Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are you objective?
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 46 of 75 (775657)
01-03-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
01-03-2016 3:32 AM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
Straggler writes:
I would put forward climate change and gun advocacy as examples of those in denial about facts in much the same way that the tobacco industry was previously.
Hi Stragg
Just curious if you view this as an example of your objectivity?
(Not that I disagree with the views expressed.)

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 01-03-2016 3:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 7:35 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2016 4:32 AM GDR has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 47 of 75 (775660)
01-03-2016 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by GDR
01-03-2016 6:27 PM


Gun control and climate change in the same sentence.
Since, gun control advocates are only worried about the relatively few human deaths, at the hand of guns, then it sounds really illogical to put it on par with the enormous issue of climate change.
If the goal is to ban rifles and projectiles which kill animals, then one might be able to compare it to the acidification of the oceans and the extinction. It's still a stretch though.
Gun control is a pet political issue for the left. Just a convenient "culture war" issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 01-03-2016 6:27 PM GDR has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 48 of 75 (775662)
01-03-2016 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by LamarkNewAge
01-02-2016 1:46 PM


Re: One issue I take with your comments
Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe.
Really? In Africa many nation states are artificial are don't reflect the actual ethno-linguistic groups that live there, hence people don't tend to be attached to their country. Where as Europe actually has a tradition of nationalistic philosophies and has possessed some of the most violently nationalist societies the world has ever seen.
Also, I find this idea of "whites" as a people a bit silly. I mean I don't think Spanish people and Georgians are that close culturally. Across Europe people speak several different languages and have very different cultures.
Since you mentioned Western Europe, I know many people in France, the UK, Ireland, Germany, e.t.c. often see second-generation African immigrants as basically French, British, Irish, e.t.c. where as a Polish guy would be Polish. I've never really seen this "white" culture or people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-02-2016 1:46 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 8:35 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 49 of 75 (775666)
01-03-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Son Goku
01-03-2016 8:04 PM


Many issues.
You quoted me saying this.
"Whites (as a whole) are the least nationalistic people in the world - especially in western-Europe."
quote:
Really? In Africa many nation states are artificial are don't reflect the actual ethno-linguistic groups that live there, hence people don't tend to be attached to their country. Where as Europe actually has a tradition of nationalistic philosophies and has possessed some of the most violently nationalist societies the world has ever seen.
Western Europe made quite a change after World War 2. Germany went from hyper-nationalism during WW2 to being the greatest anti-nationalist force in the world today. Though the issue is considerably more complex than even calling Nazi Germany "nationalistic" because the policy of nationalism was the Nazi policy within Europe. Outside of the "white" world, post WW1 Germany is seen as a victim of European imperialism and WW2 Germany is seen as more supportive of local populations than the awful British Empire.
Morocco has been trying since 1987 to become a member of the EU and they have improved human rights considerably to meet the standards. I hope they eventually get let in.
Gadaffi of Libya made an (amazing set of) effort(s) first at a pan-Arab state, then he gave up and attempted to set up an African unification. He encouraged light-skinned Libyans to selectively marry black spouses and vice versa.
quote:
Also, I find this idea of "whites" as a people a bit silly. I mean I don't think Spanish people and Georgians are that close culturally. Across Europe people speak several different languages and have very different cultures.
Georgia isn't part of the European Union for starters. And eastern Europeans that are part of the European Union would turn against it if lots of poor EU citizens from the west migrated east. The migration seems to be 1 way (though immigrants don't stay put but happily return home if both the economic and the border situation allows). the anti-nationalist feelings are strongest in the west for sure.
quote:
Since you mentioned Western Europe, I know many people in France, the UK, Ireland, Germany, e.t.c. often see second-generation African immigrants as basically French, British, Irish, e.t.c. where as a Polish guy would be Polish. I've never really seen this "white" culture or people.
Good. Then that backs up my point.
One a side note, the Scottish Nationalist Party actually isn't "nationalist". They favor remaining members of the EU (hence European citizenship and migration rights with what would be 28 other countries), and infact have said that the U.K. Independent Party (a true nationalist party) having its way - leaving the EU - would guarantee a split from the U.K. so they could remain part of Europe. If that sounds ironic, then consider the Balkan situation: Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are trying to become the 29th EU member state (and 30th when 1 follows the other). After the ethnic-cleansing from all sides, it is really ironic that they will become members of a larger open-border entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Son Goku, posted 01-03-2016 8:04 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 50 of 75 (775682)
01-04-2016 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by LamarkNewAge
01-03-2016 2:45 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
The issue was not that you mentioned how blacks have demonstrated a strong anti-immigration stance but that it was said on this topic. It's a tangent that is completely out of left field as this topic is about objectivity.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 2:45 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 75 (775688)
01-04-2016 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by GDR
01-03-2016 6:27 PM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
I am as prone to personal bias as anyone else.
But in terms of slowly mounting evidence and the sort of resistance that evidence is met with there are stark similarities between the tobacco health issue, climate change and the gun issue.
If the statistics and evidence suggested (for example) that nations awash with guns were less violent, safer and relatively free from crime then ultimately I would have to accept that evidence whatever I may want to believe.
Ultimately time will tell. But on these issues I am pretty confident that my position is not just a result of personal bias but is actually evidentially sound. But 'the truth can always be questioned' and, like the tobacco issue, the facts will eventually become increasingly obvious to all. Whichever 'side' they support.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 01-03-2016 6:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 01-04-2016 7:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 52 of 75 (775690)
01-04-2016 6:07 AM


