batgirl wrote:
What if you have no peers?
Publish it, and 100 or more years later, when someone is going down the same path, they might stand on your shoulders to see a little further 
Fide sparks anger for ‘misogynistic’ deal
Sort:
Oct 8, 2021
0
#302
Regarding my own critical thinking skills, I started off life veering towards the sciences, worked in and studied engineering at degree level, then travelled a lot, and then much of my life became oriented towards selling things to people, so how they think is important. And, in the 1990s, I did a degree in philosophy, obtained very good results and then did further, informal research, approximately to masters level. In case anyone is unsure, a philosophy degree is ALL about "critical thinking skills".
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
I think the most important part of research is having your methodology peer reviewed.
I always thought that is irrelevant, if your research actually produces usefully measurable results. Peer review is nothing but a quick rubber stamp because one's academic peers won't specialise in one's subject and so will only pick up on absolutely glaring errors.
Oct 8, 2021
0
#305
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
llama47 wrote:
TCSPlayer wrote:
@Ilama47, I asked you how do you count? What is your source telling majority think masks are good?
Also if majority thinks eating shiit is good does it mean it is good?
Also if majority thinks eating shiit is good does it mean it is good?
This is not a serious line of questioning, so it's hard to respond to you seriously.
But for example, if a majority believes something then that doesn't prove something is true.
It also doesn't prove it's not true. A lot of right wing stuff in the US is just as thoughtless in its reactionary stances... a perfect example in the US being that liberals took COVID seriously, and for no other reason than that, conservatives decided to pretend it was a hoax.
And in case that wasn't clear enough for you... pretending something is a hoax because you saw it on TV is just as dumb as pretending something is true because you saw it on TV.
Just my .02 on this left and right beliefs.
The vast majority of the people i know that are liberal take the virus seriously. And by "seriously" i mean anywhere from yes there is a virus to Im gonna quit living because im scared to death. While the vast majority of the conservative people i know view the virus as everything from Yes there is a virus all the way to its a hoax.
And with most things, these views develop by watching one news source. If all you watch is cnn then you will have a different view from those that watch fox.
Do your own research people.
The problem with that advice is that most people are not trained in research methodology. If I may, and I mean no disrespect, what do you do for a living?
There is no reason to be "trained" in how to do your own thinking. If you have the internet, you have the tools to research things that are discussed about on all the different "news" outlets. The problem is people don't want to think, they want to be spoon fed information.
I don't know why i would be disrespected by you asking what i do for living? I have a job. I work for a living. What I do is irrelevant.
I'm not sure how you can know what you do for a living is irrelevant without knowing why I asked. I work with people's thinking for a living myself and, in my experience, people almost universally struggle distinguishing what they want to be true from what is true. My impression is that people generally overestimate their natural critical thinking skills, and need all the training in thinking they can get. So I was asking what you did for a living in an attempt to evaluate what expertise you may have to claim that there is "no need" for training in thinking. What evidence do you have to support that claim, other than just saying it is so?
My in a nutshell answer...
Again what I do job wise has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills.
So...how do I decide what is true when i watch the news? Easy!
I watch fox and i watch cnn. I know that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So if a story interests me or something doesn't seem right about what is being reported? I do my own research. As someone with conservative leanings i would love to just be able to trust whatever fox news tells me, but i know better than that.
Its like believing what a study/survey/poll states. The first 2 things i want to know is:
1. Who paid for it/supported it?
2. What were the demographics?
You can find plenty of "studies" that "prove" soda is not unhealthy. The problem is that those studies are paid by the same people that make soda.
I didn't ask you how you determine what's true. You do seem to enjoy talking about yourself. I presented my own evidence supportive of the idea that critical thinking requires training to become proficient in, and asked you your evidence in support of your position. All you have given is your assertions about things, as if that is what "evidence" means.
I gave you an explanation. Obviously you are under no obligation to agree with it or even like it.
Eric-2 wrote:
LeeEuler a écrit :
Personally see it no different than advertising makeup or hair replacement or diet pills.
Unfortunately, there is demand from the masses for products that change one's appearance, of which there are multiple options with varying degrees of invasiveness and risks. But that is not the fault of the group that is either providing or advertising the product.
Like the demand for drugs and tobacco and alcohol and junk food.
Of course the wild capitalist philosophy must prevail at all cost.
Greed is the new god.
It cannot be the fault of advertiser we all know that they are all honest,right!
A fellow critic!
IMBacon wrote:
"Well, yes they should but that isn't made any easier when they're brainwashed. "
The biggest thing people can do to avoid this is turn off the TV, and stay off the internet until you can function for yourself.
That won't help. How should someone learn in that case? So you're wrong.
Oct 8, 2021
0
#309
Eric-2 wrote:
IMBacon a écrit :
llama47 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
llama47 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
batgirl wrote:
llama47 wrote:
batgirl wrote:
DjVortex wrote:
And once again they don't care what the word "misogynist" actually means. They just throw it around because of its connotations, rather than whether its meaning actually fits or not.
I pretty much agree. I think this is more along the lines of objectifying women than some disdain for the ladies.. I really don't think people use the term misogynistic because they don't know the meaning since the meaning is pretty clear and well known., or because they're attempting some verbal legerdemain, but more likely because they can't think of a word that correctly fits what they're trying to express so they grab the nearest one available. So I believe it's more an error of convenience than one of intent of ignorance.
Looking at the article for their source
However, several female players, speaking to the popular site Lichess, believe the move is blunder. “Shouldn’t chess – a game reliant on brains rather than breasts – be distancing itself from that kind of reductive and misogynistic line of thinking?” one anonymous female player said.
