly i might feel about it, this isn't really the place. However, what i will say is that your argument here is flawed.
Your offering a false-dichotomy, the choice is not between religious Belief and Science, it is between rational thought and irrational thought. One can be rational and be religious, certainly with a high degree of scientific knowledge that almost certainly does push you towards being a deist rather than a theist, but it is certainly possible. However, the same is not true of creationism, creationism forces you to choose between the evidence and your belief in creationism, and because most creationists cannot separate their thinking about creation from their view of god, they choose god over rational thought. That is dangerous, down that road lie men flying planes into buildings.
Science is not Atheistic, and even atheism does not necessarily make one a logical robot. I we all use emotion and intuition to a degree in making decisions.
I should point out that i do not actually believe in censorship. This is as much as anything me exploring a train of thought.
|
|
First of all, there are some similarities between meme transfer and Pathogen transfer. There is research that shows that high population density and highly mobile populations are the perfect conditions for the spread of pathogens, so to might the conditions on the internet, which are in some ways very similier be a perfect vector for rapid meme spread.
Hm, I hadn't thought of it like that. Interesting.
Study of benign Memes, like many of the 'chan memes', seems to back this hyposis.
Mudkips, anyone?
Undoubtly your right about acceptance on authority, but unfortunately it is unrealisitic to expect individuals to evaluate all infomation for themselves. We infact seem to be hard wired to accept such things on trust, after all, the proto-human who reacts to an alarm call without checking for themselves has an evolutionary advantage over the proto-human who gets eaten by a preditor because they turned to look.
Well there I go generalizing again. I don't think that we should immediately discount everything we hear, only the stuff that, at first blush, seems a little too much to believe. Your example of the guy who thinks about running vs. the guy actually running is true. I'm talking about the "holier-than-thou" people who say that they're right, everyone else is wrong and you'll end up in a bad way unless you talk and think as they do. (I'm looking at Shawn Hannidy, but that's just me)
But yes, taking things on trust is something we just do, I just don't think we should take the crazy stuff that way.
As for Miley Ciruses and Jonas Brothers; they should be censored on principle. No one deserves to have to listen to that stuff. ;)
And the young masses descend to devour us for our transgression.
First of all, there are some similarities between meme transfer and Pathogen transfer. There is research that shows that high population density and highly mobile populations are the perfect conditions for the spread of pathogens, so to might the conditions on the internet, which are in some ways very similier be a perfect vector for rapid meme spread.Hm, I hadn't thought of it like that. Interesting.
Study of benign Memes, like many of the 'chan memes', seems to back this hyposis.Mudkips, anyone?
Undoubtly your right about acceptance on authority, but unfortunately it is unrealisitic to expect individuals to evaluate all infomation for themselves. We infact seem to be hard wired to accept such things on trust, after all, the proto-human who reacts to an alarm call without checking for themselves has an evolutionary advantage over the proto-human who gets eaten by a preditor because they turned to look.Well there I go generalizing again. I don't think that we should immediately discount everything we hear, only the stuff that, at first blush, seems a little too much to believe. Your example of the guy who thinks about running vs. the guy actually running is true. I'm talking about the "holier-than-thou" people who say that they're right, everyone else is wrong and you'll end up in a bad way unless you talk and think as they do. (I'm looking at Shawn Hannidy, but that's just me)
But yes, taking things on trust is something we just do, I just don't think we should take the crazy stuff that way.
As for Miley Ciruses and Jonas Brothers; they should be censored on principle. No one deserves to have to listen to that stuff. ;)And the young masses descend to devour us for our transgression.
I hear you like!
With regards to human tendancy to acceptance. I agree that there are many occations in the modern world where it is undesirable to accept things you are told at face value, but there are many more where it helps.
The point about this is, that it is not something we can control. We cannot make people more resistant to pathogenic memes. So if we wish to control the spread of pathogenic memes, then we have to limit their spread in some other way.
Link to the Generic Post thread.
Oops. My bad.
If you want to claim something is 'just an idea', might I suggest you use an accurate term. Et. al. regarding climate change?
So we're going to get down to nit-picking word choice in the discussion, rather than the ideas behind them? Or deciding one set of science is more valid than another? There is sufficient scientific evidence against man-made global warming to warrant concern over the Green Scare. If we can't agree on that, well, I'm not sure we can have a rational conversation. But that's a topic for another thread, I suppose.
I'd rather not get into a deeper discussion of creationism, however strongly i might feel about it, this isn't really the place. However, what i will say is that your argument here is flawed.
Your offering a false-dichotomy, the choice is not between religious Belief and Science, it is between rational thought and irrational thought. One can be rational and be religious, certainly with a high degree of scientific knowledge that almost certainly does push you towards being a deist rather than a theist, but it is certainly possible. However, the same is not true of creationism, creationism forces you to choose between the evidence and your belief in creationism, and because most creationists cannot separate their thinking about creation from their view of god, they choose god over rational thought. That is dangerous, down that road lie men flying planes into buildings.
Science is not Atheistic, and even atheism does not necessarily make one a logical robot. I we all use emotion and intuition to a degree in making decisions.
But this is an argument about creationism, atheism, and all the other -isms. At it's core, you're saying you know what's right, and others do not. You say, for instance, that creationism forces a choice between "the evidence" and belief. That is your assumption about creationists, not fact. As is the statement that "most creationists cannot separate their thinking about creation from their view of god, they choose god over rational thought." Really? You've got data to support that creationists are irrational? You are assuming as much about "the religious" as is implied they are assuming about logical thinking.
I did not set up Belief and science as opposed. I set up Belief and Science as opposed--this being a Science rejecting all religious belief as "irrational" and therefore without value. If you believe that Science cannot be wrong, that's illogical and counter to the very tenants of a scientific approach as I understand it. Do you acknowledge, for instance, that evolution has problems in its theory? The beginning of the universe? I'm not saying you don't, but I've met plenty of people that assume what they're taught in science class is "right" despite the fact that decades of study have proven theory X wrong. This is the Science of which I speak. Blind adherence to "just the facts" without understanding that those facts are themselves based on assumptions, "unproven " theory, and often times social pressure.
I'm always up for having a good discussion (reference the long-lived A Civil Religious Discussion thread), but not if the attitude is going to be, "Ah, the religious nutters have arrived, let us heckle them incessantly." (EDIT: said with a snobbishly poor fake European accent--this is intended as humor, not a damnation of the thread participants thus far. A re-read tells me it might be taken wrongly...) Hopefully that won't be the case here, but I felt it needed to be stated.
If you want to claim something is 'just an idea', might I suggest you use an accurate term. Et. al. regarding climate change?So we're going to get down to nit-picking word choice in the discussion, rather than the ideas behind them?
I was not nit picking. Your choice of word is a symptom of a profound misunderstanding about that a Scientific Theory is. You where using the word theory, thinking that scientists mean 'this is our idea, which we haven't proven', when what it really means is much closer to 'this is a very solid idea, which are as certain as we can be is correct.'
I am sorry, but correcting a profound misunderstanding like that isn't nit picking
Or deciding one set of science is more valid than another? There is sufficient scientific evidence against man-made global warming to warrant concern over the Green Scare. If we can't agree on that, well, I'm not sure we can have a rational conversation. But that's a topic for another thread, I suppose.
I am not deciding one 'set of science' is more valid than another is. I do not have too. The experts in the field who are qualified to make that decision and have access to the data have come to a conclusion, and they have formed a consensus. Thanks to the nature of the scientific method and peer review, I am able to place a high degree of trust in that conclusion. I don't personally understand the finer points of many fields which are involved in building aeroplanes, yet i can be relatively confident that when i get into a plane, the principles behind its flight are sound, thanks to Peer Review and the scientific method.
