Well perhaps that means you do believe in objective moral standards?Easily Forgotten said:I got 7%.
Only conflict, apparently, was this:
![]()
I can kind of understand, but I don't think I know anyone nor know of anyone who believes genocide isn't a bad thing.
To the first, true but then I'm just using an example to point out semantics and such.snip.
And they'll be called alternative medicines until proven otherwise.DuctTapeJedi said:And there was a point in time when vaccines were considered insane and not worth testing.Raven said:"You know what they call alternative medicines that actually work?... Medicine" - Tim MinchinDuctTapeJedi said:Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.
We won't know what works without lab testing.
Uh...Eroen said:Okay, so now I have dismissed a (semi-)long list of statements as false, as they were based on false dichotomies and false absolutes, whereupon I'm told that further false dichotomies are present in my answers, indicating "tension."
Not impressed. Also, about ⅓ of the questions (presumably) only make sense from a North American POW.
Specific problems (from my list of "tensions," as it is ready at hand) which nullifies the specific "tensions" I was presented with:
- I consider "evil" to be an expression of cultural values. I recognize this might be different from the common opinion.
- I don't believe prohibitions by law to necessarily stop me from doing anything, they only control (potential) consequences. A lobotomy on the other hand, might stop me from accomplishing my goals.
- The consumption of "drugs" in the general sense includes (empirically observed) "harm to others." Simple examples: Increased government spending on healthcare. Unpleasantness, especially in the case of needle heroin.
- When questioned on matters of taste, my best/only resource for answers is *my* taste.
- In order for a procedure to be classified as medicine (alternative or otherwise), I believe it must be provably more effective than placebo. This is the case for some "alternative" procedures and not for some "mainstream" procedures. In the both cases this is generally simple, albeit controversial, to test by experiment.
Some of these points are lampshaded in their accompanying texts, but none are justified. However, there is an abundance of hand-waving.
I believe this demonstrates part of the reason I regard certain academic disciplines as "lesser" than others. Some of us actually (rigorously) prove our hypotheses, rather than state them as facts and wait for believers.
Felt like I was responsible for too much rage If I didn't haha.TheDrunkNinja said:EDIT:
Just took the test. 13% contradiction quotient. Though, I must wonder if part of that is due to the fact that I was partially prepared in such a way with your original post.
Raven said:And they'll be called alternative medicines until proven otherwise.DuctTapeJedi said:And there was a point in time when vaccines were considered insane and not worth testing.Raven said:"You know what they call alternative medicines that actually work?... Medicine" - Tim MinchinDuctTapeJedi said:Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.
We won't know what works without lab testing.
If a loved one has a life threatening injury and a strange women walks up to you and says "Here, put this (ominous looking) dust into their wound and it'll save their life".
Would you?
If she claims that it's an alternative medicine would it be necessarily be a good idea to let her pour some strange dust into your partner?
Didn't think so, not because it's close minded to dismiss her claim, but because you are going to want an ambulance to come with some scientifically proven medication.
Perhaps if the dust is proven to be scientifically valuable then it wouldn't be called alternative medicine. Anyone can claim something is medicine, you agreed that until it's been proven there's no way to guaruntee it's value.
I was simply expressing my own personal interpretation of Morality. In my view, genocide, in most cases would be wrong, although, there could be exceptions depending on the circumstance. Otherwise, I fully accept that this my own personal interpretation of morality, which is a subjective invention to begin with.Test said:Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
76516 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which do not?
This question is an issue of extremes. I believe that people should try to make some compromises when it comes to avoiding damaging the environment, but there's a limit. I'm not going to do everything possible in my power to protect the environment and I don't expect others to either. I'm likely to promote the use of more efficient mean, such as more efficient cars, and won't condone heavy exploitation of the environment by factories and the like, but I don't expect people to flat out stop using every single little thing which may cause some degree of damage.Test said:Questions 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
82389 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead
As walking, cycling and taking the train are all less environmentally damaging than driving a car for the same journey, if you choose to drive when you could have used another mode of transport, you are guilty of unnecessarily damaging the environment.
The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'. Very few things are necessary, if by necessary it is meant essential to survival. But you might want to argue that much of your use of cars or aeroplanes is necessary, not for survival, but for a certain quality of life. The difficulty is that the consequence of this response is that it then becomes hard to be critical of others, for it seems that 'necessary' simply means what one judges to be important for oneself. A single plane journey may add more pollutants to the atmosphere than a year's use of a high-emission vehicle. Who is guilty of causing unnecessary environmental harm here?
