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

[Johnnyallstar]

*snicket
Your first question, the one about the second world war. It's meant to oppose the "life is intrinsically important" question, so if it was a just war for ANYONE it would disagree with that.

Your second question: History books which could be confirmed with investigation into the places and archives relevant to those occurrences today. There were and are plenty of anthropologists digging up mass graves from genocides, and as far as I know, those death camps still exist. And it is in opposition to the statement "There is no intrinsic truth, because what it true changes depending on the culture you live in (some countries or people insist the Holocaust didn't happen)

About the first question, I figured it was implying Just War Theory, considering that WW2 is frequently the biggest discussion point because of our vast knowledge of it. Just War Theory is also a huge portion of modern philosophy. Considering that, it's easy to see that the question could be easily thought of in a "Just War Theory" context.

And as for the second, I'm well aware of that, but it didn't say anything about the truth of the holocausts existence. It asked about the validity of history books. Truth and history books don't always like to agree, and that was the point I was making. I'm not a holocaust denier, I'm just against the idea of leaving questions so open ended.

It's not actually asking about the history books, it's asking if it happened (like the verifiable ones say it did.)

You've fallen into the trap that I stated was the problem. You're assuming that the stated history books are "verifiable." The question never asked anything of the sort. It just asked about some esoteric history books, regardless of the verifiability of the information within. You read it like a student trying to get an answer right, I read it like a lawyer, and find the question lacking.

 

[Dexiro]

Do you believe that people should be free to make their own decisions and live out their lives doing what they want so long as they don't hurt anyone else?

Do you believe a person should be arrested if they sat next to you on a park bench and injected themselves with heroin in front of you and your kids?

Well, you can't actually have one without the other.

You're not taking into account psychological damage. If someone injected themselves with heroin infront of my kids the concern would be the affect this would have on my kids.

 

[Jegsimmons]

what if i only agree to an extent?
what if my views arent so black and white like this test seems to think i am?

 

[Jackpot524]

0% Yay!

That was a cool excercise... I really had to think about some of my responses and I feel like I actually learned something.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

we have alot of vulcans using the escapist by the looks of it...

incidently i got 13%

 

[Hairetos]

I got 7%, but the artist one is bullshit. I mean, come on, Agree or Disagree, agree and you suck? Even if I disagree I'm making a judgment call on the artist.

They need a better answer than "agree or disagree".

 

[conflictofinterests]

Thank you, Spot1990 ^^

 

[martin's a madman]

0%...

Is that good?

That's fantastic. It means all your philosophies work harmoniously.

0% here too.

I'm not a philosophical hypocrite it seems.

I didn't even have to think at all really, just answered with what was natural.

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

I think some of the wording is a bit sticky, or down to interpretation.

Regardless, it was fun and made me think.

 

[tthor]

kinda poor quiz. I feel some of its choices aren't truely pure black/white or not true opposites. also, i very much dislike how many people like to always talk in absolutes; every moral decision should be judged on its own merit, not judged from a distance based upon some possibly unrelated moral code. Morals are not black and white. They're not even shades of grey. they are all the colors of the rainbow, and none of those colors is 'good' nor 'evil'.
oh, I scored a 13% on the test

 

[NeuroticDogDad]

Answered all questions and

0%

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[HotPocket]

After taking the test, I have to say that some of the questions are worded poorly. One of them I got wrong was the one about "Art being subjective" and "Michelangelo being a great artist." It asked for my opinion on them so I said that of course art is subjective, but I also agree that (from my perspective) Michelangelo was a great artist. I think that question should be changed to, "Every student should have to learn about one of history's finest artists, Michelangelo." Because that means that you will force your opinion of great art on others so it is not, in fact, subjective.

I got 7%, but the artist one is bullshit. I mean, come on, Agree or Disagree, agree and you suck? Even if I disagree I'm making a judgment call on the artist.

They need a better answer than "agree or disagree".

Pretty much this.

