4 ms·

> Before you spend too much time patting yourself on the back for being so superior... dividing it into dumbasses and "smart people like me," I didn't say anyt

> Before you spend too much time patting yourself on the back for being so superior... dividing it into dumbasses and "smart people like me," I didn't say anything like that, or even adjacent to it. I didn't imply any judgement at all, other than to acknowledge that we're not all born the same. That said, tall people will always be better at basketball on average than short people. Raising the average height doesn't really change that, and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is dishonest and actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage.

tivert 2y ago
> ...and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is not only dishonest, it's actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage. Cultivating an us/them distinction is also actively harmful, more harmful I'd say. But if you can't help yourself, count yourself with them and do your best to avoid condescension.
- stevenAthompson 2y ago
  I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society. It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.
  - tivert 2y ago
    [dead]
  - foxglacier 2y ago
    He's right though. People have cultural knowledge which can lead to better outcomes than "correct" reasoning even when those cultural beliefs are factually wrong. The scientific approach has blind spots where it hasn't reached, especially regarding sociology which is something long-lived cultures excel at but modern science falls flat. "intelligent" understanding has blind spots where things are too complicated to study so we pretend they don't matter. For example, do you count all religious people in your ignorant group? Even when they're having happier lives than comparable atheists? Here's a thought. Animals often kill their own unhealthy babies but educated people much less so, and even demand that parents use technology to save them otherwise they're bad uneducated unintelligent people. Are those animals doing it wrong because they're too stupid to use medicine? Or are people doing it wrong? I'd say people have a non-scientific culture of minimizing of death even if it harms long-term evolutionary success of the species.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      We're really far off topic here, but I'll bite because I'm bored. Firstly though, we need to agree on what "good" and "bad" mean, in a moral sense. To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. If you have a different definition, this conversation will be a waste of both our time. > He's right though. He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. Reason is mans only natural defense. We were born without tooth and claw or even fur thick enough to survive a winter. We must use our minds to survive in this world, or perish as a species. To reject that isn't just a rejection of our nature, it is a form of suicide for our species. Are you aware that the vast majority of the humans on this planet would not exist today without science? For example, the Haber-Bosch process allows for something like 90% of the worlds food to be grown. Much of the remaining 10% couldn't exist without genetic manipulation, or at the very least selective breeding. To reject science would be to accept a world where at least 90% of us starved and the remaining 10% led short, violent lives filled mostly with unending misery and toil. I'm deeply opposed to that and consider it "bad." > The scientific approach has blind spots Yes, that's how science works. We form hypotheses and test them. If those theories turn out to match the evidence we keep them, if they don't we abandon them. That's the truly great thing about science, science can be wrong, but it can never STAY wrong when done properly. > Religion, euthanasia, etc... All of those questions depend on culturally defined norms and taboos that may change from person to person or region to region. As long as a persons cultural, spiritual, or philosophical thinking is still "good" (based on my earlier definition) it can coexist with reason, and it's irrelevant. Science does not demand that you put no other god before it, that's religion. I object only when another system becomes "bad", and in this context that happens whenever someone decides that their ignorance should be valued more than the science that keeps us all alive. It should not, and there are very good reasons for that. > bad uneducated unintelligent people I never said, or implied this, or many of the other things you insinuate here. Stating it yourself, and then arguing against it is a form of logical fallacy called a "strawman argument", and it's not just irrational, it's more than a little rude.
      - foxglacier 2y ago
        > To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. I agree with that definition. However, it leads to a trade-off between short term thriving of individuals and long term thriving of humanity. We could pour all our resources into supporting every living person but would cripple our future development. Or we could go the other extreme and violate all the human rights to develop a more resilient long term society. Islam, for example, is very robust for thriving of humanity (no population collapse happening there) but very poor for thriving of all individuals within it (severe penalties for seemingly harmless "crimes", women's rights, etc.).

tivert 2y ago

> ...and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is not only dishonest, it's actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage. Cultivating an us/them distinction is also actively harmful, more harmful I'd say. But if you can't help yourself, count yourself with them and do your best to avoid condescension.

stevenAthompson 2y ago
I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society. It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.
- tivert 2y ago
  [dead]
- foxglacier 2y ago
  He's right though. People have cultural knowledge which can lead to better outcomes than "correct" reasoning even when those cultural beliefs are factually wrong. The scientific approach has blind spots where it hasn't reached, especially regarding sociology which is something long-lived cultures excel at but modern science falls flat. "intelligent" understanding has blind spots where things are too complicated to study so we pretend they don't matter. For example, do you count all religious people in your ignorant group? Even when they're having happier lives than comparable atheists? Here's a thought. Animals often kill their own unhealthy babies but educated people much less so, and even demand that parents use technology to save them otherwise they're bad uneducated unintelligent people. Are those animals doing it wrong because they're too stupid to use medicine? Or are people doing it wrong? I'd say people have a non-scientific culture of minimizing of death even if it harms long-term evolutionary success of the species.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    We're really far off topic here, but I'll bite because I'm bored. Firstly though, we need to agree on what "good" and "bad" mean, in a moral sense. To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. If you have a different definition, this conversation will be a waste of both our time. > He's right though. He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. Reason is mans only natural defense. We were born without tooth and claw or even fur thick enough to survive a winter. We must use our minds to survive in this world, or perish as a species. To reject that isn't just a rejection of our nature, it is a form of suicide for our species. Are you aware that the vast majority of the humans on this planet would not exist today without science? For example, the Haber-Bosch process allows for something like 90% of the worlds food to be grown. Much of the remaining 10% couldn't exist without genetic manipulation, or at the very least selective breeding. To reject science would be to accept a world where at least 90% of us starved and the remaining 10% led short, violent lives filled mostly with unending misery and toil. I'm deeply opposed to that and consider it "bad." > The scientific approach has blind spots Yes, that's how science works. We form hypotheses and test them. If those theories turn out to match the evidence we keep them, if they don't we abandon them. That's the truly great thing about science, science can be wrong, but it can never STAY wrong when done properly. > Religion, euthanasia, etc... All of those questions depend on culturally defined norms and taboos that may change from person to person or region to region. As long as a persons cultural, spiritual, or philosophical thinking is still "good" (based on my earlier definition) it can coexist with reason, and it's irrelevant. Science does not demand that you put no other god before it, that's religion. I object only when another system becomes "bad", and in this context that happens whenever someone decides that their ignorance should be valued more than the science that keeps us all alive. It should not, and there are very good reasons for that. > bad uneducated unintelligent people I never said, or implied this, or many of the other things you insinuate here. Stating it yourself, and then arguing against it is a form of logical fallacy called a "strawman argument", and it's not just irrational, it's more than a little rude.
    - foxglacier 2y ago
      > To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. I agree with that definition. However, it leads to a trade-off between short term thriving of individuals and long term thriving of humanity. We could pour all our resources into supporting every living person but would cripple our future development. Or we could go the other extreme and violate all the human rights to develop a more resilient long term society. Islam, for example, is very robust for thriving of humanity (no population collapse happening there) but very poor for thriving of all individuals within it (severe penalties for seemingly harmless "crimes", women's rights, etc.).