Now I can cite numerous large scale pieces of original research that support my point of view, i can also name meta-analysis that supports my view, can you name similar papers that back your point of view? Are their leading experts in the field who support it? Have you ever actually read any of the research that supposedly provides evidence that global warming isn't occuring? Which journals published it?
Just for one example: The Charney Report.
The fact is that there has been a movement by a very small number of individuals, who are not climate scientists to produce the appearance of uncertainty. (See the video I provided for information on that). Even the most conservative estimate of support for the consensus place 80% + scientists convinced of the evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and most studies point towards the consensus being even stronger.
I have also yet to hear a cogent argument as to why climate scientists would wish to mislead people on the subject and given the nature of the scientific method; I see little reason not to back the consensus.
Now, if you can provide me with an example of a Peer reviewed paper that provides prodictive data that has been proven accurate that does not support anthropogenic global warming, i will happily agree that there is " sufficient scientific evidence against man-made global warming to warrant concern over the Green Scare."
|
I am not deciding one 'set of science' is more valid than another is. I do not have too. The experts in the field who are qualified to make that decision and have access to the data have come to a conclusion, and they have formed a consensus. Thanks to the nature of the scientific method and peer review, I am able to place a high degree of trust in that conclusion. I don't personally understand the finer points of many fields which are involved in building aeroplanes, yet i can be relatively confident that when i get into a plane, the principles behind its flight are sound, thanks to Peer Review and the scientific method.
They did that too with "proving" nuclear winter, then were finally forced to admit all of their models were flawed beyond any degree of usefulness.
Peer review becomes useless when the "scientific community" becomes too politicized.
I am not deciding one 'set of science' is more valid than another is. I do not have too. The experts in the field who are qualified to make that decision and have access to the data have come to a conclusion, and they have formed a consensus. Thanks to the nature of the scientific method and peer review, I am able to place a high degree of trust in that conclusion. I don't personally understand the finer points of many fields which are involved in building aeroplanes, yet i can be relatively confident that when i get into a plane, the principles behind its flight are sound, thanks to Peer Review and the scientific method.They did that too with "proving" nuclear winter, then were finally forced to admit all of their models were flawed beyond any degree of usefulness.
Peer review becomes useless when the "scientific community" becomes too politicized.
The research I am citing was from bi-partisan bodies. In fact, the only politicisation I have ever seen evidence for, concerning the issue of climate change is the disinformation machine of the Marshall Institute who are fuelling the debate for purely political reasons.
As it happens, what you are describing was another of the Marshalls institute's campaigns. Modern models continue to show global cooling because of Large-scale nuclear exchanges. For that matter, first storms from conventional conflicts are shown to do the same. The effects are just less extreme that originally thought and it was Peer review and the scientific method that altered consensus.
But this is an argument about creationism, atheism, and all the other -isms. At it's core, you're saying you know what's right, and others do not.
No i am not claiming that i know what is right at all. I am claiming any such thing. I am claiming that certainstrains of Meme are 'dangerous and highly infectious.' That doesn't speak to weither or not the Meme itself is accurate. God as depicted in the old testiment might be real, but believing that juveniles who miss behave should be stoned to death as per biblicial law remains an objectively dangerous and destructive idea regardless off the existence of god.
Fascism might actually be the most efficient form of government available with huge potential to mobilise a population to work itself out of economic crisis. That does not mean however that it is desirable to see a fascist dictator take control of a country.
You say, for instance, that creationism forces a choice between "the evidence" and belief. That is your assumption about creationists, not fact.
Actually it is scientific fact. You cannot be a young earth creationist and accept the evidence found in nature. They are mutually exclusive to one another. If you understand and accept the evidence, you can't believe the world was created 6,000 years ago in seven days, because the evidence contradicts that. More historians claim the holocaust didn't happen than qualified biologists that claim to disagree with evolution by natural selection.
As is the statement that "most creationists cannot separate their thinking about creation from their view of god, they choose god over rational thought." Really? You've got data to support that creationists are irrational?
See massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection and common descent, along side massive consensus amongst experts. Even the closest thing creationism has to an actual expert in the subject, Michael Behe is forced by the evidence to accept and agree with the concept of common decent
You are assuming as much about "the religious" as is implied they are assuming about logical thinking.
There is no assumption here; i am speaking form a position of expertise. I studied Evolutionary Biology and Ethology at university; I actually know the science that leads us to the conclusion of Evolution. I also have a great deal of experience with creationist arguments, as I am an avid debunker and fan of some of the better debunkers out there. Creationist arguments are without acception(in my experience) irrational. Very often they are more than irrational, they are laughable and damaging.
I did not set up Belief and science as opposed. I set up Belief and Science as opposed--this being a Science rejecting all religious belief as "irrational" and therefore without value.
Science makes no claim to the rationality of religious belief. I know a great many scientists who have some form of religious belief. Your claim is false. Also, your devision of science and Science makes no sense.
If you believe that Science cannot be wrong, that's illogical and counter to the very tenants of a scientific approach as I understand it.
Absolute certainty is not compatible science, you are correct. However, science has an exceptional track record compared to other areas of human endeavour and it is self correcting.
Do you acknowledge, for instance, that evolution has problems in its theory?
No, I do not think I can agree with that statement. Evolution is just about the most solid scientific theory of which I can think. Almost the entire rest of biology would just cease to make sense if you removed evolution at this stage. It is difficult to express quiet how much evidence there actually is for evolution.
The beginning of the universe?
This does not related to the theory of Evolution by natural selection. It isn't even biology. God could have created the earth and all the rest of the universe, created one single celled simple organism and the balance of evidence would still be that evolution had taken care of the rest. Of cause there are other hypothesis and theories that can and do start to explain where the earth and the universe came from, and unlike creationism, they are backed by evidence.
I'm not saying you don't, but I've met plenty of people that assume what they're taught in science class is "right" despite the fact that decades of study have proven theory X wrong.
I have seen 'some of' the evidence for evolution and am aware of much more. It has stood up to scrutiny for 150 years. It is just about the sturdiest biological theory we have. It isn't going to be over turned, trust me. What might happen however is that it will grow and change. It is one of the strengths of science that it can change and grow.
This is the Science of which I speak. Blind adherence to "just the facts" without understanding that those facts are themselves based on assumptions, "unproven " theory, and often times social pressure.
And you wonder why i consider some adherants of faith irrational. Theory is proven. Would you like me to list a bunch of 'just a theory' that makes it possible for use to even have this discussion? 'The facts' are the only rational way we have of learning anything meaningful about the world in which we live.
This statement begins my support of why your position is dangerous…
Your choice of word is a symptom of a profound misunderstanding about that a Scientific Theory is. You where using the word theory, thinking that scientists mean 'this is our idea, which we haven't proven', when what it really means is much closer to 'this is a very solid idea, which are as certain as we can be is correct.'
I am sorry, but correcting a profound misunderstanding like that isn't nit picking
Despite the information provided earlier that I have, in fact, completed 19 years of education, you assume to know my thinking, and have assessed that it is incorrect.
This continues my support…I am not deciding one 'set of science' is more valid than another is. I do not have too. The experts in the field who are qualified to make that decision and have access to the data have come to a conclusion, and they have formed a consensus…
The experts you believe. As evidenced later in the response to Mr. Weiss, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand as politically motivated.