If someone told me there were invisible pink fairies circling around Pluto I would consider it unlikely, but I won't completely discount the possibility of it as I can't disprove it.Test said:Questions 8 and 18: What is faith?
40668 of the 172834 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God
In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don?t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).
The answer you picked indicated that alternative medicine was AS VALUABLE AS mainstream medicine. Basically you said that unproven medicine is as valuable as proven medicine. To which one might respond: But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.DuctTapeJedi said:Raven said:And they'll be called alternative medicines until proven otherwise.DuctTapeJedi said:And there was a point in time when vaccines were considered insane and not worth testing.Raven said:"You know what they call alternative medicines that actually work?... Medicine" - Tim MinchinDuctTapeJedi said:Mine was fairly high, but in all of the cases there were other matters to take into consideration. They were too complicated to be answered by a 'yes' or 'no.'
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70506 of the 172162 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
If alternative medicines are tested, I don't see a problem.
We won't know what works without lab testing.
If a loved one has a life threatening injury and a strange women walks up to you and says "Here, put this (ominous looking) dust into their wound and it'll save their life".
Would you?
If she claims that it's an alternative medicine would it be necessarily be a good idea to let her pour some strange dust into your partner?
Didn't think so, not because it's close minded to dismiss her claim, but because you are going to want an ambulance to come with some scientifically proven medication.
Perhaps if the dust is proven to be scientifically valuable then it wouldn't be called alternative medicine. Anyone can claim something is medicine, you agreed that until it's been proven there's no way to guaruntee it's value.
I didn't say it should be the only medicine used, just that it's worth further study.
This is precisely my problem. I got 20% and it gives me a rundown of how I disagreed with myself on 3 subjects. However, I considered what it tells me it believes I think while trying to answer the questions and came to a conclusion entirely different from theirs, because their definitions of the statements aren't the same as mine. Similarly, a lack of a "don't care" option caused a conflicting result that's not actually a conflict in my mind.Danceofmasks said:I got 7%, but only because the dumbass test isn't as sematically precise as I am.
Dumbdubmbtest said:Questions 17-28: Are there any absolute truths?
59480 of the 173030 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
Questions 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
54067 of the 173030 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form
These two beliefs are not strictly contradictory, but they do present an awkward mix of world-views. On the one hand, there is an acceptance that our consciousness and sense of self is in some way dependent on brain activity, and this is why brain damage can in a real sense damage 'the self'. Yet there is also the belief that the self is somehow independent of the body, that it can live on after the death of the brain. So it seems consciousness and selfhood both is and is not dependent on having a healthy brain. One could argue that the dependency of the self on brain only occurs before bodily death. The deeper problem is not that it is impossible to reconcile the two beliefs, but rather that they seem to presume wider, contradictory world-views: one where consciousness is caused by brains and one where it is caused by something non-physical.
Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?
70745 of the 173030 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine
But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.
I agree. Atheists should not say God cannot exist, and therefore certainly doesn't, as they cannot prove that. Theists should not say that God certainly does exist, for the same reason.Raven said:There shouldn't also be anyone who claims that God does exist without proving that he exists. Yet many do... People are weird.Spleenboy said:There shouldn't be ANY atheists that say there can be no God. It isn't possible to disprove the existence of God, but that doesn't mean He cannot exist, merely that He most likely does not. In a case where there can be no proof for either option, it is always a matter of faith.Raven said:Atheism generally isn't a faith though... it's the lack of faith.
There aren't many atheists that will say they are for sure 100% there is and can be no god. Without a way to prove it, that idea becomes a faith. Such people are severely lacking in the logic department.
Physical harm, yeah sure, go ahead and do whatever you want, as long as it's in the dark corner of the world and you have no one that could possibly love and care about your well being and didn't have an impact on anyone's life during your lifetime. Then yeah, sure, shoot 'er up.Raven said:Felt like I was responsible for too much rage If I didn't haha.TheDrunkNinja said:EDIT:
Just took the test. 13% contradiction quotient. Though, I must wonder if part of that is due to the fact that I was partially prepared in such a way with your original post.
I meant to single out physical harm in that question by the way.
Of course, without innovation and experimentation, knowledge stagnates.DuctTapeJedi said:I didn't say it should be the only medicine used, just that it's worth further study.