Anti-Trump Witches trying to figure out which of them cast the spell to give Trump Covid-19
- Thread starter Dwarvenhobble
- Start date
It's one of their arguments for restarting Science because they claim it's racist for not accepting what would be called bush magic as a real thing........
I mean, I just pointed out a 'scientific paper' that was incredibly racist (and the opposite of science) that significantly effected policies against blacks for decades.
No wonder they feel like that
Guys, if you're focusing on the "bush magic" angle, you're missing the forest for the trees.
People make insane claims all the time. If she wants to claim that tribesmen can cause lightning to strike, that's a claim that's easily falsifiable - people setting themselves up for embarassment is the least of my concerns. What bugs me more about the clip is the demand that science be started over, focusing on Newton. There's no prohibition that I'm aware of that prevents anyone from trying to falsify the Theory of Gravity. But hypothetically, if we did 'start over,' and we presumably reached the same conclusions, what then? Congratulations, you've wasted your time, have a cookie. It reminds me of an article I saw ages back about how an indigenous group was "decolonizing light." What the article never explained to me was what that meant apart from buzzwords, or more importantly, what that actually meant. I'm assuming that light operates the same regardless as to how observes it, but then, that's in the spirit of modernism rather than post-modernism.
And look, this is one student, and we all say stupid stuff from time to time when we're kids, but, well, I'll put it this way. I'm not particuarly concerned as to who discovered the Theory of Gravity, I'm more interested as to whether the theory is true. If the theory of gravity was developed independently outside Newton, that would be interesting, but that isn't the issue the student was positing, the issue is that Newton is among "the dead white men we've been taught to revere." As in, the concept of "authority from identity." It reminds me of the whole "2+2 is a product of white supmremacy" argument awhile back. The fact that these are Hindu-Arabic numerals was a fact that no-one seemed to care about, people were too busy proving that 2+2 could equal 5. Again, only speaking for myself, but I don't particuarly care where these numerals come from, I care that the numerals are far more efficient for maths than, say, Roman numerals. But math needs to be "decolonized" as well because...reasons.
If we're talking about the idea of race & IQ, that's social science. Gravity is physics. That's kind of like saying "we should get rid of GMOs, because science produced the atomic bomb."
Honestly, the article presents a notion about differences between men and women and backs it up by anectodic evidence and random internet statements. That can indeed be seen as quite sexist. If you would any other prejudice about men or women you could easily write a similar article about how it is true based on some random people believing it or matching the stereotype themself.
Even man stating they have no female role models don't prove a gender difference as you could probably find women without any male role models as well. Until you get some grasp on the percentage, those instances are not very useful.
As far as i am concerned, any statement about differences between men and women is to be treated as sexist until it can be backed up with proper science, which means studies with big sample sizes and random participation, preferrable also at multiple locations.
There nothing very interesting about shooting fish in a barrel, especially the fattest, most immobile fish in the smallest barrel.
I wish this line of thinking was as fake as they try and make it in this show. The thing is that, unlike magical thinking, science actually has to show it's fucking work. That's how it operates. "Hey, I found/studied this thing, and came to this conclusion, what do you people think?" *presents data for peer review* Then they go at it to see if the findings hold up or not. Yeah bias comes into play, which is why the data has to be reviewed. And yes, people can falsify shit, which is again, why the data has to be reviewed. But religion actively discourages investigation, often labeling doubt (the key component to investigation), as "of the devil". They don't have to provide any data, because they "know in their hearts" that it's true. They have faith, and just leave it at at that. But any of us can go fucking read the scientific findings, they fucking publish them on an annual basis for fuck's sake. We can go and learn a degree, that would actually give us insight into the findings, and confirm/deny them ourselves.
Magical thinking doesn't do this. They just make up shit, and leave it at that, and we're supposed to just give it a pass, on the very rigorous system that the scientific method requires of findings it presents.
No.
What does science education teach.
What is science?
You still haven't answered the question.
What does that mean?
Again, do you think the purpose of science education is to tell people what is and isn't real?
Do you think being observable and being real are the same thing? Why do you think that?