 

[tthor]

After taking the test, I have to say that some of the questions are worded poorly. One of them I got wrong was the one about "Art being subjective" and "Michelangelo being a great artist." It asked for my opinion on them so I said that of course art is subjective, but I also agree that (from my perspective) Michelangelo was a great artist. I think that question should be changed to, "Every student should have to learn about one of history's finest artists, Michelangelo." Because that means that you will force your opinion of great art on others so it is not, in fact, subjective.

this

 

[Zaverexus]

Tension Quotient = 27%
I think about philosophy a lot

Spoiler

Tension Quotient

Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

76416 of the 172660 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?

Questions 2 and 9: Can we please ourselves?

49661 of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

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 decriminalised

In order not to be in contradiction here, you must be able to make a convincing case that the personal use of drugs harms people other than the drug user. More than this - you must also show that prohibited drug use harms others more than other legal activities such as smoking, drinking and driving cars, unless you want to argue that these should also be made criminal offences. As alcohol, tobacco and car accidents are among the leading killers in western society, this case may be hard to make. You also have to make the case for each drug you think should not be decriminalised. The set of drugs which are currently illegal is not a natural one, so there is no reason to treat all currently illegal drugs the same.

Questions 8 and 18: What is faith?

40622 of the 172660 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).

Questions 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

78962 of the 172660 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.

and find it easy to reconcile the above contradictions:
1. Is morality relative?
Yes, morality is relative to culture, but I believe that killing is universally immoral (in most cases) as in any culture it does little to aid human growth and cooperation
2. Can we please ourselves?
As long as you aren't hurting anyone, yes, it is fine to seek your own ends. However, I believe drugs should be illegal because all people should be aware of and present in the real world.
3. What is faith?
I believe you should try to seek and believe in the the truth you can find to be most valid. If God makes more sense to you, believe that. To me the lack of God makes more sense, I see no contradiction.
4. How do we judge art?
Of course art is subjective. The belief that Michelangelo was one of the best painters of all time is also a subjective belief, but it is a widely accepted one and therefor my answer.

 

[conflictofinterests]

*snicket
Your first question, the one about the second world war. It's meant to oppose the "life is intrinsically important" question, so if it was a just war for ANYONE it would disagree with that.

Your second question: History books which could be confirmed with investigation into the places and archives relevant to those occurrences today. There were and are plenty of anthropologists digging up mass graves from genocides, and as far as I know, those death camps still exist. And it is in opposition to the statement "There is no intrinsic truth, because what it true changes depending on the culture you live in (some countries or people insist the Holocaust didn't happen)

About the first question, I figured it was implying Just War Theory, considering that WW2 is frequently the biggest discussion point because of our vast knowledge of it. Just War Theory is also a huge portion of modern philosophy. Considering that, it's easy to see that the question could be easily thought of in a "Just War Theory" context.

And as for the second, I'm well aware of that, but it didn't say anything about the truth of the holocausts existence. It asked about the validity of history books. Truth and history books don't always like to agree, and that was the point I was making. I'm not a holocaust denier, I'm just against the idea of leaving questions so open ended.

It's not actually asking about the history books, it's asking if it happened (like the verifiable ones say it did.)

You've fallen into the trap that I stated was the problem. You're assuming that the stated history books are "verifiable." The question never asked anything of the sort. It just asked about some esoteric history books, regardless of the verifiability of the information within. You read it like a student trying to get an answer right, I read it like a lawyer, and find the question lacking.

Fair enough, but let me read your post like a linguistic anthropologist and say that perhaps the sentence was not meant to be read like that. (Though, continuing on that train of thought, the fact that it was shows a certain amount of carelessness on the part of the inquirer.)
Also, I find that perhaps the definition of the word "objective" might have been a useful insert before the quiz began. I see so many arguments with the quiz in this thread which could be cleared up with that simple standardization.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

"Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" Agree or Disagree.You just asked me if "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste". Thanks for dealing with absolutes so that no matter what I answer you can say I contradict myself. If I agree that all judgements about works of art are a matter of taste then agree or disagree in that michaelangelo is one of history's finest artist no matter what I say it goes against what I had already said.