Now, if you can provide me with an example of a Peer reviewed paper that provides prodictive data that has been proven accurate that does not support anthropogenic global warming, i will happily agree that there is " sufficient scientific evidence against man-made global warming to warrant concern over the Green Scare."
I don’t have to…a basic Google search turns up tons of stuff. Have you read it? Can you tell me why it’s false? Heck, there’s even a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I haven’t researched every link, because frankly it’s not a topic that concerns me enough to spend that much energy. I’d be very interested in your rebuttal for the referenced scientists…or are these the ignoble few that are decrying global warming for political reasons?
No i am not claiming that i know what is right at all. I am claiming any such thing. I am claiming that certainstrains of Meme are 'dangerous and highly infectious.'
So you are not saying something is correct or incorrect, but you have determined they are “dangerous” and despite any truthfulness should be suppressed? That’s a fairly counterintuitive position from where I stand.
That doesn't speak to weither or not the Meme itself is accurate. God as depicted in the old testiment might be real, but believing that juveniles who miss behave should be stoned to death as per biblicial law remains an objectively dangerous and destructive idea regardless off the existence of god.
Are you familiar with any widespread meme related to stoning youth in the Christian or Jewish culture of today? If not, I’m unsure how this relates to our discussion other than to say “look, parts of this scripture are bad so it most all be bad!”
Fascism might actually be the most efficient form of government available with huge potential to mobilise a population to work itself out of economic crisis. That does not mean however that it is desirable to see a fascist dictator take control of a country.
You’re surely aware of how ironic it is to be discussing the usefulness of what amounts to thought control while at the same time decrying fascism, right? I mean, that’s just funny…
Actually it is scientific fact. You cannot be a young earth creationist and accept the evidence found in nature. They are mutually exclusive to one another. If you understand and accept the evidence, you can't believe the world was created 6,000 years ago in seven days, because the evidence contradicts that. More historians claim the holocaust didn't happen than qualified biologists that claim to disagree with evolution by natural selection.
Really? Scientific fact, huh? That all us creationists are irrational? That was the question, after all. You’ve dropped down a level in specificity now, from creationist to young earth creationist. So luckily I’m safe, since I’m not a young earth creationist. Of course, that’s until it’s determined that my way of thinking is not acceptable as well…
See massive amounts of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection and common descent, along side massive consensus amongst experts. Even the closest thing creationism has to an actual expert in the subject, Michael Behe is forced by the evidence to accept and agree with the concept of common decent
I’m not sure how that relates in any way to what I asked, so I’ll ask again…You have evidence that shows creationists are irrational?
There is no assumption here; i am speaking form a position of expertise. I studied Evolutionary Biology and Ethology at university; I actually know the science that leads us to the conclusion of Evolution. I also have a great deal of experience with creationist arguments, as I am an avid debunker and fan of some of the better debunkers out there. Creationist arguments are without acception(in my experience) irrational. Very often they are more than irrational, they are laughable and damaging.
You are an expert on those of a religious persuasion based on degrees in science and conversations? I find that highly unlikely. You may indeed understand science, but that in turn tells me your understanding of religion is likely clouded by assumptions, many of which are being demonstrated in this discussion. The religious are irrational, dangerous, unable to accept science. At least those are the assumptions I have seen based on your dialogue thus far.
Science makes no claim to the rationality of religious belief. I know a great many scientists who have some form of religious belief. Your claim is false. Also, your devision of science and Science makes no sense.
Perhaps your unfamiliar with the use of the term Science in this manner, so sorry for any confusion. If not inferable from context, this is a construct that is basically “false science” or “god science” that someone comes to worship or adhere to “religiously” and without question as a person of faith might do with religion. Not all scientists, and indeed I assume most, are of this belief. As a note, I considered people of faith that act in this way-following blindly without question-to be as misguided as anyone blindly accepting Science as their god.
However, your first statement does lead me to ask…if science makes no claim to the rationality of religious belief, and creationism is a religious belief, how do you thus classify it as irrational in your above statements?
No, I do not think I can agree with that statement. Evolution is just about the most solid scientific theory of which I can think. Almost the entire rest of biology would just cease to make sense if you removed evolution at this stage. It is difficult to express quiet how much evidence there actually is for evolution.
Perhaps I’m not being clear. You are saying there are absolutely no problems with evolutionary theory in its current state? No unanswered questions?
This does not related to the theory of Evolution by natural selection. It isn't even biology. God could have created the earth and all the rest of the universe, created one single celled simple organism and the balance of evidence would still be that evolution had taken care of the rest. Of cause there are other hypothesis and theories that can and do start to explain where the earth and the universe came from, and unlike creationism, they are backed by evidence.
Sorry, that’s an entirely separate question from evolution, but you answered the question in around-about fashion—there are many possibilities as to the creation of the universe, none of which stands as a proof.
And you wonder why i consider some adherants of faith irrational. Theory is proven. Would you like me to list a bunch of 'just a theory' that makes it possible for use to even have this discussion? 'The facts' are the only rational way we have of learning anything meaningful about the world in which we live.
And this ends my support for why your line of thinking is dangerous. Theory is proven? No, proofs are proven. Theory is, by it’s nature, theoretical. It may be good theory, it may be bad theory. But it is not proven. “The facts” are a concise means of conveying generally accepted theories, maybe even with a proof thrown in every once in a while. But a world based solely on “the facts” is not a place I want to live.
“Fact”—fast food leads to health issues. It should be outlawed.
“Fact”—human sexual relationships cause heightened emotions that can lead to violence. Sex should be outlawed.
“Fact”—some humans make poor choices related to X (money management, picking a mate, whatever). They should be controlled so we, the educated elite, make their life better.
This is what this thread is about, not evolution, or even religion. It’s about control and about drawing lines. You say you don’t know all the answers, but for this concept to work, somebody has to know the answers. And everybody else has to agree. That ain’t gonna happen. And I’m glad for it…
|
|
The experts you believe. As evidenced later in the response to Mr. Weiss, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand as politically motivated.
Yep.
(Though you can call me Sam.)I will also insert the rather casual "Well then, the solution to global warming is to launch a few dozen nukes."
This is what this thread is about, not evolution, or even religion. It’s about control and about drawing lines. You say you don’t know all the answers, but for this concept to work, somebody has to know the answers. And everybody else has to agree. That ain’t gonna happen. And I’m glad for it…
Mega-yep.
I am still waking up from NYCC, but I would rant with the same summary conclusion.
The experts you believe. As evidenced later in the response to Mr. Weiss, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand as politically motivated.Yep.
(Though you can call me Sam.)I will also insert the rather casual "Well then, the solution to global warming is to launch a few dozen nukes."
Sure Sam, just throwing on some politeness for good measure. You know how us Southerners are...Long live the Yeomanry League!
Hopefully we won't heat up to the point of combusting, but if we do it is indeed a good feeling knowing we've got a purpose for all those nukes!
|
|
Sure Sam, just throwing on some politeness for good measure. You know how us Southerners are...Long live the Yeomanry League!
Naturally.
Still, you really should . . . Rejoin the Empire!:-P
Hopefully we won't heat up to the point of combusting, but if we do it is indeed a good feeling knowing we've got a purpose for all those nukes!
Indeed.
;)|
|
IMO, looking at the comparison of memes to pathogens, the solution seems to be to 'immunize' people to these memes.
If the 'memes' spread by Reverend Phelps or Pastor Hagee or Reverend Wagner or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina were God's punishment on America for allowing gays in the military or whatever are deemed to be 'dangerous memes,' then the solution is to 'immunize' people against them in the same way that diseases are immunized against. 'Inject' weakened, sterile or damaged versions of these memes into the information stream, so that people's minds and spirits build up resistance to them / form defenses against them.
