28 Jul 2011, 9:46 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
29 Jul 2011, 1:01 am
29 Jul 2011, 1:26 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
29 Jul 2011, 1:40 am
30 Jul 2011, 9:34 pm
Philologos wrote:
This has to be politics - there is nothing of wisdom or truth in it.
Yes, I get the point.
Model 1: Reaction: primary source, one of my professors
Gorm is an enemy. Gorm is a threat. Gorm must be wrong. So, if Gorm says the sea is salty, it cannot be salty. If it seems to be salty, there must be some other reason, like maybe sea water has a lot of dissolved ozone.
Model 2: Loyalty: very prevalent in academia, politics, some religious organizations, but I base this on one particular colleague
The theory nust be right. The theory predicts that speech sounds interact a certain way, and observation shows they do. If after a few years we switch to a different theory, which predict they interarct in a totally different way, BEHOLD! When we reexamine the data they are found to fit the new theory.
Model 3. Solidarity: source my formar chairman and a report from another department, also observed in politicised talk.
Our side is right, The enemy is wrong. If someone on our side is seen to be wrong, we must hush it up - however bad he is, we cannot reject him without looking dumb. If someone on the other side says something true or does something good, we must NOT say so. If asked we must deny it. Admitting the other side has a point is treason.
Model 4: You know the source.
The enemy's cause is evil. Our cause is just. We see that the enemy does bad things and it is because their ideology makes them evil. We see that our side does good things because theu do not have an evil ideology. If one of our people happened to do something bad, it does not reflect on our ideology, because that is good and does not cause evil. If one of the enemy does something good, he does it in spite of his evil ideology, his evil ideology certainly could not inspite him to do good.
-------------------------
So - there may be others but that is asll I can stomach.
Just two questions - is it possible to subscribe to all foue simultaneously, or do you have to pick one?
And how can a thinking person communicate with someone who holds to any of them?
Yes, I get the point.
Model 1: Reaction: primary source, one of my professors
Gorm is an enemy. Gorm is a threat. Gorm must be wrong. So, if Gorm says the sea is salty, it cannot be salty. If it seems to be salty, there must be some other reason, like maybe sea water has a lot of dissolved ozone.
Model 2: Loyalty: very prevalent in academia, politics, some religious organizations, but I base this on one particular colleague
The theory nust be right. The theory predicts that speech sounds interact a certain way, and observation shows they do. If after a few years we switch to a different theory, which predict they interarct in a totally different way, BEHOLD! When we reexamine the data they are found to fit the new theory.
Model 3. Solidarity: source my formar chairman and a report from another department, also observed in politicised talk.
Our side is right, The enemy is wrong. If someone on our side is seen to be wrong, we must hush it up - however bad he is, we cannot reject him without looking dumb. If someone on the other side says something true or does something good, we must NOT say so. If asked we must deny it. Admitting the other side has a point is treason.
Model 4: You know the source.
The enemy's cause is evil. Our cause is just. We see that the enemy does bad things and it is because their ideology makes them evil. We see that our side does good things because theu do not have an evil ideology. If one of our people happened to do something bad, it does not reflect on our ideology, because that is good and does not cause evil. If one of the enemy does something good, he does it in spite of his evil ideology, his evil ideology certainly could not inspite him to do good.
-------------------------
So - there may be others but that is asll I can stomach.
Just two questions - is it possible to subscribe to all foue simultaneously, or do you have to pick one?
And how can a thinking person communicate with someone who holds to any of them?
Thank you
I will use it for future reference..
