| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 05 2016 11:59 ErectedZenith wrote: Really? Calling people noob is the first response you came up with? Come on. yea it's a pro-tip. haven't read enough of his stuff to judge further. there are other noobs, such as nagel. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:03 Plansix wrote: He is completely unqualified to talk about he subject. That is the main reason why people don't take him and New Atheists seriously. They are so far outside their fields of expertise is comical. The best they can muster is a BA philosophy, which is like a undergrad history student trying to arguing with a PHD is a specific branch of history. If they don't take him seriously, they wouldn't have attacked him. Harris is clearly a threat to them. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:24 Slaughter wrote: I would be for all people realizing that because you are an expert in one field that doesn't mean you can apply your expertise to something vastly outside of your area and be on equal footing with those who are actual experts in those fields. Though it seems like Chomsky is kind of a bad parallel because isn't most of his training in the social sciences? I don't pay attention to what he is an activist for and what he sticks his opinions into but if its mostly social/cultural issues then I wouldn't say he is totally unqualified. He's famous for his work in linguistics. Probably normalized under social sciences in the popular space, but if you look into the study of linguistics, the ones on the "in" regards it as a science. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
Most of the people deriding the use of the "humanities" here seem to lack a certain je nais ce quoi when it comes to evaluating intelligent thought. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:34 IgnE wrote: Harris is a mediocre intelligence, and Chomsky is clearly a first-rate intelligence. That's the main difference without getting into "expertise" and "qualifications" (but Chomsky blows Harris out of the water on both of those in most subjects). 10/10 analysis, thank god this thread had an arbiter of intelligence to tell us who's intelligence is "first-rate", and another is "mediocre". | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18473 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:06 wei2coolman wrote: Yet, somehow Chomsky is the brilliant political mind of the left. I'll remove Harris off the field if the left remove Chomsky from the field. I agree with some of Chomsky's points. I also agree with some of Harris' points. I disagree that either are the voice of god on earth and everything that comes out of their mouths is gold. They both talk a lot of nonsense between the good bits. Also, Harris has recently gotten some talking points for being anti-Islam, but it's just because that is now what people want to hear. He hates all religions equally. Oh, and I'm an atheist. I think Sam Harris, and also Dawkins, although he's more eloquent and nuanced, are not much better with their anti-religion rants. I don't have any problems with others, including my girlfriend, believing differently from me as long as it's a personal choice. But... wrong thread. So to take it back ontopic, I read an interesting article on Vox. Not very well written, and I think quite a few parts of the evidence mix up correlation and causation, but it's an interesting hypothesis on Trump's success and the GOP in general. To my surprise, the most compelling conclusion to come out of our polling data wasn't about Trump at all. Rather, it was that authoritarians, as a growing presence in the GOP, are a real constituency that exists independently of Trump — and will persist as a force in American politics regardless of the fate of his candidacy. If Trump loses the election, that will not remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action side" of authoritarianism. The authoritarians will still be there. They will still look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive leadership they desire. And that means Donald Trump could be just the first of many Trumps in American politics, with potentially profound implications for the country. It would also mean more problems for the GOP. This election is already showing that the party establishment abhors Trump and all he stands for — his showy demagoguery, his disregard for core conservative economic values, his divisiveness. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism My main beef (other than the statistics) is that I don't know if "authoritarianism" is any better defined than whatever came before that they are calling shoddy science. The example survey they give seems pretty trivial to game, and in more general, the author often seems to use "authoritarianism" | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:35 wei2coolman wrote: 10/10 analysis, thank god this thread had an arbiter of intelligence to tell us who's intelligence is "first-rate", and another is "mediocre". Since you haven't read anything Chomsky has ever written (I imagine you lack the intellectual fortitude and wherewithal to read anything other than the simply communicated thoughts of a populizer like Harris) it's not surprising you have no idea what you are talking about. | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:34 IgnE wrote: Harris is a mediocre intelligence, and Chomsky is clearly a first-rate intelligence. That's the main difference without getting into "expertise" and "qualifications" (but Chomsky blows Harris out of the water on both of those in most subjects). Most of the people deriding the use of the "humanities" here seem to lack a certain je nais ce quoi when it comes to evaluating intelligent thought. So basically an ad hominem attack without any backing. Yeah I don't think much of you guys know what you are talking about. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:38 ErectedZenith wrote: So basically an ad hominem attack without any backing. Yeah I don't think much of you guys know what you are talking about. Yeah hard to argue with people who haven't read or seriously thought about the things they are talking about. | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:38 ErectedZenith wrote: So basically an ad hominem attack without any backing. Yeah I don't think much of you guys know what you are talking about. It's essentially identity driven thinking, rather than ideological driven thinking. Rather than talk about the ideas from anyone, they start framing the debate around the persons. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6613 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:37 IgnE wrote: Since you haven't read anything Chomsky has ever written (I imagine you lack the intellectual fortitude and wherewithal to read anything other than the simply communicated thoughts of a populizer like Harris) it's not surprising you have no idea what you are talking about. Are you implying an author being inaccessible is an indicator of the strength of their ideas? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:40 IgnE wrote: Yeah hard to argue with people who haven't read or seriously thought about the things they are talking about. This is the power of the internet and collective arguments. All discussion are reduced to talking points, no real thought or analysis. At least in academia you are required to show you have read the text. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:32 wei2coolman wrote: He's famous for his work in linguistics. Probably normalized under social sciences in the popular space, but if you look into the study of linguistics, the ones on the "in" regards it as a science. read some of his technical papers on mathematical linguistics. not much social in that. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:42 wei2coolman wrote: It's essentially identity driven thinking, rather than ideological driven thinking. Rather than talk about the ideas from anyone, they start framing the debate around the persons. You don't even understand the ideas you are talking about so you spin it this way. The reason I know that Harris is mediocre is because I've read and grappled with his ideas. In the same way I know that Chomsky is a higher-caliber thinker with higher-caliber ideas. On March 05 2016 12:42 oBlade wrote: Are you implying an author being inaccessible is an indicator of the strength of their ideas? No, but you are right for feeling that I've implied you are an idiot. User was warned for this post | ||
|
ErectedZenith
325 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:43 Plansix wrote: This is the power of the internet and collective arguments. All discussion are reduced to talking points, no real thought or analysis. At least in academia you are required to show you have read the text. Yeah tell him! | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20255 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:32 wei2coolman wrote: He's famous for his work in linguistics. Probably normalized under social sciences in the popular space, but if you look into the study of linguistics, the ones on the "in" regards it as a science. And linguistics is one of the 4 main sub fields of Anthropology. A lot of linguistic work is tied closely into cognitive science but also culture. The same say not all primatologists are biological anthropologists not all linguistics are anthropologists but a lot of them are and even if they are not there is a lot of training in social science theory. It is not something normalized under social sciences in popular space, it is how a large chunk of the US academic thought groups disciplines. It is not like that in Europe where they don't emphasize the 4 field approach in Anthropology so the sub fields are often broken up but here in the US most linguists would be considered anthropologists. Social sciences are sciences so not sure what you mean? I guess you are saying you don't consider most social scientific fields science? | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:44 oneofthem wrote: read some of his technical papers on mathematical linguistics. not much social in that. That's why I consider linguistics a science, especially with Chomsky's work. On March 05 2016 12:46 Slaughter wrote: And linguistics is one of the 4 main sub fields of Anthropology. A lot of linguistic work is tied closely into cognitive science but also culture. The same say not all primatologists are biological anthropologists not all linguistics are anthropologists but a lot of them are and even if they are not there is a lot of training in social science theory. It is not something normalized under social sciences in popular space. Social sciences are sciences so not sure what you mean? I guess you are saying you don't consider most social scientific fields science? I would say by definition they're a science, but the realistic implementation and studies coming from these fields are not very scientific, with notable exceptions. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6613 Posts
On March 05 2016 12:45 IgnE wrote: You don't even understand the ideas you are talking about so you spin it this way. The reason I know that Harris is mediocre is because I've read and grappled with his ideas. In the same way I know that Chomsky is a higher-caliber thinker with higher-caliber ideas. No, but you are right for feeling that I've implied you are an idiot. Why would I think that? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Zoun
Neeb vs Rogue
OSC
FEL
Patches Events
AI Arena Tournament
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
ByuN vs Lambo
MaxPax vs Bunny
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
