4 ms·

Sorry, I'll drop the philosophy discussion because I don't find it interesting (don't mean this as an attack to you in any way though) On the first discussion:

Sorry, I'll drop the philosophy discussion because I don't find it interesting (don't mean this as an attack to you in any way though) On the first discussion: I think it's interesting that you keep using "unbiased" when you maybe should be using "objective". I'll take a shot and say that you want to reinforce the negative connotation the word "bias" carries so you can further demerit the humanities. And this is really ironic because this only reveals your own biases. See, it doesn't matter that you don't like how imprecise we humans are. We are all we directly experience during our lives. Everything you see and feel comes tinged with human subjectiveness. There is us and there is the rest. Hell, if I think, therefore I am, the first, and so far the only thing I can say for sure that exists is me. So we are arguably the single most important thing we should study. Now, if you are able to create mathematical and computational models that describe we humans, then great, humanities became as pointless as Plato's theory of atoms. I mean, social sciences often use math tools. But we're doing the best we can with what we have, and it's not because it's easier to predict a chemical reaction than a social trend that one becomes more important. Again, your argument on objectivity holds no water. The importance of a field isn't related to how easy it is to find absolute answers.

nendroid 6y ago
It has nothing to do with imprecision. Nor does it have anything to do with objectivity. I'm more talking about the neutrality and "centrality" of the choices of study. Something like ethics and religion are more a biased choice that say something like logic from my perspective. What if we encountered an alien race or intelligent beings with no form of religion or ethics? Dolphins or chimpanzees perhaps? It's certainly possible but I would argue it's hard to imagine finding an intelligent race of beings not governed by the rules of logic. That's why I consider logic an unbiased choice and religion and ethics a biased and arbitrary choice. Our bias tends towards the the human experience as opposed to a truly more neutral perspective.

nendroid 6y ago

It has nothing to do with imprecision. Nor does it have anything to do with objectivity. I'm more talking about the neutrality and "centrality" of the choices of study. Something like ethics and religion are more a biased choice that say something like logic from my perspective. What if we encountered an alien race or intelligent beings with no form of religion or ethics? Dolphins or chimpanzees perhaps? It's certainly possible but I would argue it's hard to imagine finding an intelligent race of beings not governed by the rules of logic. That's why I consider logic an unbiased choice and religion and ethics a biased and arbitrary choice. Our bias tends towards the the human experience as opposed to a truly more neutral perspective.