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

[silasbufu]

I got 33% :\

 

[Astoria]

I got 40% but with some of the questions I thought they were kinda porely worded and I wasn't sure whether to agree or disagree. Oh well, was a good waste of 5 minutes.

 

[funguy2121]

No.

 

[Exocet]

Some of these questions are...well,useless.
I mean,"On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form".Where is the "I don't know" answer.How the hell can anyone answer that?
Others take into account extreme circumstances that fuck up answers,such as:"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives".Well yeah,if you're asking me if spending a hundred thousand dollars to save a man's life is ok,so I would tend to agree.But then,I think of the possibility: use billions of dollars to extend a man's life by a few hours,and that's not worth it in my opinion.Now I have to disagree because of that exemple.

Overall,a very flawed test,I believe.

 

[Cap'n Moe]

A very flawed test, the contradictions it attempted to call me out on, contradicted itself. It had no background on what I was basing said beliefs on, no idea what I was thinking, or attributing that situation to at all. No lifestyle information was taken, and it appeared if it found a contradiction, it assumed you had a Masters Degree, and bombarded the user with an uncontrolled grouping of words that MIGHT make sense, but is complete jibberish to the average person. The test is a lapse in overall knowledge, and can be based on no fact. The only way this test is ideal, is if every question had the ability to be answered at the same time, as human nature has the capability for people to change their minds minute to minute.

Nice try though, interesting no less.

 

[tibieryo]

I agreed that 'all art is subjective', because I think art is all about how people view it from their own perspective. Then it asks me if Michealangelo was one of the finest artists of all time.

I... What?

I just said that art is subjective. I'm meant to be answering this sheet objectively. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION!

If I agree, then that's tension because art is subjective, so whether Michealangelo is a fine artist or not is down to me, and therefore I'm not answering objectively. But hang on - If I say he isn't a fine artist, I'm still being subjective! You cannot agree OR disagree because I JUST SAID ART WAS SUBJECTIVE!

ARRRRRRGGH.

Yes, but see, it's not asking you what your opinion is. It's asking you what history's opinion is, and that involves taking everyone in the entire world who has ever seen the work of Michaelangelo, alive or dead, into account in your answer. And if you say he's one of history's finest artists, what the test says you're saying is that all of history would judge his art to be some of the finest.

The trap would be "Michaelangelo is one of your favourite artists." It's still a bit of a dick move, but there's the logic behind it if you were curious.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Does anyone know what the tension one was for the child suffering needlessly?

The one that contradicted that if that was what you were looking for was a Loving God.

 

[MorphingDragon]

That's clearly a logical contradiction and a source of ethical tension. You're saying that financial matters shouldn't matter if you're saving lives, and then you say that you don't want to help out third-world countries if it makes people poor. This cannot stand. It may feel like the right thing to say, but it's not logically sound.

Or you know, he's all for helping third world countries whitin the current economic capacity.

Assumptions and False Dilemma.

It says regardless of financial situation, doesn't it?

I think you're the one making assumptions here, bro.

5. The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives

29. Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world.

For "tension" to exist you assume that Governments can save lives only by financial means.

No, you don't. What the fuck are you reading?

The existence of an alternative is irrelevant. If you agree that people should save lives regardless of financial situation, as 5 says, then you must agree that taxes, regardless of magnitude, are a small price to pay for saving such lives. This is a logical necessity, whether or not something else can be done.

I don't think a government should add extra burden to its already burdened populace through extra taxes when there a ways that governments can help that don't require extra money.

I don't care what you think about poor people.

No one was arguing ethics. This is logic. It's like saying 2+2 does not make 5. You can say that adding another one could make the difference between life and death, and I couldn't care less, because 2+2 still doesn't equal 5. Honestly.

Use critical thinking skills and read my original argument (and the one I was responding too). I'm not arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. No one was arguing the logic of the presented world.

Other posters and I were pointing out that this exercise presents false dilemma (and a Binary world), ethics was just an example of why there is a false dilemma. This false dilemma means that any underlying logic is not representative of the real world.

For the record I'm reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Concise-Tracy-Bowell/dp/0415471834/ref=dp_ob_title_bk?ie=UTF8&qid=1300282203&sr=8-1

What are you reading?

