f0xx Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 I came across something interesting today that syncs with me views. It actually syncs so well with me, that I've used some of the comparisons this guy uses. Have a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidon Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 Richard Dawkins is awesome. I got to see him speak in Austin a few years back and he signed a copy of one of his books for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fool_Hardy Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 TY @f0xx. Enjoyed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 If my parliament suddenly decided that we were going to exit the European Union without holding a public referendum, I would be pretty pissed off and so would a great deal many other people here. I think that the real issue is that the voterbase is generally speaking quite uninformed. Politics (and voting by extension) is less about formulating a solid argument and more about heaping huge piles of shit on the other side, and this needs to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted October 29, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 Neither politics nor the EU was his point really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 I studied a lot of Richard Dawkins when I took philosophy as elective papers at uni and I really wouldn't hold him in high regard. You really don't need to dig too far into his twitter to see him contradict himself.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/924020589563666433https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/924055702804590595 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 47 minutes ago, f0xx said: Neither politics nor the EU was his point really.... Ok....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magick Posted October 29, 2017 Report Share Posted October 29, 2017 Easy to miss r/iamverysmart/ link. ;}~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidon Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Wade said: I studied a lot of Richard Dawkins when I took philosophy as elective papers at uni and I really wouldn't hold him in high regard. You really don't need to dig too far into his twitter to see him contradict himself.https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/924020589563666433https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/924055702804590595 These really aren't contradictions. You realize that, right? One says you're very likely to lose money at a casino. The other says that while you are very likely to lose money at the casino, the belief that you might win money has value. They are not in contradiction. One is an explanation of why the first one being true does not result in people stopping gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 I read it as "These people are silly for waiting in line to lose money at a casino" then the next tweet is literally him trying to justify him having lost money at a casino, only difference is he presumably didn't have to wait in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted October 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 I don't know who he is really, I've never heard of him before. I posted this simply because I agree with what he says (and I always have), and because he is able to explain it much better than myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 11 hours ago, Wade said: I studied a lot of Richard Dawkins when I took philosophy as elective papers at uni and I really wouldn't hold him in high regard. Perhaps not as a philosopher, as that isn't his specialty or primary field of study. As a biologist and educator, he's rightfully held in high esteem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fool_Hardy Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 One should not discredit brilliance due to its source alone. I find that many of the philosophers across history disagree with each other on key points, or political and religious views. Still, I enjoy reading their thoughts. Furthermore, I often find several key points made by all of them to have true merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 On 29/10/2017 at 1:03 PM, f0xx said: Have a look at it. This arguments by Richard Dawkins is utterly retarded. He is arguing that people should leave the deciding of the major defining issues of a nation to the elite "experts". He even argues that people are to uninformed to decide on this stuffs, instead of arguing that the state should provide adequate information prior to referendums. The bottom line is that he thinks British citizens are to retarded to decide their own fate. The freedom to make your own choices is the defining thing in having freedom. His argument is an attack on the sovereignty of citizens. What he says is not that different from saying women should not vote because they are to emotional do decide correctly. Except he would be lynched in public opinion. This is comparable to having a sickness and going to hospital and being forced to do what the Doctors think is best. One should go to the Doctor and consult an expert. Then make his own decision. Translating to Pk, it would be like asking for advice on forums regarding Cabal choice for their combo, and having the "experts" force you to apply to the cabal they decide. Just like a child.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted October 30, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 31 minutes ago, mya said: This arguments by Richard Dawkins is utterly retarded. He is arguing that people should leave the deciding of the major defining issues of a nation to the elite "experts". You've completely missed the point too? This is not about politics at all. He just uses politics as example because everyone is an expert on those obviously... 31 minutes ago, mya said: The freedom to make your own choices is the defining thing in having freedom. Exactly, But when your choices influence the life of others, then shouldn't you be responsible enough to step away and just admit that you do not know enough about the subject in order to make a judgement? 