Objectivity
I'd definitely not be objective at all, but I'd try (difficult to know if one actually succeeds) to be objective when it comes to anything that concerns other people's lifestyles or difficulties, which mainly concerns not judging them or thinking I'm aware of all issues those people might face, but also not be pitying which is just a silly narrative.
In addition to that I try to be objective with major issues like global warming, e.t.c. and beyond that apply general fact checking skills to topics I don't know anything about. To be honest I find the most efficient thing to do is read Wikipedia, in the areas I know about it's quite good, so I start off with it on things I don't and check around on good blogs (blogs of experts) to see if it's reasonable and develop my understanding.
Of course I'd have the bias that I only do this for things I'm interested in, so I'd try to have no opinion on things I haven't read up on. "Try" being the operative word as it is surprising how many opinions you absorb by osmosis based on what people of one's background typically/should believe.

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:26 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 75 (775695)
01-04-2016 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Son Goku
01-04-2016 6:07 AM


Re: Objectivity ... and sources
... To be honest I find the most efficient thing to do is read Wikipedia, in the areas I know about it's quite good, so I start off with it on things I don't and check around on good blogs (blogs of experts) to see if it's reasonable and develop my understanding.
Indeed, wiki is my usual first go-to source, followed by links in the articles to scientific literature and other references. So I support it with a monthly contribution, as it would be difficult to replace.
One of the best aspects of wiki in my mind is that it cannot be treated as an absolute source, it is subject to change, and can be changed by anyone. This has led to some problems on touchy topics and edits by people with an agenda, but it also means it can be updated rapidly with new or revised information when it becomes available.
There are a couple of pages that I help monitor, and it is always interesting to see a page change, whether you agree with it or if that change affects how you see things.
Certainly when it comes to sources for evidence the scientific papers of peer reviewed journals would be top of the list, but often those are behind paywalls and all you can freely access are abstracts.
Equally certain in my mind is that "googling" alone is the worst kind of source because (a) there is so much garbage out there posted by idiots, gullible fools, and deluded people (not to mention people with an agenda), and (b) because it can be used as a self-filter where you can cherry-pick results to bolster your position ("the devil can cite scripture for his purpose") and ignore contrary information -- for example: liberals go to liberal news sites while conservatives go to conservative news sites, and neither group gets a complete picture.
The difference between wiki and google-glop is that wiki information is passed through a reality check filter.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Son Goku, posted 01-04-2016 6:07 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 54 of 75 (775724)
01-04-2016 12:02 PM


This may be slightly more than off topic, but I found this interesting:
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-evidence-bad.html

- xongsmith, 5.7d

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 55 of 75 (775726)
01-04-2016 12:55 PM


