Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT strips 3666 to 3670 (29th January to 2nd February 2018)
Is it cold in here?:
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 09:14 ---
--- Quote from: MrNumbers on 31 Jan 2018, 08:01 ---I'm annoyed at the backlash against Ev, and the perceptions of a few people in here about how all social interaction should ultimately be walking on eggshells at all times, aware of all forms of offense that could possibly be caused.
--- End quote ---
I couldn't agree more. I get more and more the feeling Evie should somehow have used her clairvoyant powers to know how Bubbles was sensitive on some subjects...
--- End quote ---
Golden Rule would cover it. Evie could have reflected on how she'd feel if positions in the conversation had been reversed.
Walking on eggshells I don't advocate but go back to Momo. She was presented with a faux pas from Ms. Reed and said something to the effect "If everyone does their best it will work out". "Do your best" is a far higher standard than having good intentions!
Morituri:
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:49 ---What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.
--- End quote ---
"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about. Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question are examples of things that are not even wrong.
They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them. If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong? You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence. It's not even wrong.
Storel:
--- Quote from: Morituri on 31 Jan 2018, 10:47 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:49 ---What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.
--- End quote ---
"Not even wrong" is how we express in English that something is so ill-formulated that not only is it incorrect, but that it doesn't even address the subject it's supposed to be about. Tautologies, non Sequiturs, Paradoxes, and answers that merely restate the question are examples of things that are not even wrong.
They're "Not even wrong" because you can't even correct them. If I tell you that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" what have I gotten wrong? You don't just have several choices, you have *EVERY POSSIBLE CHOICE* of what is wrong with that sentence. It's not even wrong.
--- End quote ---
Wow. I'm a native English speaker and I had no idea what "That's... not even wrong" was supposed to mean. Despite feeling that there are so many things wrong with what was said that you can't address all of them, perhaps you could provide some specific examples of some of the things that are wrong with it? Because I for one don't see what the problem is.
sitnspin:
--- Quote from: Magniras on 31 Jan 2018, 07:59 ---
She says she told Evie the comparison was offensive, but all she did was say she resented the comparison.
--- End quote ---
She resented it, because it's offensive. I don't see how you are missing that.
--- Quote ---Evie was the one who called it offensive. I'm sure if Bubbles expressed her frustrations Evie would apologize for everything in a heartbeat.
--- End quote ---
She expressed her frustration twice in that conversation and Evie kept right on going.
--- Quote ---Because I think a black lesbian from the south understands real issues that real people face.
--- End quote ---
Being part of one (or more) marginalized groups does not automatically make one aware of or sensitive to the experiences of other marginalized groups. I say that as a biracial lesbian from a very conservative region.
Case:
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:49 ---
--- Quote from: Case on 31 Jan 2018, 06:47 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:43 ---
--- Quote from: Akima on 31 Jan 2018, 03:50 ---
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 02:29 ---Every single one of us is a study subject for various science disciplines. Medecine, psychology, sociology... They all study us in a distantiated, depassionated way. And that's actually fine, because that's how science works.
--- End quote ---
"Works" includes some pretty ugly things, which revealed ugly things about the attitudes of those carrying out the studies. Consider the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, or Unit 631. The notion that a "distantiated, depassionated" study is necessarily fine, and therefore suspicion, and even hostility, from those being studied is unjustified, is certainly not one that I'd accept.
--- End quote ---
Now, you are trying to make me say things I haven't. I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done. Else, you get things like lysenkoism. That doesn't mean the choice of the study doesn't need to follow ethics or deontology. By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer...
--- End quote ---
That's ... not even wrong.
And it's 'distanced', not distentiated.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...
What do you mean by "That's ... not even wrong"? That's not even a statement.
--- End quote ---
Uhmmmh - actually, it is. It's a ... 'bonmot' by theoretical Physicist Wolfgang Pauli that somehow became an English nerdism. In the narrowest sense, it means that a statement is non-falsifiable. Like e.g. "I maintain that science needs to be distantiated to get anything valuable done." It can neither be proven right nor wrong, since there's no unambiguous, universally and measurable definition of either 'distanced', or 'valuable'. Hence 'not even wrong' (Pauli was called many things, but rarely diplomatic. Least not without a 'not' in front).
Lysenkoism is pseudoscience - not particularly unethical, apart from setting back the research of a veritable superpower for several decades, and causing untold headaches due to the horrendous cognitive dissonance. I don't see how it necessarily follows from a non-falsifiable statement, how one could ascertain or falsify it, or what it has to do with ethics in in research with human subjects.
I think you might be confusing deontology with the opposite of ontology (which it is not), and I was of the opinion that the branch of philosophy relevant to science was Epistemology, but I'd bow the the resident philosophers expertise (or really anyone who has a formal education in the humanities).
Lastly, the statment "By the way, those racists experiments can hardly be called "science" by any objective observer..." is at best useless, since there is no such a thing as an objective observer (or if there is, they're not human), it's an ideal to aspire to.
Also, I don't see why those experiments cannot be called science - I haven't seen anything about the hypothesis being non-falsifiable, or systematic measurement errors etc. Maybe you have studied them in greater detail and can help.
They are, however, deeply unethical and a crime - and here is the point that Akima tried to convey to you: There is nothing in any formulation of the 'scientific method' I have read that gives guidance as to ethical conduct wrt. human (or animal) subject. It's purely Epistomology, it's only concerned with knowledge. The only 'ethos' in the scientific method is the Feynman rule “Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” .
For everything else, you need moral philosophy, compassion and a conscience - and the latter two are not particularly closely related to 'distanced'. Well, Mengele might disagree, but he's a monster, so what the fuck does he know?
--- Quote from: traroth on 31 Jan 2018, 06:49 ---Thank you for correcting that poor french forum contributor...
--- End quote ---
You kept repeating that mistake, despite Akima's attempts to point them out to you - I thought you'd rather not have people sniggering behind your back. Personally, I use a spellchecker, since I'm also a non-native speaker on a board full of native speakers (mostly because German capitalization is so different).
P.S.: Akima has a math degree. Doesn't strictly make her a scientist, but I'm pretty sure she could have explained the above to you just as well. Math-nerds are like that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version