The sorts of articles one might find on Fark.com, Cracked.com or The Onion could be useful for this sort of thing, so that people are prepared to mock and ridicule (or factually counter, although that's impossible for the example I've used, since you can't 'factually counter' someone who claims that God drowned New Orleans to punish America for Don't Ask, Don't Tell...) such arguments when they appear among their friends and family and co-workers.
The power of mockery to tear down a perfectly decent idea (or political candidate, or religious tenet) is long-established, and can be seen in the sort of insane over-the-top abusive language directed at people like Dr. Spock by the Dairy Council for the heretical claim that cow milk is better for baby cows than it is for human infants, and that human babies would be better served by drinking human milk. A good sound mocking of environmentalists has kept their movement down for decades. PETA practically mocks itself, as does Greenpeace. Various political candidates have 'gone down' based on one easily-mocked turn of phrase. Just ask Al 'invented the internet' Gore.
But really, memes based on non-factual information are just like diseases. They prey on the weak. The diseases prey on those whose bodies / immune systems are overwhelmed, and memes prey on those whose spirits and psyches are weak, who believe what they are told about the world, rather than make their own informed decisions using their God-given free will. If someone spouts off to me about Hurricane Katrina being God's punishment on America, I know to walk away from this modern day 'plague victim,' recognize them as someone whose weakened 'spiritual immune system' endangers everyone them, and should be avoided, much like a rabid dog, while I hope that they someday receive the care they need to become healthy again, to learn to think for themselves and not accept what convincing and charismatic extremists of any stripe have told them.
Teaching people to think critically and question what they are told, including questioning concepts like evolution or global warming (where the real debate isn't 'is this happening?' but 'what the hell can we do about it, practically?') and not just nod their heads like sheep and accept the wisdom doled out to them by the people they've been conditioned to recognize as authorities, is the ultimate 'cure' for the problem of vicious memes, such as violent racism or religious extremism.
I don't want to get too deep into this debate, but I would like to toss a few comments from my little peanut gallery.
First, let us be clear. Any idea, opinion, or belief, can be dangerous if taken to the extreme. Others have made comments to this effect, but here it is in (hopefully) plain language.
Second, and perhaps more important, don't confuse the American Education system (at least below the college level) for an actual institution looking to educate. It's primary purpose is to get our litl'uns to learn how to tow the line and be good little worker 'bots. If we happen to learn something along the way, that's okay too. If you have any teacher friends, ask them to explain this to you. It is somewhat appalling, if not shocking.
Please, return to your witch burning now. I'll have a thigh. :-P
Sure Sam, just throwing on some politeness for good measure. You know how us Southerners are...Long live the Yeomanry League!Naturally.
Still, you really should . . . Rejoin the Empire!
:-P
Never! Death to the Keewee's! (Sorry for the non-Living Greyhawk readers--old LG in-game squabble between the regions of the Yeomanry League and Keoland...)
IMO, looking at the comparison of memes to pathogens, the solution seems to be to 'immunize' people to these memes.
If the 'memes' spread by Reverend Phelps or Pastor Hagee or Reverend Wagner or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson that 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina were God's punishment on America for allowing gays in the military or whatever are deemed to be 'dangerous memes,' then the solution is to 'immunize' people against them in the same way that diseases are immunized against. 'Inject' weakened, sterile or damaged versions of these memes into the information stream, so that people's minds and spirits build up resistance to them / form defenses against them.
The sorts of articles one might find on Fark.com, Cracked.com or The Onion could be useful for this sort of thing, so that people are prepared to mock and ridicule (or factually counter, although that's impossible for the example I've used, since you can't 'factually counter' someone who claims that God drowned New Orleans to punish America for Don't Ask, Don't Tell...) such arguments when they appear among their friends and family and co-workers.
The power of mockery to tear down a perfectly decent idea (or political candidate, or religious tenet) is long-established, and can be seen in the sort of insane over-the-top abusive language directed at people like Dr. Spock by the Dairy Council for the heretical claim that cow milk is better for baby cows than it is for human infants, and that human babies would be better served by drinking human milk. A good sound mocking of environmentalists has kept their movement down for decades. PETA practically mocks itself, as does Greenpeace. Various political candidates have 'gone down' based on one easily-mocked turn of phrase. Just ask Al 'invented the internet' Gore.
But really, memes based on non-factual information are just like diseases. They prey on the weak. The diseases prey on those whose bodies / immune systems are overwhelmed, and memes prey on those whose spirits and psyches are weak, who believe what they are told about the world, rather than make their own informed decisions using their God-given free will. If someone spouts off to me about Hurricane Katrina being God's punishment on America, I know to walk away from this modern day 'plague victim,' recognize them as someone whose weakened 'spiritual immune system' endangers everyone them, and should be avoided, much like a rabid dog, while I hope that they someday receive the care they need to become healthy again, to learn to think for themselves and not accept what convincing and charismatic extremists of any stripe have told them.
Teaching people to think critically and question what they are told, including questioning concepts like evolution or global warming (where the real debate isn't 'is this happening?' but 'what the hell can we do about it, practically?') and not just nod their heads like sheep and accept the wisdom doled out to them by the people they've been conditioned to recognize as authorities, is the ultimate 'cure' for the problem of vicious memes, such as violent racism or religious extremism.
Agreed on some parts, though others are a bit troubling. Teaching people to think critically for themselves and make value judgments versus "following the herd" is indeed the best solution, in my mind, to combat a "dangerous" cultural trait (though again determining what's dangerous can be tricky). I'm not a huge fan of mockery, as it ultimately ridicules the other person in the discussion without necessarily changing thoughts or beliefs. It can even lead to violence when the mocked feel so oppressed and powerless against the intellectually superior that they lash out physically.
First, let us be clear. Any idea, opinion, or belief, can be dangerous if taken to the extreme. Others have made comments to this effect, but here it is in (hopefully) plain language.
Now with this I can agree for the most part, though it does raise the question again of "drawing the line" on what is extreme vs. acceptable. Extremism rooted in or advocating violence is by its nature dangerous, but depending on which side of a conflict you are on you might not see this as a negative, but rather as the only means of responding to a superior force that does not allow your voice to be heard.
Second, and perhaps more important, don't confuse the American Education system (at least below the college level) for an actual institution looking to educate. It's primary purpose is to get our litl'uns to learn how to tow the line and be good little worker 'bots. If we happen to learn something along the way, that's okay too. If you have any teacher friends, ask them to explain this to you. It is somewhat appalling, if not shocking.
Sad, but mostly true from my experience. My wife and I have gone the Montessori route as that learning style seems to best suite our child. Of course, that means I get to continue paying taxes to a system that is failing while also paying my own way through Montessori, but that's probably a better topic for a political thread...
|
|
While the net has been great at destroying memes, it has also been great at creating them. One that I have observed is what I call the "troll meme," or the idea that the anonimity of the internet gives you free reign to say anything you want regardless of what other people may think. When I was growing up, civil conversation was the order of the day, even if you disagreed with someone, simply because if you weren't civil everyone involved knew who you were and you became stigmatized for it. Today that is not the case, you can rant an rave and insult all you want, and no one will ever know who you are.
Sadly, as a teacher, I see this becomeing more and more accepted as a social norm even in face to face conversation. I have to deal with young people on a daily basis whos attitude is "I'm going to say what I feel and if you don't like it, too bad." Much like using texting slang in daily speech, high school students today are taking the conversational style of the internet and using it in their real world interactions as well.