I try to form opinions objectively, but I am sure that I hold a lot of already formed opinions which I cannot easily defended objectively. It is probably impossible to completely remove bias particularly when it is formed on topics that are not completely amenable to the scientific method, and on which even the definitions and basis are not agreed on. Some of our perspectives are colored by our own life experiences and I would not know how to correct for that. I would not even try.
The best that can be done in such situations is to be very careful about your methodology and to attempt to frame your opinions in a persuasive, logical manner regardless of how firmly you hold your opinions. Whether or not your audience agrees with your opinion, the best discussion is when the presentation is at least logical and well grounded and also when the presenter is up front about his bias.
Great topic Percy.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Blue Jay, posted 01-06-2016 12:17 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 56 of 75 (775727)
01-04-2016 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by LamarkNewAge
01-03-2016 4:54 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
LamarkNewAge writes:
Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny).
No, Percy did not admit "that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types." No, Percy did not "rush-type" the comment in the opening post. What Percy actually said in Message 24 was this:
Percy in Message 24 writes:
The sentence "How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country" from the opening post was an example of a poorly supported belief resulting from lack of objectivity. I used that example because of the recent thread With a dying white race, why are we not encouraging more white births?, where that attitude was much expressed. It was not intended as the topic of this thread. This thread is about objectivity.
Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right.
If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as examples of objectivity or the lack thereof, then this is the thread for you. If you want to discuss attitudes about immigration as the main topic you should probably propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-03-2016 4:54 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 7:22 PM Percy has replied
 Message 60 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:02 PM Percy has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 57 of 75 (775767)
01-04-2016 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
01-04-2016 1:01 PM


Re: I would have just left it after 1 post.
From your OP. Here is the original quote in its entire context.
quote:
Are you objective?
Of course you are! And probably above average, too!
In today's New York Times Editorialist Neil Irwin comments that in his experience people's economic views depend upon whether their party is in power. We've seen it all before here. How people see evolution depends upon their religion. How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.
Those of us with entrenched beliefs (that would be all of us, in case there's any doubt) must always be ready and willing to make sure those beliefs are supported by the data. And we must also be willing to give serious consideration to accusations, as upsetting as they may be, that we are distorting the data or its interpretation to suit our purposes.
Irwin goes on to describe the reason for the editorial, the results of a study showing that if you reward people for their answer they become less partisan. As he puts it:
quote:
"The paper by Mr. Bullock, Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill and Gregory A. Huber found that offering a $1 payment for a correct response and a 33-cent payment for an answer of 'Don’t know' eliminated the entire partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans on questions about the economy."
So we *can* be less partisan if we want, but most people need a little motivation. Or maybe the payment made them consider the questions more seriously (in the sense that they think about the questions instead of how they can get rid of this inquisitive bloke).
How anybody can say that you weren't describing whites as the most anti-immigration people in the USA is beyond me. "But he was just using this as a poor argument" and "but this isn't really the topic anyway" and "but you aren't objective if you think Percy was really saying that being 'white' is often the dichotomy between how you should see immigration and how things really are in the real world".
"Stop displaying a lack of objectivity"
"And this really isn't the topic anyway"
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 01-04-2016 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 7:58 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:07 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 01-05-2016 7:38 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 58 of 75 (775769)
01-04-2016 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
01-04-2016 4:32 AM


Re: I'm responding to the "hot topics" issue.
Straggler writes:
I am as prone to personal bias as anyone else.
But in terms of slowly mounting evidence and the sort of resistance that evidence is met with there are stark similarities between the tobacco health issue, climate change and the gun issue.
If the statistics and evidence suggested (for example) that nations awash with guns were less violent, safer and relatively free from crime then ultimately I would have to accept that evidence whatever I may want to believe.
Ultimately time will tell. But on these issues I am pretty confident that my position is not just a result of personal bias but is actually evidentially sound. But 'the truth can always be questioned' and, like the tobacco issue, the facts will eventually become increasingly obvious to all. Whichever 'side' they support.
I wasn't actually questioning your reasoning or even the correctness of your view. I just thought that there was just a touch of irony in your post in a thread titled "Are you objective".

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2016 4:32 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2016 8:54 PM GDR has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 59 of 75 (775770)
01-04-2016 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 7:22 PM


How people see things. 3 examples from OP
quote:
How people see evolution depends upon their religion.
In what way?
Please show me the dichotomy.
quote:
How people view gun control depends upon whether they own guns. And so on.
Forget about the "so on" part.
Show me the dichotomy you are thinking of. And the specific issue.
quote:
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country.
Show me the dichotomy. Never mind, I have it here.
6-4-12 V #92a | Pew Research Center
"The growing number of newcomers threaten traditional American values" Agree or disagree? 48% of whites agree and 46% disagree. The national average was 47% agree and 48% disagree.
Tell us how each group lacks objectivity so we can understand your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 7:22 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 60 of 75 (775771)
01-04-2016 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
01-04-2016 1:01 PM


"Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right"
quote:
Before you can be objective you at least have to get things right.
O.k. then.
(above post was supposed to be a response to #56 or OP not 57)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 01-04-2016 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 01-05-2016 7:48 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024