Is political correctness anti-scientific?

Post Reply New Topic

Honestly I would like an apology for having my thread derailed.

I'm sorry your thread derailed, but the tracks weren't very well spaced at the start. To return to something more concise, "political correctness" encourages or requires the denial of "falsification", and science requires the doctrine of "falsification", but that's with Karl Popper. So, by blunt use of Popper, political correctness is anti-scientific.

Tadzio

I know its against the rules but over9000 is just trolling us.
the name is a 4chan /anonymous reference as in Oprahs over 9000 penises letter.
I guess I should be telling a moderator but who can be bothered .
just don't get butthurt cuz then the trolls win

^ Actually nope. Over 9000 is a reference to an old meme created because of something funny that happened in dragon ball Z. The Oprah thing was the result of a trick or something from anon to make her say that, I think.

Sex is to reproduce not to be moral.
So sexual morality is unnatural (See what I did there?).








consent.


So, what do you think about infertile married couples? Should they unmarry? Go to heck? Stop having sex?

Are we being victims of Poe's law?



Creating people highly is overrated. We do are not desperately in need of more people. The opposite actually. I can have sex with myself without creating people, I think it would be unfair to deny couples (gay or not) of that privilege.

If you parse closer I think you will see that we agree.
The point is you prolly are not conversing with a honest agent.

non-scientific, according to Popper's demarcation.

ruveyn

After over9000's contribution I think we can say for sure that religious correctness is completely and utterly anti-science.

(I had something longer but (a) you wouldn't have read it and (b) it drifted even further off-topic chasing your irrelevant pearls of wisdom)

Was someone flaunting it? Dang, I missed it...

What the H are you talking about!?!?!?!?

"african tribes have cultural diversity to match their genetic diversity."

Culture doesnt come from genes. Its cultural.

"Africa doesnt have large animals"?

Have you ever heard of something called an "elephant"?
I hear that they are rather large. As are hippos, gorillas, giraffes, etc etc.


"The rainforest doesnt have groups...like eskimos."

Ofcourse not- its a rainforest- it isnt tundra.
England doesnt have Eskimos either.
What is that point supposed to prove?

...

Last edited by simon_says on 04 Oct 2011, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, anti-scientific based on Popper's demarcations. One of the more simple explanations is in "A Philosopher's Apprentice: in Karl Popper's workshop" By Joseph Agassi (2008), page 33: "Now, admittedly, obscurantism is still popular and it is anti-scientific by definition," page 235:"...was an error...to fuse the pseudo-scientific and the anti-scientific variants...was Popper who first distinguished the two versions...." (I remembered it from somewhere in papers from Popper).

A humourous sentence that still is in the crux, though frequently in denial, is: "In the 18th century, Enlightenment philosophers used the term "obscurantism" to denote the conservative enemies, especially the religious enemies, of progressive Enlightenment and its concept of the liberal diffusion of knowledge." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantism

When the notion of "Political Correctness" left the realm of simply being uninvolved in any more physical science (remember, Spectrum use to be a range of ghosts (spectre)), such as the U.S. Supreme Court usage of the phrase with the primary recognition order of "states" versus "citizens"(try to obscure this with the phrase "political science"???), the last few decades have seen "Political Correctness" pulled inside-out, mainly by what was self-identified as "neo-conservatives", to become instead of what once was Patriotic into something now anything but Patriotic, and useful to "obscure" facts, and when these facts are otherwise, or would have been (sans the conservative purposively nonsense) used in a solid and modern science, this definitely crosses areas where the manifolds with "sciences" such of non-sciences are left and distinguished into pseudo-sciences and then distinguished into anti-sciences. Forms of the word "falsification" are clarified too, but I'll start wondering about my academic rewards. Most academic concepts are in current easy English in "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney. "Science and Anti-science" by Gerald James Holton has more general politics.

"The Paranoid Style In American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter (mag version: http://www.harpers.org/archive/1964/11/0014706 ) is back in vogue with survivors from the "Patriot Act" obscurantism war against general intelligence of citizens. (or links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parano ... n_Politics ).

You have provided many examples.

This thread started more with a direction inherent in the book "Why Some Like It Hot: Food, Genes, and Cultural Diversity" by Gary Paul Nabhan (2004), and ended with the Gestapo "Patriots" using Pepper Spray against the slightest removal of Obscurantism involving historical events, such as The Boston Tea Party.

Tadzio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question



I didn't say Africa. I was referring to the Amazon in South America.



What I mean is even if Africa has the most genetic diversity, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's more diverse in every single way than other populations.