Despite the information provided earlier that I have, in fact, completed 19 years of education, you assume to know my thinking, and have assessed that it is incorrect.
This continues my support…
If you have under gone 19 years of higher education, you should have known better than to blurt out a utterly Oxymoronic statement like 'unproven theory'. I don not assume, I respond based on the information I am presented with.
The experts you believe. As evidenced later in the response to Mr. Weiss, any evidence to the contrary is dismissed out-of-hand as politically motivated.
No, I believe the over riding consensus because they have been able to make predictive models which have held true and i have seen evidence off. They are publishing science which is standing up to peer review and getting published.
I did not raise the claim of politicisation. I merely responded to Samuels claims of it. There is a clear paper trail linking The Marshall Institute to partisan activities with regards to promoting the idea of controversy, despite a massive consensus amongst climate scientists. You might want to look into the work of Naomi Oreskes. There is grant money linking ExxonMobil to the Marshall Intitute to promote a 'keep the controversy alive' tactic similier to that which the founding members of the Marshall Institute used to help protect tabacco companies with regards to smoking and Passive smoking as Naomi Oreskes work shows. Other debates they where on the wrong side of histroy on where CFC's and Acid Rain
I don't like attacking individuals or organisations in this manner, but it should be noted that the Marshell institute has a history of making false accusations of academic fraud.
What this boils down to is this; If your going to make claims of politicisation of the science, make sure people who espouse your view have not been caught with their pants down on the subject and provide some form of evidence that it is occurring.
I don’t have to…a basic Google search turns up tons of stuff. Have you read it? Can you tell me why it’s false? Heck, there’s even a List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. I haven’t researched every link, because frankly it’s not a topic that concerns me enough to spend that much energy. I’d be very interested in your rebuttal for the referenced scientists…or are these the ignoble few that are decrying global warming for political reasons?
Your little list has 39 signatories, 12 of those at most are climatologists. Hardly a compelling list, especially compared to the hundreds of members of organisations like NOAA and the Met office.
Although it isn't my field of study, I will offer rebuttal to the offered quote of the first person on the list, Timothy F. Ball.Ball claims that the evidence supports global cooling, yet even in the specific period he quotes, 1940 to 1980, their is a net increase in global average temperature, not to mention that since 1980 their have been a marked increase in average temperature. and there is a clear trend.
See graph .
No, the time period in which this slight slowdown of global warming took place is very interesting. We know that firestorms from conventional bombing and nuclear exchanges can cause global dimming, we also know that commercial and military air traffic can cause global dimming . Given that numerous large firestorms occurred during this is time period along with and numerous atomic and fusion weapons being discharged a slow down in the rate of warming should be expected in this time.
So you are not saying something is correct or incorrect, but you have determined they are “dangerous” and despite any truthfulness should be suppressed? That’s a fairly counterintuitive position from where I stand.Are you familiar with any widespread meme related to stoning youth in the Christian or Jewish culture of today? If not, I’m unsure how this relates to our discussion other than to say “look, parts of this scripture are bad so it most all be bad!”
Yes actually I am. Dominionism (in Christianity) in the U.S.A. for instance or in the Muslim world you have the stoning for adultery.
You’re surely aware of how ironic it is to be discussing the usefulness of what amounts to thought control while at the same time decrying fascism, right? I mean, that’s just funny…
Not really. We often deprive people of rights for the good of society. For instance, we have forced quarantine. Is it fascistic of the CDC to imprison sick people which highly contagious diseases. Given that some Memes behave in such a similar way to Pathogens, how is it more morally objectionable to quarantine a Meme carrier than it is a Virus carrier?
Really? Scientific fact, huh? That all us creationists are irrational? That was the question, after all. You’ve dropped down a level in specificity now, from creationist to young earth creationist. So luckily I’m safe, since I’m not a young earth creationist. Of course, that’s until it’s determined that my way of thinking is not acceptable as well…
I’m not sure how that relates in any way to what I asked, so I’ll ask again…You have evidence that shows creationists are irrational?
Believing something that is contrary to mountains evidence is by definition, irrational.
I narrowed the field because different forms of creationism require different 'silver bullets'. If you'll kindly define your beliefs, i will happily take a chain saw to them, in a different and more appropreate thread.Zombieneighbours wrote:
There is no assumption here; i am speaking form a position of expertise. I studied Evolutionary Biology and Ethology at university; I actually know the science that leads us to the conclusion of Evolution. I also have a great deal of experience with creationist arguments, as I am an avid debunker and fan of some of the better debunkers out there. Creationist arguments are without acception(in my experience) irrational. Very often they are more than irrational, they are laughable and damaging.
You are an expert on those of a religious persuasion based on degrees in science and conversations? I find that highly unlikely. You may indeed understand science, but that in turn tells me your understanding of religion is likely clouded by assumptions, many of which are being demonstrated in this discussion. The religious are irrational, dangerous, unable to accept science. At least those are the assumptions I have seen based on your dialogue thus far.
No, and never claimed that I was an expert on the beliefs of religious people. I have an expertise in the subject of evolutionary biology and Ethology and a keen amature interest in the subject of creationism, creation 'science' and I.D.
You are presenting a strawman here. In fact, you're presenting several. I have never claimed to be an expert on religion. I have never claimed that religion as a whole is irrational. I have never claimed that religion, as a whole is dangerous. I have never claimed that religion as a whole is unable to accept science. In fact I have quotes of my self form this very discussion.One can be rational and be religious.
Might I suggest that as you appear to be a member of an Abrahamic faith, you abide by the 9th commandment 'Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.'
Perhaps your unfamiliar with the use of the term Science in this manner, so sorry for any confusion. If not inferable from context, this is a construct that is basically “false science” or “god science” that someone comes to worship or adhere to “religiously” and without question as a person of faith might do with religion. Not all scientists, and indeed I assume most, are of this belief. As a note, I considered people of faith that act in this way-following blindly without question-to be as misguided as anyone blindly accepting Science as their god.
However, your first statement does lead me to ask…if science makes no claim to the rationality of religious belief, and creationism is a religious belief, how do you thus classify it as irrational in your above statements?
It is ironic that you should claim that i believe all religion is irrational an that in the first line that follows the text you quote is a defense of the possibly rationality of religious belief.
The differentiation of science and Science is the kind of Non-sense that comes out of men, like 'convicted fraudster' Kent Hovind.Science makes no claim on the rationality of religious belief as a whole. It does however make claims backed by evidence concerning some religious beliefs. For instance, where the evidence and belief come into conflict, science will back the observable evidence. If someone tries to claim that the belief is true despite the evidence, that is irrational. Science makes no claim about god for instance because of the lack of scientific evidence to support either his existence or his impossibility.
Perhaps I’m not being clear. You are saying there are absolutely no problems with evolutionary theory in its current state? No unanswered questions?
With the theory of evolution as a whole? There are no problems that I have come across. If you can provide them, i will happily look at them. Our understanding is certainly being refined dayly, as we learn more about genetics we learn more and more about why certain body types are more common that others, but there are no unanswered questions that are likely to some how sink evolution.
Think about it like this. Do you think the theory of gravity is likely to be debunked any time soon? If the answer is 'No' then I should point out that we know many thousands of times more about evolution than we do about gravity.
Sorry, that’s an entirely separate question from evolution, but you answered the question in around-about fashion—there are many possibilities as to the creation of the universe, none of which stands as a proof.
Thank you for repeating me. The fact that we do not yet know the exact details of where the universe came from is in no way as challenge to the theory of evolution. Given the context of your question, you where asking if that was a problem for evolution.