The key word is purely, If you believe that judgement of art is purely subjective you are not leaving room for any objectivity. If you state that "Michaelangelo's work is one of history's finest artists" you are also suggesting that someone else's negative opinion doesn't count.

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

A cheap shot perhaps, but the questions are designed to test the strength of your convictions. You need to be able to account for all possible meanings of a phrase.

Exactly, worded solely to trap you in semantics. I still scored 0%. But it could be argued that if you invert what you said it goes against it also. Not the greatest, positive opinions don't count.

 

[hyzaku]

I think your first problem may be explained by the fact that when alternative medicines are studied and proven useful enough they become mainstream medicines (I think aspirin might be an example of this, though I could be wrong)

And to your second problem, you seem to ignore the whole second half of the "should not use cars statement. Namely the "IF they can walk, bike, or use the train instead." You are citing a whole lot of examples where you could NOT walk, bike, or use the train instead.

It still stands that certain alternative treatments are helpful and that I would like them tested. For such treatments to become "mainstream" is actually the ultimate validation of their effects. Just because a method has not been tested does not mean it is any less effective, only that no one has tested it. Acupuncture is a fair example of this. It works for a variety of ailments, yet it is not "tested" by western standards of medicine and thus is an "alternative" treatment.

As for the second point I suppose I am arguing semantics. Just because I can walk in a storm does not make it a good idea. That is the stand point I am taking. Just because one method most beneficial in one area does not make it the best choice.

You can still call it a contradiction if you want.

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

47%, though filling out the questions made me feel a bit dirty. Most of them seemed to warrant more than a yes/no type of response, beyond the makers make some pretty big assumptions as to the meaning of the answers.

You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war
I had to edit away the original point I made here, I kept reading that sentence incorrectly, I went off on a tangent because I read WWII was just a war, which would mean it was no more or less justified than any act of war...
yep its official I'm illiterate and a moron .

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

Yep, if there is no chance of proving/disproving something it is not a logical decision to take that stance. I don't see the conflict here. They give some bs, but it is bs that states that when an atheist wants to be unscientific it isn't faith...whatev.

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

again they give me a huge rant about how little research has gone into some alternative/complementary medicine. First off any form of preventative medicine (like basic nutrition and exercise) is complementary to standard western medicine, many modern medicines were derived from alternative treatments so the alternative treatment that is now obsoleted, but was the source of the new treatment, is not valuable? Because I can acknowledge the value possible in alternative medicine I obviously don't care if it follows rigid testing requirements...right, that's exactly what I said.

Man that "analysis" is actually making me irate.

 

[conflictofinterests]

"Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists" Agree or Disagree.You just asked me if "Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste". Thanks for dealing with absolutes so that no matter what I answer you can say I contradict myself. If I agree that all judgements about works of art are a matter of taste then agree or disagree in that michaelangelo is one of history's finest artist no matter what I say it goes against what I had already said.

The key word is purely, If you believe that judgement of art is purely subjective you are not leaving room for any objectivity. If you state that "Michaelangelo's work is one of history's finest artists" you are also suggesting that someone else's negative opinion doesn't count.

The question didn't say "In my opinion, Michaelangelo is one of history's finest artists"...

A cheap shot perhaps, but the questions are designed to test the strength of your convictions. You need to be able to account for all possible meanings of a phrase.

Exactly, worded solely to trap you in semantics. I still scored 0%. But it could be argued that if you invert what you said it goes against it also. Not the greatest, positive opinions don't count.

That was another carelessness on the part of the quiz-makers. In all honesty it's hard to phrase that question to encompass ALL people who agree there is objectivity to artistic merit AND still avoid being so blunt about the question it opposes to negate the usefulness of the test.

 

[Jackpot524]

what if i only agree to an extent?
what if my views arent so black and white like this test seems to think i am?

I thought the same, but I eventually rationalized things to myself so that it would work out.

What did you have issues with?