31 minutes ago, mya said: This is comparable to having a sickness and going to hospital and being forced to do what the Doctors think is best. No it's not. It's comparable to someone being sick, and you offering your medical expertises (assuming you have no medical edication) and forcing them to do what YOU think is best. 31 minutes ago, mya said: Translating to Pk, it would be like asking for advice on forums regarding Cabal choice for their combo, and having the "experts" force you to apply to the cabal they decide. Once again no. If you want to draw a parallel to PK, it's like someone new coming to forums and asking for advice, and then multiple people who've never had a positive record on PK argue with someone like Trick/Chesta/Cel on how viable their advise is. Or to rephrase, if you are a bad PKer, why do you feel the need to give PK advise and even argue with people who have done well, across multiple characters and combos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mya Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 24 minutes ago, f0xx said: No it's not. It's comparable to someone being sick, and you offering your medical expertises (assuming you have no medical edication) and forcing them to do what YOU think is best. You missed completely the point. He argued that people in Britain should not be allowed to decide on leaving of staying on the UE, because they didn't have the expertise. That the decision should be left to experts. Britain citizens = people sick Experts = doctors So in comparison, sick people being striped of their decision power by doctors (experts). Again your PK parallel has nothing to do with what he said... But if your PK parallel is what you "synced" with, you should state it more clearly. Because I'm clearly getting a very negative view of your point of view, which I think it's not what are trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 Quote But when your choices influence the life of others, then shouldn't you be responsible enough to step away and just admit that you do not know enough about the subject in order to make a judgement? The real question gets into a matter of coercion. Yes, they should be responsible enough. But if they aren't, can you force them to step away? If you can force somebody out of the process then you have a very dangerous thing. If Dawkins is just arguing for bettering the general education and making informed decisions, then that is always a good thing. If he is pleading for the misinformed to hold back, also a good thing, but good luck there! -- Expert opinions are a matter of reputation and legitimacy. Religious leader xxx might be the world's greatest expert on some theological topic, but I wouldn't want that expert making religious decisions for me or the general public. However, if they were offering advice for a voluntary decision, that is a different matter. Foreign policy experts or economists are stacked to the moon with credentials. Do I trust their decisions? Usually not. If they could legitimately force their opinion, we'd be in big trouble. They certainly try. Do I want an expert on public education deciding how I should educate my child? In some countries, you have to listen to them. I'm very glad I don't live in one of those. I just have to pay them and ignore them. Hard sciences and trade skills suffer less from these problems, but they still have them. Does this mean that expert knowledge is nonsense or somehow worse than common knowledge? Certainly not. I was diagnosed with cancer today, so yes, I'm going to listen to my doctors about how to deal with it. Do I want them to force a decision about what I should do? No. Should my social network be barred from giving their non-expert 'advice' to me? No. That filtering is up to me, based on whatever criteria I choose. Even if it is not in my best interest. -- A good expert won't confuse knowledge, application, and values. People have the right to make bad decisions, to be stupid, and otherwise squander their lives away. I wouldn't have it any other way because the alternative is much, much worse. As you can see in my signature, my favorite quote is about this topic. Good people are the most dangerous people in the world because they believe they are good, and to think yourself good, you must also know what evil is. Good people will try squash what they believe to be evil. If you are one of those people who hasn't decided on what good is, or believe in a different interpretation of good, you'll run into conflict with other good people. Forcing things upon people in good intentions is a sure way to totalitarianism. This same situation exists for experts as well. Experts have a vested interest in being experts and in the status of their fields. If you, some non-expert, come up with an idea that invalidates my expert opinion, I'm going to lose prestige. If it is a major fundamental shift in the field, all experts in that field will lose reputation. They'll do their best to prevent that. Just look at religious leaders in the past. Experts don't often change their opinions once they are invalidated. They hold on to them until they die, then the field moves on, if the field is lucky. Otherwise, they get stuck in a quagmire until they can reconcile it out, perhaps for decades or hundreds of years. To use the analogy of some bad PKer invalidating my PK thoughts -- it can and does happen. Even the potential that it could happen merits listening to everybody's non-expert opinion. The value of learning outweighs the volume of questions. As an expert, you can be right all the time. If you are lucky, somebody will prove you wrong somewhere, and you'll become an even better expert. I want to be listened to. So I try to listen and reason out other people's thoughts as well. Of course, I'm also not shy to call people out and by that same token, people can also call me out when I'm wrong. My greatest frustrations on this forum stem from when I spend a lot of time making a point I feel is very important, backing it up with a lot of evidence, examples, and reasoning, only to see it brushed aside by a lazy counterpoint that I either already addressed or doesn't even deal with my point. This brushing aside is a very bad red flag. This usually happens when I try to invalidate things that require changes that would make some people feel uncomfortable. It is