And this ends my support for why your line of thinking is dangerous. Theory is proven? No, proofs are proven. Theory is, by it’s nature, theoretical. It may be good theory, it may be bad theory. But it is not proven. “The facts” are a concise means of conveying generally accepted theories, maybe even with a proof thrown in every once in a while. But a world based solely on “the facts” is not a place I want to live.
“Fact”—fast food leads to health issues. It should be outlawed.
“Fact”—human sexual relationships cause heightened emotions that can lead to violence. Sex should be outlawed.
“Fact”—some humans make poor choices related to X (money management, picking a mate, whatever). They should be controlled so we, the educated elite, make their life better.
This is what this thread is about, not evolution, or even religion. It’s about control and about drawing lines. You say you don’t know all the answers, but for this concept to work, somebody has to know the answers. And everybody else has to agree. That ain’t gonna happen. And I’m glad for it…
Theory is the highest form of Proof in science. To become more certain of something you have to move into the realms of Mathematics.
There is always a degree of uncertainty in science, but I can state my life on theory. I could take a lead ball, hung on a piece of wire, pull it to my nose and the release it, while remaining still, knowing i will not be hit in the face by the balls return. I could do it every ten seconds for the rest of my life and never be struck by the ball because of Newton's laws and the laws of conservation of energy. these are just theories, just like evolution.Facts are not ways of convaying theories, they are what make up a theory. theory is a higher form of proof than fact.
You are the one that forced the issue of specifics to the foreground.
People should be provided with good education so that they are less likely to make bad choices.
'Fast food' itself is not dangerous, it is specific addatives and styles of cooking which cause these things. Why shouldn't we legislate to ban the production of a food additive or comercial cooking techniques which evidence shows are damaging? If a person still wants to have cochineal coloured deep fried batter, they are free to crush up the beetles and make it them selves, but others should not be allowed to profit from that choice.
In certain other cases, such as atmospheric pollution you have issues of classing liberty. While it can be argued that you have the right to drive an S.U.V., what makes your right to do so, greater than other peoples rights not to suffer the result of you doing so?
Your guilty of gross over simplification on this issue. In a society, collective rights have to outweigh certain individual right. In the case of Quarantine, for example, the rights of the society to limit the risks of Epidemic and Pandemic have to outweigh the rights of the individual to freedom.
Any further discussion of the specifics of Creationism or Global climate change will need to be taken to another thread.
While the net has been great at destroying memes, it has also been great at creating them. One that I have observed is what I call the "troll meme," or the idea that the anonimity of the internet gives you free reign to say anything you want regardless of what other people may think. When I was growing up, civil conversation was the order of the day, even if you disagreed with someone, simply because if you weren't civil everyone involved knew who you were and you became stigmatized for it. Today that is not the case, you can rant an rave and insult all you want, and no one will ever know who you are.
Sadly, as a teacher, I see this becomeing more and more accepted as a social norm even in face to face conversation. I have to deal with young people on a daily basis whos attitude is "I'm going to say what I feel and if you don't like it, too bad." Much like using texting slang in daily speech, high school students today are taking the conversational style of the internet and using it in their real world interactions as well.
And I follow on from that to getting those students out of college and trying to enter the work force. Such an attitude toward "say what I think, regardless" has cost folks jobs under me. Not because they couldn't do the actual work at hand, but because they created a "hostile work environment" or else offended the customer and those trump a lot of "free speech rights" (I was a contracted lead over other contractors at the time--when the client says they don't want a contractor around anymore, that contractor is pretty much out the door).
Now this is truly a meme I could get behind squashing!
Any further discussion of the specifics of Creationism or Global climate change will need to be taken to another thread.
Works for me. You've continued to avoid what I've called out as the truth of this thinking so it'll be good to focus on it. Who has control of determining what is dangerous? Why? What are they allowed to do with this control? You mentioned risk analysis earlier--is all risk to be eliminated, or is there an acceptable level or risk? Why? If there is an acceptable level, who sets it and why?
You say you are not attacking religion in general, just creationism for instance. Why? What specifically is it about creationism that is dangerous to society as a whole (not getting into the specifics of creationism itself to abide by the rules of discussion, just what is dangerous)? Is it just specific types of creationism (young earth) or all creationism? What other aspects or religion are dangerous?
You talk about the CDC quarantining highly contagious diseases--things like ebola kill people, so I'm good with this approach. Creationism kills people? To the point it needs to be quarantined and eradicated?
While the net has been great at destroying memes, it has also been great at creating them. One that I have observed is what I call the "troll meme," or the idea that the anonimity of the internet gives you free reign to say anything you want regardless of what other people may think. When I was growing up, civil conversation was the order of the day, even if you disagreed with someone, simply because if you weren't civil everyone involved knew who you were and you became stigmatized for it. Today that is not the case, you can rant an rave and insult all you want, and no one will ever know who you are.
Sadly, as a teacher, I see this becomeing more and more accepted as a social norm even in face to face conversation. I have to deal with young people on a daily basis whos attitude is "I'm going to say what I feel and if you don't like it, too bad." Much like using texting slang in daily speech, high school students today are taking the conversational style of the internet and using it in their real world interactions as well.
And I follow on from that to getting those students out of college and trying to enter the work force. Such an attitude toward "say what I think, regardless" has cost folks jobs under me. Not because they couldn't do the actual work at hand, but because they created a "hostile work environment" or else offended the customer and those trump a lot of "free speech rights" (I was a contracted lead over other contractors at the time--when the client says they don't want a contractor around anymore, that contractor is pretty much out the door).
Now this is truly a meme I could get behind squashing!
I'm sorry, a momment ago you where saying we had no right to limit freedom of speech. Now your supporting my point and saying that Memes which promote freedom of speech should be limited.Does that not seem like hypocracy
Set:
I agree that 'immunisation' is the best cause. Lessons in critical thinking, literacy and science, not to mention literature (I actually think the bible should be taught here, since an understanding of the bible massively increases ones understanding of European and American literature. ) and art, can provide a great deal of protection.
However, the means by which such Memetic Immune systems are developed are not currently fit for purpose.
When the religious right are trying to break down the remaining functioning element, i.e. the separation of church and state, to introduce I.D. into school science classes can we afford to do nothing?
I agree that ridicule is a very powerful tool and I wish the now show, SNL, the daily show and more where more widely seen.
Certainly the blade cuts both ways, but just because something leans towards the left doesn't mean that is it an idea worth espousing. To take your example of P.E.T.A. I studied on a cause based around Animal Welfare, and we wanted to pull our hair out every time P.E.T.A. opened its collective mouth. The animal rights movement has done staggering levels of harm to progress in providing better welfare to animals.
As for just walking away, you are leaving a reservoir of infection in the population, your promoting the spread of that meme by inaction.
With regards too, 'what the hell can we do about it, practically?'
I think the answer at this point is not enough. We had the political will back with the I.P.C.C. framework convention but we let it go and we kept on going. With global political consensus and popular backing, we could probably still make the changes needed, but I don't think well get those things quickly enough.
|
|
Never! Death to the Keewee's! (Sorry for the non-Living Greyhawk readers--old LG in-game squabble between the regions of the Yeomanry League and Keoland...)Sure Sam, just throwing on some politeness for good measure. You know how us Southerners are...Long live the Yeomanry League!Naturally.
Still, you really should . . . Rejoin the Empire!
:-P
And a really good example of memetic power.
