Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:


Thomas Kuhn addressed similar issues in the sciences. What you describe as different moral stances, are similar to the different paradigms he described. The more different they are, the more a barrier to communication, because ultimately the words people use have different meanings depending on their paradigm.

Economists distinguish between positive and normative statements. This is similar to objective vs subjective. One is a fact based statement or question about the way things are or what the result of an action will be. The other is a value based judgement about the way things should be. This is a major source of confusion for the lay public. Economist obviously disagree on normative (subjective) issues because they boil down to what is important to a person, which is not really what economics is about (in this context anyway). They tend to agree on positive statements. Economists may agree on what the likely outcome of a given government policy may be, while disagreeing on whether it is a good idea. People tend to confuse the disagreements over the normative with disagreements over the positive.

A good starting point is to recognise that your disagreement is at it's core a moral vs technical one. Or, a disagreement over your values and what is important to you, versus a disagreement over the facts. I see a lot of really stupid arguments put forward here where people demand facts to back up what is obviously a values-based statement. Or one person thinks the argument is about the facts and the other thinks the argument is about values. This also comes through in a lot of the partisan cheer-leading type stuff. People pretend to disagree on the facts, but have no knowledge of them and don't care what they are. They tend to change the topic regularly to avoid getting pinned down on the facts.

In some of the carbon tax debates, people ask stupid questions like what is the impact of Australia's tax on global temperatures. Obviously our domestic policy was never intended to have a global impact. I guess this is a bit like shifting the goal posts, but it reflects a disinterest in the facts and an interest in pushing a partisan agenda instead. The question is a statement, ultimately a rather stupid one, that has a strong appeal so long as you don't think about it too long.

Here is a list of logical fallacies:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html

These often come up, and politicians are skillful at deliberately exploiting these with brief soundbites that appeal to people who don't put much further thought into it.

Obviously the solution to all of this is more and better education.

John Smith wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:


While you're at it why don't you add your name to the list? After all, the only reason you've come onto this thread is to denegrate the people you don't like ...  or do you not consider it rude and abusive when you do it?[/quote]


Unfortunately she doesn't.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:


here you go ... although all the interesting (for lack of a better word) stuff has been deleted .

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365533822/150

Bobby. wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:


he was just warming up ... the really nasty stuff got deleted.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:


I think of intellectuals as people who have read deeply about a topic and have examined a large portion of the literature associated with it. They know all the concepts and they know how other people have explored it. The "intellectual" and "academic" aspect has to do with knowing the history of the topic, having explored a large portion of the literature and being able to make their own contribution to the topic by forming their own ideas. I think that's what "intellectualism" and "academia" is. It's being one of the best people "professing" on a particular subject and contributing to its evolution and its "library" of ideas.

As for "critical thinking," I see that term mentioned often but I've never really been given a satisfactory explanation of what it is. The best way I can think of understanding what it means is remembering my physics education. In physics, a "critical value," is the value at which the behaviour of an object, entity, substance or process changes. Some examples are the melting and boiling points of substances and the angle of total internal reflection in a medium.

So critical thinking might be about determining the implications of arguments. When do I support one side or the other? When is someone a terrorist or a vandal? How is George W. Bush different to Hitler? Is the media pro-Israel or anti-Israel? How are the armed forces of a country different to a terrorist organisation if they both train to kill people? Maybe critical thinking is about making comparisons and deciding which metaphors or analogies are more plausible. Use a carefully constructed argument and you can change someone's mind with it and avoid the usual generalisations and knee-jerk reactions.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:


The easiest way to avoid someone poking holes in your morals is to limit the scope of your morality.

1) Something bad happened
2) It made you angry
3) That's your motivation
4) Explain #1, #2 and #3 to the other person and it will be easier to get sympathy from others

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:


I don't think being intellectual means not being biased. Everybody is going to have their biases. "Intellectuals" are just better at articulating why they take a particular stance on an issue because they have examined the "melting pot" of ideas in depth.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 8:44pm:



Personally, I think of 'morales' as a religious word, and therefore flawed. I prefer to use the word 'ethics'. Are there 'good' ethical positions, and 'bad' ones? I think so. I think you can apply sensible lore/standards such as 'Harm none' and if your position doesn't meet those standards, it's flawed.

Yadda wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 10:45am:


Only because your views are the same as the admin. I saw what you did to politicalpuppet though.

SOB