|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are you objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Evaluating evidence is part of taking an objective approach. The tobacco industry and evidence on health effects is an example of where things can go wrong if people have an agenda, but ultimately facts are facts and there comes a point where the true picture becomes inarguable. 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. All the same signs are there. Of course I agree with what you are saying in principle. I am simply saying that some "evidence" is dubious and we shouldn't assume that it is necessarily accurate because they say it is. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Well of course.
But the point of published scientific papers is that the methods used, sample sizes, statistical analysis applied etc. should be made clear and thus able to be assessed. Where those sorts of things aren't present, or are inadequate, alarm bells regarding objectivity should be raised. Where you effectively have a lobby group paying for "research" these things are especially important. But, as was the case with tobacco, genuine results can only be suppressed for so long in the face of mounting evidence. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Where those sorts of things aren't present, or are inadequate, alarm bells regarding objectivity should be raised. Where you effectively have a lobby group paying for "research" these things are especially important. Yes, agreed -- special interest groups or lobbyists is basically what I was alluding to. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Fine but his example was based on a faulty premise. I'm sure he could have reworded it so that the words matched what his logic was trying to indicate. I'm reminded on a 2003 Smithsonian article I read about how the 1840s and 1850s immigrants (like Irish) considered the c. 1900s immigrants (like Italians) "invaders" because they (Irish) got here first. You don't have to be the majority group to feel "invaded". You don't even have to be here very long. People were arguing with me about blacks being the most anti-immigrant racial group, but my Pew linked study settled that one. I am amazed people picked a fight with me on that one. Blacks have long been known to have strong anti-immigrant feelings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Indeed, and so is the awareness of logical fallacies, such as appeals to unevidenced consequences, straw man arguments, post hoc ergo propter hoc, part for the whole, etc etc etc.
The use of logical fallacies in any argument should be a big red flag that objectivity is not being pursued but emotional subjectivity or bias. by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
LamarkNewAge, Percy literally said nothing that was incorrect. He/She/It said:
How people see immigration depends upon whether they're members of the majority race in their country. Percy did not specify HOW members of the majority see immigration, only that it's a factor in shaping their convictions on that matter. There is a large body of evidence that the majority race tends to see immigration in a different light than those who are minority races. Percy's statement is wholly correct. That's another thing about being objective: actually examining what is said instead of what you think was said or meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: All "races" don't poll exactly the same. There are at least slight variations. 61% of blacks says immigration and immigrants are a threat to traditional American values. 34% do not. Whites are split about 48% on both sides. Around 71% of Hispanics say the immigrants are not a "threat" to traditional American values. Why is the most balanced group presented as some sort of dichotomy between everybody else in the OP (and by you)? I want 100% of whites to feel no "threat" mind you, but whites look like a "balanced" group and thus don't have exceptional views. Pretty much exactly in-line with the overall national feeling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
Percy still said nothing that was at all incorrect, and that deserves emphasis.
Why is the most balanced group presented as some sort of dichotomy between everybody else in the OP (and by you)? Two points: 1. You're picking and choosing what data to present to the EvC audience. Consider the following data gathered in 2006: a. 34% of whites believe that immigrants significantly increase crime, as opposed to 26% of blacks. b. 67% of whites believe that (presumably undocumented) immigrant children should be allowed to attend public schools, while 79% of blacks support this. c. 59% of whites believe that undocumented immigrants should be required to "go back to where they came from," as opposed to 47% of blacks. Source: here. 2. Since whites are the majority race in the U.S., they represent an existing power structure. Minority races do not have nearly the kind of power available to the majority race; thus, the beliefs of the majority race are more likely to influence policy, legislation, advertising messages, and other media. So that is why there is a sort of dichotomy between the majority race and minority races. It is worrying that a large percentage of the majority race holds erroneous, fallacious views on immigration precisely because that majority race holds the most power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. (remember the "self-deportation" stumbling block Romney had to deal with) When it comes to deportation, the response is different. Ted Cruz is going to have trouble explaining how he is against "amnesty" when he seems to be against forced-deportation. Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration. Here is an article that references my (much more recent) Pew Poll (the one you slammed as "You're picking and choosing what data to present the EvC audience.")
