critiques of science

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
yes that is what i was saying.

Sufi, I assume you support the existence of laws limiting the length of the working week, votes for women and the minimum wage? Well as chance would have it, those are all parts of the Fascist Manifesto! Ergo you are a Fascist, so anything you say can be completely disregarded.

See? It's intellectually dishonest and gets us nowhere.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty:

1 was about a black student claiming anti-black racism meant that she was entitled to call for science to be drastically reviewed

Except she wasn't calling for it to be "reviewed", she called for it to be "scratched off", i.e. erased completely. And her argument was based on two assertions: that science as a whole is purely a product of Western modernity, and that the laws of nature are culturally contingent. Both of which are demonstrably untrue.

She has the right to say those things, clearly. I'm not contesting that at all. Where we differ is that I don't think the right to say something implies the right to be agreed with. You seem to be taking the stance that she should have that right precisely because she is black, which I think is massively patronizing and, in itself, more racist than you realize.

Further, disagreeing with her on those two specific points doesn't mean she's wrong about anything else, or about racism in general. She's fighting a good fight - perhaps the best fight there is - I just think she's picked the wrong target.

You think we disagree because I'm being racist - or at least, being 'obtuse' and saying racist things, as you generously put it - while you're being anti-racist. Whereas in fact we're disagreeing because we disagree about what constitutes 'racist' and 'anti-racist' in a discussion about science.

We're never going to get anywhere while we continue like this, so it's probably best for this thread to be left to lie.
 
Last edited:

sufi

lala
yes that is what i was saying. you still don't really get this i don't think, so let me lay it out for you. with some simple yes/no answers.

You posted 2 viral videos, both aimed at making fun out of their subjects.

  • 1 was about a white student claiming anti-white racism meant that he was entitled to flounce off
  • 1 was about a black student claiming anti-black racism meant that she was entitled to call for science to be drastically reviewed
you said that you see these as "entirely parallel", do you still think that?
here's a clue: the 2 are not parallel unless you consider anti-white and anti-black racism are equivalent.

or alternatively, do you still feel entitled to ignore the race element in the videos?

i feel like i have fallen into adam curtis land where the words that we speak actually have no meaning.
or are you just talking utter bollocks?
i pulled you up for sharing a viral hate video
i asked you to explain yourself briefly and you wrote like 1000 words, ... and still didn't explain.
i asked for simple yes/no answers and you call me a fascist because you assume i support working hours :crylarf:.

why not just answer a straight question with a straight answer?
 

sufi

lala
so you edit your post to add extra scorn, nice.

and still can't answer a straight question. i don't think you should get off so easy or agree to disagree, there are topics where relativism and subjectivity are not the bottom line, there are objective truths about oppression that are worth defending.

so, in good faith, please re-examine what i wrote and try again. without trying to tell me what i'm saying, or use actual quotes instead of made up ones. & please don't attribute opinions to me, this isn't about me anyway, ad hominems are generally considered unsporting etc...

maybe this is an easier question for you:

do you think it's more legitimate to challenge mainstream knowledge on the basis of anti-white racism or anti-black racism?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
  • 1 was about a white student claiming anti-white racism meant that he was entitled to flounce off
  • 1 was about a black student claiming anti-black racism meant that she was entitled to call for science to be drastically reviewed

I see exactly what you're trying to do here. You want to goad me into saying "Anti-white racism is just as bad as anti-black racism, waah, poor oppressed whites". Which I'm not going to say, because it was never the point I was making in the first place, and also because it would be an obviously ridiculous thing to say.

My point was that the two scenarios are intellectually equivalent. Which they are.

As for it being a 'hate video', I understand the term to mean a video created specifically to propagate bigotry. Unless you have good reason to think otherwise, we have to accept that it's simply some footage of a real exchange that happened at a South African university. If people are sharing the video purely to make fun of it, then unfortunately I have to say I don't find it difficult to see why.
 

droid

Well-known member
Tea has made a valid point about science being attacked by both left and right.

Sufi has made a valid point that the context of the two clips are entirely different and that comparing them is problematic from a cultural/race perspective.

Neither have managed to convince the other of their points and now stormfront links and accusations of racism and fascism are being thrown around over at least two threads.

No good can come of this.
 

sufi

lala
I see exactly what you're trying to do here. You want to goad me into saying "Anti-white racism is just as bad as anti-black racism, waah, poor oppressed whites". Which I'm not going to say, because it was never the point I was making in the first place, and also because it would be an obviously ridiculous thing to say..
Well that was actually what you said, intentionally or unintentionally, by presenting your 2 videos as "entirely parallel", you can't just decide to dismiss the racial aspects and implications of the examples you chose.

I'm disappointed not to have been able to examine that with you constructively, but you made it impossible by nitpicking linguistics, refusing to understand what was stated clearly or engage with straight questions, coming up with misquoted and misleading "paraphrasing", with ludicrous ad extremis positons and examples which you attribute to anybody and everybody, not to mention personal abuse scattered far and wide.
:(
 

sufi

lala
Sorry droid, didn't see your summing up post.
Which is pretty accurate.

You know I only rarely bother to get into "debate" here, but those videos were thought provoking in a way I couldn't ignore.
 

luka

Well-known member
"I wonder if our sentimental devotees comprehend what we real scientists are like. Mad! That's what we're like. It's a vice. I know what it is. And I know what I am. I am a madman with a vice for which I'd vivisect Jesus Christ."

Weymouth Sands.
 

poetix

we murder to dissect
Every scientist in fact has to vivisect Jesus as part of their final science exam. It’s OK though, he just resurrects himself each time, and multiplies himself like the loaves and fishes so there’s always enough Jesuses to go round.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
The idea of scientists vivisecting Jesus Christ is the most industrial-goth image ever. Like a Skinny Puppy lyric that Marilyn Manson would rip off 20 years later.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
Why can science get technical without coming across as pretentious, while philosophy seems to have a tougher time doing so? Does that betray anything about our ideological climates?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Why can science get technical without coming across as pretentious, while philosophy seems to have a tougher time doing so? Does that betray anything about our ideological climates?
There's a tendency in some schools of philosophy to use language not as a tool of communication but as a shibboleth; a means to identify and include in-group members and exclude outsiders. Whereas science uses technical language because it commonly discusses concepts for which everyday terms don't exist.
 
Top