...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
@anglo: Is this you?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Badumtish: [QB] [QUOTE]Also note how you don't assert individuals and reality itself is a social construct. You can't even get philosophy right. :rolleyes: The genuine philosophers who use your argument apply it universally as summarised by Pinker and also Hacking: "reality" itself being also a social contruct, along with genes, quarcks, cells and individuals. Yet your philosophy accepts all these latter as supposedly objective.[/QUOTE]Why are they not objective? You have not been able to refute anything I've said: my philosophy seems right to me. :D [QUOTE]Time to give it up Badumtish. Basically you've stolen a philosophy but then corrupted it to say x, y, z it doesn't apply to such as individuals because your own personal biased outlook relies on liberalism/"individualism". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to apply your logic across the entire board. I can just use the same logic, and then not apply it to ducks, or cars... that's all you are doing, but for individuals.[/QUOTE]I've asked you to explain in the other thread but you stopped responding. [QUOTE]In the conversation with democracyforums. Race according to you has "consequences". But why doesn't fruit categorization?[/QUOTE]Both have consequences. [QUOTE]Age categorisation is a social construct. :) [/QUOTE]So is a born baby an "old man"?[/QUOTE]It depends on what you arbitrarily consider to be old. There is no objective answer to that question. [QUOTE]Desperate attempt to save yourself. The fact is you don't highlight or question them, therefore there is zero evidence you question their level of objectivity. But for race or ethnicity its a whole different matter. Once again we have the scenario where you (a) don't apply your logic universally or at least consistently and (b) the fact you seperate or only focus on race above everything else. Why are the vast majority of your posts denying races exist? Why not star clusters? Can you explain? Why do you dwell on race? What makes race special or different?[/QUOTE]In virtually every discussion I've had with you I've explicitly said that categorisation systems are arbitrary. I've also quoted Zagefka (2009) several, several times. There is plenty of evidence that I question their objectivity. :rolleyes: Because I have an interest in 'race' in the same way people have interests in anything. I'm not sure why you're so confounded. [QUOTE]- Anyway Badumtish, I must actually thank you. Despite the fact you are a race denial loon who perverts philosophy to fit your agenda, you actually introduced me to philosophy which I now know is very good at defending the biological reality of race and has even taken me deeper to defend it. Those old arguments between you and myself introduced me to Pinker and countless others who use philosophy to defend race. And yes, this updates my book collection from Simpson, Mayr, Coon etc. I just bought Pinker's book and am really enjoying it, so thank you. ;) [/QUOTE]And I can refute any arguments you present to me, like I have been doing for the past year or so. I don't need to refer to books to defend my philosophical paradigm: it's common sense. Feel free to try to undermine my position, though. Your displays of incompetence are always humorous. From a brief look at the Pinker book, it is already clear that Zagefka's argument remains standing. Notwithstanding the fact that he begs the question, let's look at one section: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If it's a duck, it's likely to swim, fly have a back off which water rolls, [etc.] [...] This kind of inference works because the world really does contain ducks, which really do share properties. If we lived in a world in which walking quacking objects were no more likely to contain meat than any other object, the category "duck" would be useless and we probably would not have evolved the ability to form it. If you were to construct a giant spreadsheet in which the rows and columns were traits that people notice and the cells were filled in by objects that possess that combination of traits, the pattern of filled cells would be lumpy. You would find lots of entries at the intersection of the "quacks" row and the "waddles" column but none at the "quacks" row and the "gallops" column. Once you specify the rows and columns, the lumpiness comes from the world, not from society or language"." We've already discussed analogical forms of this logic, and I have refuted it. [URL=http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2190472]Read the section below the spoiler to see.[/URL] Particularly number 1. Sure, we may say it waddles, quacks, flies, etc.; therefore, it is a duck. But that is just one of many categories that can be formed. Why not construct a category based on things that waddle and quack and call it 'quaddlers'? Why not refine it further and say things that waddle, quack, fly and have a spot 1.23 cm above their right foot are called 'dusots'? These are just one of the many categories that can be formed. We share things with multiple objects and can be categorised on a variety of bases. You have not and cannot refute that Zagefka quote. Declaring certain categorisation systems are more important than others is arbitrary and is a social construct. Why you're referring to a cognitive psychologist to refute this is beyond me; I've never denied some categories are more important to survival than others. It doesn't make them any less arbitrary or socially constructed. Pinker's argument doesn't seem to relate to mine and using it is a straw man. It is another variant of the following: Me: 'Race' is a social construct Opponent: OMG ARE YOU SAYING EVERYONE IS THE SAME? OMG ARE YOU SAYING YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN AFRICAN AND A EUROPEAN? We all share some things and differ in other things. These can be categorised. Choosing to give some categories importance is the social construct. Choosing to combine various possible categories (nose, hair, skin, etc. and not blood type, height, Tay-Sachs disease, etc.) to form new ones is the social construct. I can't simplify this further... I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Why are you so slow and stupid? Read Zagefka. "Given the multitude of dimensions along which people and objects might be perceived as either dis-similar or similar, the question remains why some dimensions become salient and important for categorisations and others do not. For instance, Medin and Wattenmaker (1987) point out that plums and lawnmowers are unlikely to be categorised together, even though they are clearly similar on a number of dimensions (both weigh less than 1000 kg, both cannot hear, both have a distinct smell, both can be dropped). [b]It is not the case that one comparison dimension is objectively more relevant than another one, and that empirical reality would dictate which dimension should be attended to. Rather, the choice of comparison dimensions is informed by socially constructed meaning.[/b] However, if the choice of relevant dimensions is subjective rather than objective, judgements of relative similarity between objects are necessarily subjective too. Thus, again, perceived similarity does not straightforwardly stem from objective similarity – there is a disjunction between the two" (Zagefka, 2009). A cognitive/evolutionary psychologist does not undermine this in the slightest. They clearly can be reconstructed. We can decide to categorise things by their weight, ability to hear, smell, be dropped, etc. and we would find what we call 'plums' and 'lawnmowers' in the same category. We can call that category 'adwdfdwfdafsadf'. There is no objective reason to not do this. He even says this: "the category "duck" would be useless and we probably would not have evolved the ability to form it." 'Useless' necessarily invokes social meaning. It is a category based on real phenomena that has been given importance via socially constructed necessity; it has no more objective relevance than any other category. Dolt. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3