Poll: Think you think straight? Think again...

[Exosus]

I got 7% and should have gotten 0. Here is their explanation:

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

Unnecessarily is the key word - it shouldn't be damaged just for fun. If there is benefit to be had, such as the freedom of movement offered by an automobile, that is an entirely different thing. Fail quiz is fail.

 

[Raven's Nest]

I got a 53% what the crap
One i call BS on is the (The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalized, and individuals should be free to pursue their own ends) How is this a contradiction? if drugs were decriminalized we just have drunk potheads looking to get high

You think people should be free to pursue their own ends as long as they don't harm people.

Making things illegal restricts freedom, not all drug users harm people...

Hence contradiction.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I got 20%. I found that a good number of my answers mis-represented my beliefs though, because I had to choose from 'agree' or 'disagree'.

I don't think it's necessarily bad to hold conflicting viewpoints. In fact, I embrace them, because they all have some sort of value under certain contexts and perspectives.

For example, I don't believe in God. But I also admit that you can't prove the existence or non-existence of any particular God or Gods. While I admit that spirituality or the lack thereof cannot be proven to be absolutely true, I'm human and have my own beliefs that I do and don't take seriously. Personally, I take my atheism seriously, because it's one thing that guides how I live my life, assuming there is no God that watches over me or judges me. But at the same time, I admit that such a lifestyle isn't the best for everyone, and that taking my beliefs seriously in respect to a more objective viewpoint would be silly.

Just as I also admit that there is no objective morality, I still have my own moral beliefs that guide how I live my own life, and to an extent on how I views. But in the grand scheme of things, I realize there is no objective morality, and that I will always be just as wrong as everyone else. So for a lot of the moral issues the test asked about, such as "is killing someone always wrong," or "Taking a car when one could easily walk/ride a bike/ect is immoral?" my response would be different depending on the context. I don't think either of those are immoral in the grand scheme of things, because you can't prove that anything is immoral, or that morality exists. So assume whatever the fuck you want, you're just as wrong as everybody else.

If you gauge your philosophical merits from on online test(with yes or no answers, no less), you are doing it wrong.

Thank you. Sure, it's fun to see what a little test says about your beliefs, and sometimes I find them thought-provoking. But don't assume that whatever score you got on this test determines your philosophical merit, or even how contradicting your beliefs are.

 

[Zeriah]

0% ^_^

 

[Bad Cluster]

7%
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

I see this is common here.

There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures.
Shouldn't agreeing to this cause lots of conflicts with the rest of the test and not just one?

 

[jamesworkshop]

40%

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70881 of the 173496 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.

Really I'm supposed to know the specifics of medicine and what is and is not tested

 

[Cazza]

The test is too fixed. Yes, No. It doesn't include the size of the question. I got 27%.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

how does this directly contradict? Yes I believe art is a matter of taste and I think Michaelangelo did some wonderful work of art.

It's question should have been. Does everyone think Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists?

 

[Paksenarrion]

I am the chairman of the Vulcan ethics committee.

Fascinating.

 

[Raven's Nest]

40%

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70881 of the 173496 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.

Really I'm supposed to know the specifics of medicine and what is and is not tested

Anyone can put piss in a jar and call it an alternative medicine... Does this mean it's as valuable as a scientifically verified cough mixture?

Swap the piss for cyanide. Now do you think government should let people sell their magic jar as untested alternative medicine?

 

[Freshman]

I got 27%, but I feel as though some of these things were more designed to show my lack of proper reading, the one that stands out being the "really bad brain damage can rob a PERSON of all consciousness and self hood" vs "On bodily death, a PERSON continues to exist non-physically." I was thinking more of, yes you can turn a body into a vegetable when I agreed with the first, not so much a person.

 

[tibieryo]

I'm just reading through all of these responses now, just after having taken the test. I got 0% contradictions, but especially struggled on the Michaelangelo tip. Eventually, I came down on "I think he is what he is and other people disagree, so, disagree." Which apparently jived perfectly with saying there were objective truths in the arts.

Funny, that.

In any case, I just wanted to say that it was kind of amusing to see the people who got 27% and upwards dismiss the test as BS, but all the people who got 0% acting smug and superior. Especially after the test itself said anybody with some contradictions held in their beliefs must be doing some mental gymnastics. Come back here and a guy is saying "Well, the test said there are contradictions in my beliefs and I don't think there are, so the test is wrong."

Of course, by mentioning that, I'm being a smug 0% bastard with utter faith in the test.

Funny, that.

 

[WolfEdge]

I have 27%, I think that this is kinda BS.

For example:

You agreed that:
So long as they do not harm others, individuals should be free to pursue their own ends
But disagreed that:
The possession of drugs for personal use should be decriminalized

The effects of one persons drug use is rarely contained to just one person. What do they do when they run out of money for their drugs? or what they do when there high? Drugs don't just effect the user...

The problem is that these two things are different crimes. It's an argument of prevention (If nobody has access to the drugs then the crime can't happen) versus specificity and action (Some people are going to abuse this drug, but not all will, and if they do, it should only be a crime if they begin directly hurting others).

It's akin to how a professor might punish an entire class for the actions of one or two students if he's unsure who committed the act, versus one who wouldn't punish anybody for fear of wrongfully punishing the wrong students.

 

[jamesworkshop]

40%

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70881 of the 173496 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.

Really I'm supposed to know the specifics of medicine and what is and is not tested

Anyone can put piss in a jar and call it an alternative medicine... Does this mean it's as valuable as a scientifically verified cough mixture?

Swap the piss for cyanide. Now do you think government should let people sell their magic jar as untested alternative medicine?

sorry I don't know what you are on about you have simply given another example similar to the example given above, you haven't added anything

 

[Saelune]

I got 0% and answered all of them. To be fair though, I was conscious of the trap questions scattered about, but I did answer them honestly.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I got 27%, but I found a number of the questions hard to answer as in I couldn't give them a straight agree/disagree answer.

 

[Raven's Nest]

40%

Questions 16 and 21: What should be legal?

70881 of the 173496 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.

Really I'm supposed to know the specifics of medicine and what is and is not tested

Anyone can put piss in a jar and call it an alternative medicine... Does this mean it's as valuable as a scientifically verified cough mixture?

Swap the piss for cyanide. Now do you think government should let people sell their magic jar as untested alternative medicine?

sorry I don't know what you are on about you have simply given another example similar to the example given above, you haven't added anything

Answer the two questions I have posed to you considering the examples given...

It should be No to the first and No to the second...

But in the test you agreed that an alternative medicine is as good as a mainstream medicine, yet you also agreed that the government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficency and safety.

if you are saying that any alternative medicine (including untested and potentially harmful medicines) are as valuable as mainstream medicines, you are contradicting yourself because you think all medicines should be tested for safety before being permitted for sale... You dig?

 

[MercurySteam]

47%

Is that a bad thing?

 

[Denamic]

Hrm.
7%
A bit of a trick question there with Michaelangelo.

Spoiler

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

79357 of the 173587 people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.

"The tension here is the result of the fact that you probably don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt."
That's not true.
The statement was: Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists.
And I agree, because that is my personal opinion.
If someone disagrees with me, I would not think they are 'wrong'.
Similar to how I think coffee tastes good, hence coffee tastes good.
That doesn't mean I think someone who doesn't like coffee is wrong.
They just don't like coffee.

 

[eljawa]

13%...But I am a liberal democrat soooo...