 

[Polyg0n]

I got 20%, but I didn't agree with all the conflicts. Under some conditions the statements were both fulfilled in all of the conflicts it said I had.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It's a bit contrived, to be honest. It called me out on this-

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

I never said that Atheism was any more reasonable than other kinds of faith, I just said that it was one.

Subjectivity does not a good philosophical test make.

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.

But Atheism is belief there is no God if they are ambiguous about it and are unsure then they are agnostics. To be atheist you must be against theism ie belief in no God/s or Goddess/es.

No. What you, and many other people, don't understand is the difference between atheism and antitheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in any of the thousands of gods in all the religions (and simply put, every religious person is an atheist too, except for a single god/set of gods which then becomes their focus), but anthitheism is the one which is 'there is almost certainly not a god, to the point where it's fucking stupid to believe in one, and religion does more harm than good to society so it should be gone'.

One is a lack of stance, one is a strong negative stance.

Yes but lack of believe includes Agnostics. If you look it up in the dictionary which mine says Atheism is belief in no God.

Definitions of atheism on the Web:

* the doctrine or belief that there is no God
* a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities. It can also mean the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

* atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Atheist is a technical death metal band from Florida, founded in 1984, whose music combined metal riffs with subtle latin music arrangements and jazz fusion. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_(band)

* The Atheist is written by Irish born playwright, Ronan Noone. His previous plays include The Lepers of Baile Baiste (Critics Pick, Boston Globe) and The Blowin of Baile Gall which had its Off-Broadway debut, produced by Gabriel Byrne, at the Irish arts Center in New York in 2005. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(play)

* The Atheist is a horror comic book originally released in April 2005 and is published by Image Comics. Phil Hester, of "The Wretch" and "Green Arrow," writes "The Atheist," while British John McCrea of "Hitman" does the black and white artwork.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atheist_(comics)

* atheist - A person without a belief in, or one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods; A person who believes that no gods or deities exist
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheist

* A belief that there are no gods. Greek "a-theos": without-god. [see the 'Atheism' page for complete information]
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

* Denies the existence of any God, thought it is traditionally focused on the rejection of the Biblical God.
www.crossroad.to/glossary/religious.htm

* According to a study by Barna Research, "roughly 7% of the adult population ? approximately 14 million people ? describe themselves as atheistic or agnostic. Atheism is not a religion or a complete ethical system. ...
www.biashelp.org/gloss.php

* This word comes from two Greek words, a the negator, and theos, God. Atheism teaches that there is no God of any kind, anywhere, anytime. Some atheists claim to "Excercise no belief in a god" the same way they would exercise no belief in pink unicorns. ...
www.spiritrestoration.org/Theological_Terms/A_Prior_%20to_Born_Again.htm

* a (?without?) the (?deity?, or ?god?). Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/

* From Greek a- meaning without and theos, meaning God, atheists are those without a belief in God.
www.thezenofsouthpark.com/Glossary_of_Terms.html

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

There are some definitions wiki one I took cite links out. Anyway Atheism is the opposite of theism which is belief in a deity or deities so no people who follow religion are not atheists they are theists. They may be mono or poly theists but are not atheists.

Anti-theism is the active opposition to theism while atheism I suppose is more passive opposition. To put in a religious perspective Anti-theists are like Religious Zealots and Atheists are more like the ordinary Layperson of a religion. I do not think the lack of belief is a suitable definition as it can umbrella atheism with agnosticism. As agnostics don't really belief strongly either way so they do truly lack belief. This is my main problem with Atheists don't not believe in God they just lack belief which goes against the base meaning of the word that they are against theism. I think the first big definition includes the proper root of the word with A against or not and theism belief in deities.

 

[iamthe1]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

I'm sorry, I really don't want to be mean, but it pisses me off when shit like this passes for philosophy. Philosophy is the quest for answers, but as any good philosopher will immediately ask: What is the question? And it's not supposed to be a deep, meaningful reflection on what is a question and what is an answer--they are literally asking "What is the fucking question?" 'Cause that's kind of important!

This quiz is asking: Are the assumptions that you make about the world at large coherent? Which is fine, but don't call it philosophy. Please, please, please, DON'T call it philosophy. Use another word like "dontbeatwatophy."

This has been the rant of a "professional" philosopher. Do not anger him, or he will do absolutely nothing for no pay!

