4 ms·

You disagree with the tenets that make "being open to criticism" possible. Arguments do not where the skin of their speakers. They're sexless, skinless things.

You disagree with the tenets that make "being open to criticism" possible. Arguments do not where the skin of their speakers. They're sexless, skinless things. Your ideology destroys the fungibility of arguments, requiring that we pay strict attention to the provenance of any idea that pertains to your sacred issues, gender and race. Obviously, this poisons the information economy around these issues and much nonsense is taken as fact.

wpietri 12y ago
Arguments don't do anything. People use arguments. Those people have histories, and their histories are material when considering what they do with those arguments. I agree that the truth isn't influenced by race or gender. But one's perception of truth is influenced by one's experiences, and those experiences currently have heavy race and gender components. So if getting at the truth is the true goal, then one must be enormously careful to discover and work against one's own biases. If you're looking for a way to get started on that, try Harvard's Project Implicit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp I used to think that I wasn't biased. But instead I just didn't want to be biased. There's a big difference, and seeing that helped me see how wrong I was to think that my experiences didn't influence my opinions.
wpietri 12y ago
Oh, and one more point. The "information economy" is only part of how society actually changes. Look at this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... Is that a graph of people being convinced by rational argument? No, it's mainly people with old ideas dying off. It would be great if the world worked like you say, but it doesn't. Even science doesn't. Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

wpietri 12y ago

Arguments don't do anything. People use arguments. Those people have histories, and their histories are material when considering what they do with those arguments. I agree that the truth isn't influenced by race or gender. But one's perception of truth is influenced by one's experiences, and those experiences currently have heavy race and gender components. So if getting at the truth is the true goal, then one must be enormously careful to discover and work against one's own biases. If you're looking for a way to get started on that, try Harvard's Project Implicit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/index.jsp I used to think that I wasn't biased. But instead I just didn't want to be biased. There's a big difference, and seeing that helped me see how wrong I was to think that my experiences didn't influence my opinions.

wpietri 12y ago

Oh, and one more point. The "information economy" is only part of how society actually changes. Look at this graph: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-white-marriages.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/149390/record-high-approve-black-... Is that a graph of people being convinced by rational argument? No, it's mainly people with old ideas dying off. It would be great if the world worked like you say, but it doesn't. Even science doesn't. Max Planck wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."