sometimes easier to ignore the advocate than deal with the concern they raise. -- I don't believe in a meritocracy because I don't think we can determine who the experts are well enough. How can you prove you are the best choice? Almost certainly by doing things. Politicians love to do things so they can point to their past accomplishments. However, "doing things" (which almost always involves forcing other people to do these things) is usually a bad thing. I don't want a foreign policy expert that advocates doing things in the foreign policy sphere. I want an expert that advocates NOT doing things. Those people don't rise to become experts because they never amass 'credentials and accomplishments' by not intervening. Nobody wants them on their team because the team leader wants to point to an action, an accomplishment. Same thing with economists. The government accredits economists. Do you think they are going to give voice, power, and prestige to those who advocate for a weak government? Or those who advocate leaving the economy alone? Good luck finding one of those in a central bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Implementor Anume Posted October 30, 2017 Implementor Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 Hope you get over it and get better soon, Cel, cancer is no fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mali Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 Yes, rooting for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celerity Posted October 30, 2017 Report Share Posted October 30, 2017 I didn't really mean to derail the thread with that bit. Thyroid, so the prognosis is excellent. On another note, two more weeks until baby due date, so things are piling up quickly over here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0xx Posted October 31, 2017 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2017 18 hours ago, mya said: You missed completely the point. He argued that people in Britain should not be allowed to decide on leaving of staying on the UE, because they didn't have the expertise. I think you missed the point. He generally argued that stupid people's opinions shouldn't be considered. And he gave many examples. One of them was with the stupid reasons some people have in support of leaving the EU union. If you think people who want to leave it because they like their old passport better, or just for the sake of change should be the ones to decide your future, then more power to you. I do not want such people to decide MY future though. As for PK, you're the one who began talking about it. I personally prefer taking advise from people who have the record to prove that their words are not empty, which of course doesn't mean they will be always right, or with genuine intentions. But you can always be sure that the advise of someone who is bad at something will naturally, always be bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fool_Hardy Posted October 31, 2017 Report Share Posted October 31, 2017 @Celerity been fighting the good fight for 28 years. I tell everyone my secret. Eat jalapenos regularly and NEVER stop fighting it. Feeling down/depressed, call it, squash the emotion, roll something new and enjoy what you do have in life. Its a good life, live it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidon Posted November 2, 2017 Report Share Posted November 2, 2017 On 10/30/2017 at 5:20 PM, mya said: He argued that people in Britain should not be allowed to decide on leaving of staying on the UE, because they didn't have the expertise. That the decision should be left to experts. He didn't actually say he thought decisions should be taken away from people, but rather that people should choose experts. You don't let your doctor choose your treatment, but you pick a doctor and you listen to his advice. If you don't like it, you go talk to a different doctor. This is how representative democracy has always worked. You pick people whose job it is and you trust to think through issues for a long time and consider all the angles. The reality is that most people who voted for brexit, one way or the other, didn't spend alot of time thinking about it. It was a whim decision for them. The advantage to having specialists-- be they doctors, engineers, politicians, economists, etc is to allow that person to consider an issue for a long time and be able to voice the pros and cons of various options. Decision making still rests with the people, but smart, intelligent people at least consider that they should listen to what the expert has to say. When people start thinking that their opinion, formed without any real research, is equal to that of experts-- that creates huge problems. I'm not an expert in anything, but I do have the opportunity to work alongside experts everyday. People who spent 10 years of their life studying one very specific problem. They understand this issue so well they know every data point, every argument, every thought around this issue. I'd be foolish not to rely on their time and insight when making my decision, even if we may disagree and I ultimately end up making a different decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted November 2, 2017 Report Share Posted November 2, 2017 8 hours ago, Aidon said: He didn't actually say he thought decisions should be taken away from people, but rather that people should choose experts. You don't let your doctor choose your treatment, but you pick a doctor and you listen to his advice. If you don't like it, you go talk to a different doctor. This is how representative democracy has always worked. You pick people whose job it is and you trust to think through issues for a long time and consider all the angles. However one might interpret his words in any specific video, this has pretty consistently been Dawkins's position over the years that I've been aware of him - he's not a strong authoritarian, nor anti-democracy. He may perhaps be described as an elitist, but not in the sense that elites are better than "normal" people, but rather in the sense that said "normal" people generally stand to benefit from the knowledge of elites, and ignore such at their own peril. I don't think he's wrong in that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.