:D|
|
While the net has been great at destroying memes, it has also been great at creating them. One that I have observed is what I call the "troll meme," or the idea that the anonimity of the internet gives you free reign to say anything you want regardless of what other people may think. When I was growing up, civil conversation was the order of the day, even if you disagreed with someone, simply because if you weren't civil everyone involved knew who you were and you became stigmatized for it. Today that is not the case, you can rant an rave and insult all you want, and no one will ever know who you are.
The ones I despise are the two "opinion memes", the presumption that everything must be phrased as an opinion to avoid offending anyone (aka, the "with all due respect" meme), and that anything phrased as an opinion cannot be challenged (aka, the "better to ignore the thread and be thought a lurker than to respond and demonstrate your ignorance" meme).
Both are more than welcome to find oblivion.
I'm sorry, a momment ago you where saying we had no right to limit freedom of speech. Now your supporting my point and saying that Memes which promote freedom of speech should be limited.Does that not seem like hypocracy
I did? Where exactly do you see me stating there is no right to limit speech? "Freedom of speech" is a misunderstood concept in places like the work environment. In many cases, an employee does not have "freedom of speech" to say what they please without repercussions. I see no conflict between my desire for having a civil discussion and my position that using the concept of memes to "quarantine" cultural issues as decided by some social/intellectual elite is a dangerous concept.
Anything on the issue of control? On who makes the decisions and why? On where we draw the line?
When the religious right are trying to break down the remaining functioning element, i.e. the separation of church and state, to introduce I.D. into school science classes can we afford to do nothing?
If we are teaching folks critical thinking, and Intelligent Design is an inferior model to other alternatives, where is the danger? Wouldn't the "survival of the fittest" mean the better idea survives? Dawkin's ties between evolutionary theory and memes actually comes back around to my concern with this line of thinking--it can be applied to biology as well. Will we have a genetic bar as well as a cultural bar, and those that don't meet the bar are? Quarantined? Exterminated to preserve the gene pool? Back around to control...
Works for me. You've continued to avoid what I've called out as the truth of this thinking so it'll be good to focus on it. Who has control of determining what is dangerous? Why? What are they allowed to do with this control? You mentioned risk analysis earlier--is all risk to be eliminated, or is there an acceptable level or risk? Why? If there is an acceptable level, who sets it and why?
I have not been dodging the issue. You've just been broadening the subject out to the point where it is hard to answer all points.
Simply put, society has to make the choice. We have techniques to make it as safe as possible but it is not without risk of abuse.
We already engage in this form of censorship and I very much doubt you would wish to see society decriminalise those activities and ideas. For instance I doubt you want to see snuff videos available over the counter. So you already accept the methods society uses to decide what should and shouldn't be censored.
To say that free speech should not be limited, one must be occationally willing to defend the indefensible. Are you?
I actually mentioned that the mathematics used to analyses risk could be used. However one might change the parameters from Ricks to Harm. The truth is that society already uses exactly these sorts of equations to help in the making of decisions about ethics. It is especially common in the medicial profession and industry, from the ethicacy trials to decisions about spending priorities in private hospitals. If you accept such models being used in these conditions why not elsewhere?
You say you are not attacking religion in general, just creationism for instance. Why? What specifically is it about creationism that is dangerous to society as a whole (not getting into the specifics of creationism itself to abide by the rules of discussion, just what is dangerous)? Is it just specific types of creationism (young earth) or all creationism? What other aspects or religion are dangerous?
You talk about the CDC quarantining highly contagious diseases--things like ebola kill people, so I'm good with this approach. Creationism kills people? To the point it needs to be quarantined and eradicated?
Memes which cause deaths:
Prayer alone: Children and young adults die every year thanks to the removal of parental consent for treatment on religious grounds.
holy war, jihad and martyrdom: All over the world this lovely little Memeplex is killed thousands of people.
Racial superiority: This Puppy cause genocides, especially when coupled with H.J.M.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori(it is sweet and right to die for your country): Regardless of if it is right or not to kill or die for ones nation, this meme certainly causes death all over the world.
MMR is bad: This little english meme has managed to return a three all but wiped out biological diseases to genuine concern in the united kingdom thanks to Pseudo-science.
While creationism itself does not kill, it is in some ways the Memetic equivalent of H.I.V. It teach people not to think in a rational manner, making them profoundly more likely to become infected with other memes. There is a reason that most families who loose children thanks to the 'Prayer alone' meme also suffer from the creationist meme. Also, there is some good reason to believe that Creationism retards science education in general and specifically Biology. I have seen comments by people in the Indian Biotech industry who desperately want creationism taught in American schools because they believe that it will cement their position as the leading pharmaceutical industry within seven years.
|
|
We already engage in this form of censorship and I very much doubt you would wish to see society decriminalise those activities and ideas. For instance I doubt you want to see snuff videos available over the counter. So you already accept the methods society uses to decide what should and shouldn't be censored.
Except snuff films are not speech, they are murder. Any discussion of them must of a necessity include the consideration as to whether or not murder is to be sanctioned.
To say that free speech should not be limited, one must be occationally willing to defend the indefensible. Are you?
If you wish to take it to that level, then what you must consider is not snuff films, but any depictions of death in media.
Or consider the medical questions regarding the use of data from animal experiments. Groups like PETA would rather see people die than use animal derived insulin.I actually mentioned that the mathematics used to analyses risk could be used. However one might change the parameters from Ricks to Harm. The truth is that society already uses exactly these sorts of equations to help in the making of decisions about ethics. It is especially common in the medicial profession and industry, from the ethicacy trials to decisions about spending priorities in private hospitals. If you accept such models being used in these conditions why not elsewhere?
Because testing drugs with uncertain effects on people is one thing and letting people express their beliefs that do not require the direct killing or endangering of others is another.
Memes which cause deaths:
You forgot the meme
D&D (rock music and video games) is Satan Worship: Children and Young Adults commit murder and suicide, destroying lives with abandon.
As erian_7 has been saying, who gets to decide which memes to allow on the basis of "safety"?
I'm sorry, a momment ago you where saying we had no right to limit freedom of speech. Now your supporting my point and saying that Memes which promote freedom of speech should be limited.Does that not seem like hypocracyI did? Where exactly do you see me stating there is no right to limit speech? "Freedom of speech" is a misunderstood concept in places like the work environment. In many cases, an employee does not have "freedom of speech" to say what they please without repercussions. I see no conflict between my desire for having a civil discussion and my position that using the concept of memes to "quarantine" cultural issues as decided by some social/intellectual elite is a dangerous concept.
Anything on the issue of control? On who makes the decisions and why? On where we draw the line?
Tell me, if you had a choice between an Elite fighter pilot and john 'three crash'maccaine to fly in your defence during a war, which would you choose?
If you have a choice between an experienced and appropriately specialist surgeon or an intern to perform a complex surgery on you, which would you choose?
Why then would you wish anything less than an academic elite to be the people working on profound moral issues?
Let me ask you this, what about the Nibiru meme means that it has redeeming features that should allow it into public discourse why what benifit does it provide people?
When the religious right are trying to break down the remaining functioning element, i.e. the separation of church and state, to introduce I.D. into school science classes can we afford to do nothing?If we are teaching folks critical thinking, and Intelligent Design is an inferior model to other alternatives, where is the danger? Wouldn't the "survival of the fittest" mean the better idea survives? Dawkin's ties between evolutionary theory and memes actually comes back around to my concern with this line of thinking--it can be applied to biology as well. Will we have a genetic bar as well as a cultural bar, and those that don't meet the bar are? Quarantined? Exterminated to preserve the gene pool? Back around to control...