Last edited:
Had some friends and acquaintances in the past who were into witchcraftery, being a sort of hippy goth does get one into such circles quite easily. Tbh it all looked quite fun really, and if i had any religious inclinations, it would be more preferred than the regular pious shite. Well, apart from the expense for all the tat you need. So add "more disposable income" to the requirement list. Also, at least in confirmation bias land, their 'thoughts and prayers' had way more success than conservative political "thoughts and prayers" ...so, good job? Keep on witching on, and send me some shiny stones plz, i like the shiny ones!
Judging by some of my students pretty much fuck all, which is why they get marks around 30% in their exams.
I think some of them become relatively adept in changing what someone else wrote just enough to retain understandability whilst avoid a plagiarism charge. I know if I vivaed them they'd crash and burn as they couldn't explain anything they'd written, but luckily for them that assessment method is not in the module descriptor.
Mind you, rewriting things just enough to pass them off as your own is probably a valuable transferrable skill for your average career in general bullshit.
Studies of observable phenomena and techniques to analyse such things.
It means what it says.
The purpose of Science education is in part to give people the tools and understanding to know how to determine if something is real and not to fall for claims of mysticism etc.
Observable would be in terms of measurable and able to analyse it to an extent.
and I'm sure by now that paper has been debunked and probably withdrawn at some point. Also I'm guessing it was in Psychology which........ well lets say it's had a bit of a crisis in recent year in relation to the repeatability of their experiments and reliability of even supposed proven ideas.
It's really just part of a whole stupid push calling itself "indigenous Science"
The entire argument for restarting Science is seemingly to be able to claim some major discoveries were by Africans or something now. It's just numbers now and claiming certain people / countries have so many nobel prizes for discoveries.
The stupid claims are because they mostly don't understand Science and are trying to push "Indigenous Science" ideas to replace hard science because of what can best be described as a post modernist push for subjectivity over objectivity and Science being very much trying to be objective normally which destroys the idea of "peoples own truths"
The 2+2 thing is all about peoples own truths and that argument again rather than objective arguments.
What people arguing that don't realise is we can only operate based on the reality and perception people have at present not a theoretical perception that may exist to 5th dimensional beings.
No but it does very much work well as an example that there are fish in the barrel.
Correction: pseudo-science. IQ isn't even a reliable metric of intelligence and only really measures one's capacity to beat a standardized test.
Herein lies the problem: This entire thread is just another dollop of your false-equivalency pablum, wanting to point and laugh "hurr hurr, look, they've got crazies on their side too, they don't get to pretend to be superior". But you couldn't actually point out any instance where these "witches" had any impact on American law; in the meantime, we're looking at a potential Supreme Court justice who has openly stated she wants to create a "Kingdom of God", pushed forward by a "limited government" party which tried to regulate who can marry whom as tribute to its evangelical base, which has advocated for allowing businesses to discriminate against LBGQT employees. So, no, you don't get to do your "both sides" argument, because one side has spent decades attempting to press their religious views on the whole of the country.
That's an incredibly meaningless statement.
What's an observable phenomenon? Why should we study observable phenomena? How should we study observable phenomena? What forms of analysis should we apply to observable phenomena (and if they're "observable", why do they need analysis at all?) What are the techniques we should use to analyse such things? Why those techniques?
You're dancing around the fundamental question. What is science? If science is so important and self-evidently good, surely you should be able to offer a wholly unproblematic definition of what it actually is?
Generally speaking, most Americans couldn't define science if you held a gun to their heads. Especially the people who consider themselves more logical than thou.
The problem is, when you actually try to define science, it inevitably stops being scientific.
In philosophy, this is called the Crisis of Modernity.
I confess, my education in philosophy is a bit patchy. Could you break that down for me?
No you just see it as such so far. There are people pushing for Indigenous Science in schools rather than present Science just as religious people in the past were pushing for creationism to be taught in science because "Evolution is also just a theory" or some BS.
I'd rather not see the replacement of he evangelical fools then become fools who want Wiccan medicine theories or "The power of the great overmind" taught in Science instead.
Well it's a vague question to ask what is Science.
Well we could just go back to sitting in caves banging bones together but I don't think people would enjoy it as much. Observation and analysis to a greater or lesser degree is how humanity has been able to develop to where we are now. Should we merely stop now because some people are offended what they want isn't being proven true.
An you're dancing around the position that you don't seem to like the idea of Science not accepting magic by pretending that Science to be worthwhile needs a wholly unproblematic definition when basically any definition can be spun to be problematic one way or another.
Damn Science eh?