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1970 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
This question (from 2006 btw) is not specific as to HOW to make them go back. You're moving the goalposts. We're not discussing only issues about HOW undocumented immigrants should go back (of course, any ethical person wouldn't adapt this viewpoint in the first place, but I digress). We're discussing the broad topic of black and African-American attitudes towards immigration, which you called Percy out on despite the fact that OP made no errors in making the statement about majority race.
When it comes to deportation, the response is different. My point exactly. We're discussing the broad spectrum of racial views on immigration, while you were just picking and choosing select data.
Also, it is well known that blacks don't always tell pollsters the truth when asked about immigration. I'd like to see rigorous peer-reviewed literature on that which includes sample size, margin errors, and statistical significance of results. You're not presenting exactly robust evidence that can be assessed for its empirical/numerical validity. You also didn't respond to #2, which explains exactly why Percy's focus on majority race is highly relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
With it's reliance on inductive and abductive reasoning science itself is arguably logically fallacious to some extent. Science doesn't provide logical proofs in the way that mathematics does, for example.
The problem with deductive logic is that you can only derive that which is already present in ones premise(s). To draw conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence requires something more. Which is why scientific conclusions are tentative conclusions rather than logical proofs. Logic is a useful tool but objective conclusions about the real world cannot be derived from logic alone. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote:Whites have views in-line with the overall national public-opinion. The OP indicated otherwise. quote:Then why was my quote from Pew and just a few years ago while you had to use one from 2006? quote: Percy admitted that he was thinking of certain whites as anti-immigrant types when he rush-typed the comment in (something you constantly deny). Pew found that blacks by a 27% spread consider immigrants a threat to traditional American values while whites had virtually no spread one way or another. Only 34% of blacks said they weren't a threat. That seems more in-line with the general idea the OP had when he typed his brief example of peoples views (except he indicated whites were the ones who perhaps held these types of views more than non-whites).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: quote: In post 20 I showed (with links) a recent Pew study
quote: You responded with polls (albeit old) showing mostly policy positions (as opposed to attitudes)
quote: I responded
quote: You responded
quote: I think my polls were relevant to the "How people SEE immigration" of the OP (caps added by me).My poll shoed "Blacks viewed newcomers to the United States as more of a threat to American values ...than do whites" You posted 2 policy views (including one nebulous one) and one general attitude view. One policy view showed the vast majority of blacks and whites agreeing with what would be considered "pro-immigration" policy. The general attitude poll showed the vast majority of blacks and whites disagreeing that immigrants significantly increase crime, thus somewhat of a "pro immigration" attitude from both on the crime issue. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
With it's reliance on inductive and abductive reasoning science itself is arguably logically fallacious to some extent. Science doesn't provide logical proofs in the way that mathematics does, for example. Agreed, but the conclusions -- the hypothesis -- is then tested ... and tested ... and tested ... ... and results are held tentatively rather than absolutely.
The problem with deductive logic is that you can only derive that which is already present in ones premise(s). To draw conclusions from necessarily incomplete evidence requires something more. Which is why scientific conclusions are tentative conclusions rather than logical proofs. Exactly, but not everything is open to scientific study or the scientific method, and at that point adherence to strict logic can help you form a rationally consistent worldview rather than one based on fantasy or wishful thinking.
Logic is a useful tool but objective conclusions about the real world cannot be derived from logic alone. Agreed, but the point was not the use of logic, per se but that the use of logical fallacies as an argument is not objective reasoning; knowing fallacies can help keep you objective when faced with arguments based on them rather than arguments based on evidence . Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Science is the best method of deriving objective conclusions we have yet discovered.
Science, strictly speaking, relies on the logical fallacy of saying 'if some then all' to derive general laws and theories. The theory of evolution states that ALL lifeforms on Earth derive from a common ancestor. That conclusion wasn't derived from examining every single life form ever to have existed on Earth. Just some of them. Newton's universal law of gravitation similarly wasn't derived by studying every piece of matter in the universe. Just some of them. Scientific conclusions are generalisations which are derived by extrapolating every observed instance. That is why they are tentative and that is why falsifiability is so important. They are very much NOT logical proofs. In terms of deductive logic the conclusion that ALL life on Earth is related, or any other similarly generalised scientific law or theory, is an example of 'if some then all'. Which in strict pure logic terms would be a fallacious conclusion to make. But having said all that I will agree that poor logic in an argument can certainly be indicative of an un-objective stance. I just don't think a relentless focus on logical fallacies is the be all and end all given that evidence based reasoning is itself not entirely without it's purely logical problems.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024