 

[tibieryo]

Use critical thinking skills and read my original argument (and the one I was responding to). I'm not arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. No one was arguing the logic of the presented world.

Other posters and I were pointing out that this exercise presents false dilemma (and a Binary world), ethics was just an example of why there is a false dilemma. This false dilemma means that any underlying logic is not representative of the real world.

For the record I'm reading this:
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Concise-Tracy-Bowell/dp/0415471834/ref=dp_ob_title_bk?ie=UTF8&qid=1300282203&sr=8-1

What are you reading?

I'm reading the back of a cereal box. I'm reading dialogue strings in Pokemon White. I'm reading a forum topic on the Escapist about philosophy. And I'm reading my Twitter feed. And even I think that trying to insist your philosophy is any more or less valid based on the book you're reading is a hack move.

No, not all of us are "first-year undergraduate students", as the Amazon page you linked to says the target audience for that book is. We're all different people with all different thoughts and ideas and for some of us--even those of us reading philosophy texts--this is challenging our beliefs. Someone is coming along with a flashlight, sticking it in our eyes and asking us how much we've had to drink tonight. Some of us are getting off scot-free and loving it, and some of us feel that because we're dizzy from multiple sclerosis, we shouldn't be mistaken for drunks.

When you're arguing philosophy, you never appeal to what you're reading. Because that's just saying that because the person you're arguing against hasn't read a book on "critical thinking" meant for "first-year undergraduate students", their philosophy is invalid. The validity of your philosophical argument lies not in how many posts you have on a forum, what you're reading or what some test online said about your philosophy. It lies in how long you've spent thinking about and arguing your philosophy against yourself and others, no matter whether that's with other "first-year undergraduate students" or with the guys who work at the Ford factory at the bar.

As for your argument, I couldn't care less about your argument. Because you asked me what I'm reading, knowing full-well that not every poster on this thread would be reading a book for "first-year undergraduate students", and using that to say our opinions are invalid instead of arguing them. By the way, in before you say I'm appealing to stupidity. I'm appealing to not using what you're reading to embarrass people you're trying to have a debate with.

 

[Raven's Nest]

As anyone who has actually studied philosophy will recognize, the following "questions" are totally fucking retarded:

"The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives."

"It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence."

"To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible."

I have an idea: let's completely bypass the notion of precision and coherence when asking questions and just let anyone say whatever the hell they want to! 'Cause THAT's philosophy!

Those aren't questions though, they are statements. They are statements designed to test the conviction of your beliefs when compared with similar statements you have either agreed or disagreed with. The content of the question was never particularly important, only the consistency of your beliefs.

How is this not a philosophical pursuit?

 

[carpathic]

I've gotta go with I am fully capable of agreeing with a principle, but disagreeing with a particular implementation of that. It is not a question of philosophical tension, but rather, an agile mind.

It is not incoherent to think that morality is relative, and that the tutsis and hutus were wrong. I can only judge them by my beliefs. I can also think that in the minds of the hutus, they were doing something correct - as that is what their culture says. I can judge what they say, and do as long as I remember that I am holding them accountable to my system of beliefs. Which are obviously the right ones

 

[zen5887]

Half way though and this quiz is annoying me..

Its far to black and white, a lot of these questions I can't answer with a "agree" or "disagree." Most of them come with a "but" at the end.

However I will continue.

I ended up getting 13%, with two questions conflicting.

I've played around on this site for a bit and have come to realise that it expects ones beliefs to be rigid, not flexible. Now, I'm no Philosopher, but I am a big fan of flexibility in life. Can someone more comfortable in this subject explain this to me?

 

[spwatkins]

I got the same thing for Michaelangelo vs objective standards for art. I don't agree because although I said that he was one of the ten greatest artists of all time, that could just be my subjective opinion.

 

[ramboondiea]

i got 0%, that literally tells me nothing

 

[spwatkins]

I got 7%.

Only conflict, apparently, was this:

Spoiler

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.

If everyone believes that genocide is a bad thing then clearly that would count as an "objective moral standard".

 

[Zorg Machine]

27%. not bad for someone who has a philosophy that I want to believe and one I actually believe in.

 

[ryai458]

20% thats fine by me all of the things that where is contradiction I can explain so I'm good.