Well for a start, it is unconstitional to teach I.D. in schools. But leaving that aside as i live in England and don't have the protection of the US constitution, let me say that if all schools taught science and critical enquiry to a level excellence, I would be the first person to say allow I.D. the class rooms. I laugh every time I see Ken Miller utterly destroy its underpinning. The problem is, School Systems are no upto the task of teaching critical thinking or free enquiry at this time.
The reason your argument with regards to eugenics is flawed boils down to this; unlike memes, genes aren't contagious even the most damaging genes tend to be self limiting or have an upside lest they burn them selves out. Once a 'bad gene' burns itself out, it is also gone.
The same is not true of Memes; memes can pass quickly through out a populations co-opting the death of millions of people, have all its hosts whipped out and still resurface ten years later because a book that contains it falls into the hands of the wrong person. There, it can start the whole thing over again.
|
|
Simply put, society has to make the choice. We have techniques to make it as safe as possible but it is not without risk of abuse.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, the person who trades freedom for security ends up without either. This is the problem that is presented by your proposal. It is a great idea, so long as the Coordinator of Meme Oversight, or what ever title we decide to give the person doing the risk analysis, is gettting rid of memes we don't like. Racism, sexism, bigotry of any kind; I'm sure most of us agree that we would be better off without those things. But then what happens if, for example, the CMO does his risk analysis and decides that athiesm is dangerous to the public welfare because there are more religious people in the country then there are athiests. What does someone who went along with this program expecting the Office of Meme Management to get rid of creationism and religious extremism do then? What happens when the OMM, that you created to get rid of memes you don't like starts to come after you?
Simply put, society has to make the choice. We have techniques to make it as safe as possible but it is not without risk of abuse.
We already engage in this form of censorship and I very much doubt you would wish to see society decriminalise those activities and ideas. For instance I doubt you want to see snuff videos available over the counter. So you already accept the methods society uses to decide what should and shouldn't be censored.
With this I agree--it's why I haven't moved to another country since democracy in the U.S. still works. I don't even know what a snuff video is, so I'll have to take your word there...
To say that free speech should not be limited, one must be occationally willing to defend the indefensible. Are you?
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, since I've never stated "free speech should not be limited." But as a person of faith I'm obviously ready to defend the "indefensible" as relates to things unexplained by science. My mother was recently "cured" of an incurable syndrome, severe circulatory damage, and cellular brain injury. The docs have no explanation. I do. I don't know the "why" of her healing versus any other suffering individual on the planet, but I "know" the "how." I'm about to visit an impoverished country where I'll work directly with children and adults suffering from all sorts of medical disorders and this occurrence will definitely be playing a role in my interactions there.
I actually mentioned that the mathematics used to analyses risk could be used. However one might change the parameters from Ricks to Harm. The truth is that society already uses exactly these sorts of equations to help in the making of decisions about ethics. It is especially common in the medicial profession and industry, from the ethicacy trials to decisions about spending priorities in private hospitals. If you accept such models being used in these conditions why not elsewhere?
With this I agree--we make laws and decisions based on harm. I'm in the medical industry and "do no harm" is a prime motivator. Application of this approach to other areas of the ethics/law is no problem. You start losing me when you get to the "now this is not harmful, but it could lead to something else that is so we should place restrictions as needed."
Memes which cause deaths:
Prayer alone: Children and young adults die every year thanks to the removal of parental consent for treatment on religious grounds.
holy war, jihad and martyrdom: All over the world this lovely little Memeplex is killed thousands of people.
Racial superiority: This Puppy cause genocides, especially when coupled with H.J.M.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori(it is sweet and right to die for your country): Regardless of if it is right or not to kill or die for ones nation, this meme certainly causes death all over the world.
You're good to go on most of these and we have laws in place as needed for them (though there is state-to-state variation at present). The parental consent issue is tricky, however. I agree in general and have spoken against a "prayer alone" approach in the past, but this is where my question of where the line gets drawn comes back into play. I've had a situation, for instance, where the medical procedure indicated for my son turned out to be incorrect. My wife and I denied the procedure, as it just didn't "feel" right and later discovered the error was a medical chart screw-up. I would place the elderly in this category as well, as a note, as they often fall back into the care of their children.
MMR is bad: This little english meme has managed to return a three all but wiped out biological diseases to genuine concern in the united kingdom thanks to Pseudo-science.
I believe by this you are referring to the Measles/Mumps/Rubella vaccine? I'm not aware of this issue, so again I'll have to take your word on it...
While creationism itself does not kill, it is in some ways the Memetic equivalent of H.I.V. It teach people not to think in a rational manner, making them profoundly more likely to become infected with other memes. There is a reason that most families who loose children thanks to the 'Prayer alone' meme also suffer from the creationist meme. Also, there is some good reason to believe that Creationism retards science education in general and specifically Biology. I have seen comments by people in the Indian Biotech industry who desperately want creationism taught in American schools because they believe that it will cement their position as the leading pharmaceutical industry within seven years.
And this is where we depart. You've shifted from "this causes harm" to "this may influence people to accept things that might cause harm" and again assert that "creationism" teaches people not to think in a rational manner to such an extent that they'd make poor decisions. You've correlated creationism and "Prayer Alone" as an example, but that's selecting two specific memes out of a set of hundreds and assuming direct correlation. It is likely true that most "Prayer Alone" people in the US are creationists, but is it because creationism taught them to think illogically? That doesn't follow, as I know there are millions of creationists that are not "Prayer Alone" supporters. Why the divergence? This is where the line starts making no sense.
|
|
Why then would you wish anything less than an academic elite to be the people working on profound moral issues?
Because the academic elite don't always know what is best. Three years ago the elite of the financial industry told us our economy was sound an that the recession we are in now couldn't happen. Forty years ago, the academic elite believed that eugenics was a good idea. One hundred years ago the academic elite believed that colonialism and imperialism were good memes that would benefit everyone, and that the Anglo-Europeans were the peak of human evolution. One thousand years ago the academic elite believed that the Earth was a flat dish floating in a bowl of water, with a dome above our heads that made up the sky.
Edit: More importantly, how do we decide who are the academic elite? I would hazard a guess that we would likely have different views on that subject if we sat down and discussed that topic.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, the person who trades freedom for security ends up without either. This is the problem that is presented by your proposal. It is a great idea, so long as the Coordinator of Meme Oversight, or what ever title we decide to give the person doing the risk analysis, is gettting rid of memes we don't like. Racism, sexism, bigotry of any kind; I'm sure most of us agree that we would be better off without those things. But then what happens if, for example, the CMO does his risk analysis and decides that athiesm is dangerous to the public welfare because there are more religious people in the country then there are athiests. What does someone who went along with this program expecting the Office of Meme Management to get rid of creationism and religious extremism do then? What happens when the OMM, that you created to get rid of memes you don't like starts to come after you?
Simply put, society has to make the choice. We have techniques to make it as safe as possible but it is not without risk of abuse.
If you believe franklin is correct, would you break a quarantine to allow those within to go and be with their families?
With regards to the rest.
Well, to be frank, I highly doubt a system fit for purpose would do that. I certainly wouldn't support a system that limited ones ability to hold views or persicuted people for holding those views. the only version i would possibly consider, is a system that Limited transmission of such memes via digital means.
Now if you mean, what if the OMM abuses his position? Well ideally the OMM would be a non-sentient program that did it automantically without human 'interfereance' but with human observation. But if the OMM had to be human or a organisation of humans, then to be honest, the question is, what happens if any powerful body is corrupt? The people will over turn it in time. Its no more troubling that say fox news probably pervesion of public oppinion via new manipulation. If you have a problem with this hypothecial, shouldn't you be pushing for honest reporting by fox?