In other words the reporter read it on the lichess forums. This seems extremely lazy. Am I the only one annoyed that they're pretending this is news? How much is this journalist paid?
I agree. It's definitely not Pulitzer Prize material.
Sadly that passes as "news" now.
I agree... I mean... it's not quite as harmful as pretending COVID is a hoax and promoting anti-mask and anti-vax views... but sure, it's not going to win a Pulitzer.
We will always have those that think everything is a hoax, and or conspiracy.
But we won't always have millionaires on TV giving those dumb, minority, and very much deadly views a megaphone, all for the sake of their personal wealth and political power.
Which is why i dont watch TV. I dont like information/opinion/lies/etc. being spoon fed to me. I like to research and form my own opinion.
I know people that do nothing but watch cnn and believe everything they report. Just like i know people that watch nothing but fox and believe everything they report. For the last couple of months i get a stationary bike at the gym so i can watch both of them. It sadly funny that supposedly well educated adults are paid to lie, give opinion, and bend the truth to fit their agenda, and people just go along with it.
Anyone who lie on CNN is fired! Anyone who lie on FOX get a raise!
Wake up!
This is what i am talking about.
Oct 8, 2021
0
#310
IMBacon wrote:
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
allgoodpeople23 wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
llama47 wrote:
TCSPlayer wrote:
@Ilama47, I asked you how do you count? What is your source telling majority think masks are good?
Also if majority thinks eating shiit is good does it mean it is good?
Also if majority thinks eating shiit is good does it mean it is good?
This is not a serious line of questioning, so it's hard to respond to you seriously.
But for example, if a majority believes something then that doesn't prove something is true.
It also doesn't prove it's not true. A lot of right wing stuff in the US is just as thoughtless in its reactionary stances... a perfect example in the US being that liberals took COVID seriously, and for no other reason than that, conservatives decided to pretend it was a hoax.
And in case that wasn't clear enough for you... pretending something is a hoax because you saw it on TV is just as dumb as pretending something is true because you saw it on TV.
Just my .02 on this left and right beliefs.
The vast majority of the people i know that are liberal take the virus seriously. And by "seriously" i mean anywhere from yes there is a virus to Im gonna quit living because im scared to death. While the vast majority of the conservative people i know view the virus as everything from Yes there is a virus all the way to its a hoax.
And with most things, these views develop by watching one news source. If all you watch is cnn then you will have a different view from those that watch fox.
Do your own research people.
The problem with that advice is that most people are not trained in research methodology. If I may, and I mean no disrespect, what do you do for a living?
There is no reason to be "trained" in how to do your own thinking. If you have the internet, you have the tools to research things that are discussed about on all the different "news" outlets. The problem is people don't want to think, they want to be spoon fed information.
I don't know why i would be disrespected by you asking what i do for living? I have a job. I work for a living. What I do is irrelevant.
I'm not sure how you can know what you do for a living is irrelevant without knowing why I asked. I work with people's thinking for a living myself and, in my experience, people almost universally struggle distinguishing what they want to be true from what is true. My impression is that people generally overestimate their natural critical thinking skills, and need all the training in thinking they can get. So I was asking what you did for a living in an attempt to evaluate what expertise you may have to claim that there is "no need" for training in thinking. What evidence do you have to support that claim, other than just saying it is so?
My in a nutshell answer...
Again what I do job wise has nothing to do with my critical thinking skills.
So...how do I decide what is true when i watch the news? Easy!
I watch fox and i watch cnn. I know that the truth is somewhere in the middle. So if a story interests me or something doesn't seem right about what is being reported? I do my own research. As someone with conservative leanings i would love to just be able to trust whatever fox news tells me, but i know better than that.
Its like believing what a study/survey/poll states. The first 2 things i want to know is:
1. Who paid for it/supported it?
2. What were the demographics?
You can find plenty of "studies" that "prove" soda is not unhealthy. The problem is that those studies are paid by the same people that make soda.
I didn't ask you how you determine what's true. You do seem to enjoy talking about yourself. I presented my own evidence supportive of the idea that critical thinking requires training to become proficient in, and asked you your evidence in support of your position. All you have given is your assertions about things, as if that is what "evidence" means.
I gave you an explanation. Obviously you are under no obligation to agree with it or even like it.
I don't like it or dislike it. It's just not what I asked you.
batgirl wrote:
What if you have no peers?
Er if your in the field you can get peer reviewed... and they don't necessarily have to agree with your ideas or whatever just that your "work" is enough of a thing so that it can be looked upon by other people regardless of the idea...
Still, more women than ever -- some 300% more than in 1992 -- are going under the knife to obtain larger>>
It ought to reinforce natural selection but they may be over the age for that.
Optimissed wrote:
Still, more women than ever -- some 300% more than in 1992 -- are going under the knife to obtain larger>>
It ought to reinforce natural selection but they may be over the age for that.
300% more than when?
What so special about 1992?
You were born that year?
I mean where were you in 1992?
Name me a top10 song, something...that you would say 30 years ago.
Good grief...can you imagine. The number of people on Facebook...30 years ago.
I tell you what there was more than 300% murder rate increase in Chicago.
But at least its not 1991 or 1993.
Oct 8, 2021
0
#314
IMBacon wrote:
I watch fox and i watch cnn. I know that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Wow. This is the fallacy of the middle ground. The answer if one person says 1 + 1 = 2 and another says 1 + 1 = 3, then the answer is the middle, 1 + 1 = 2.5.
Many people decry CNN as "liberal", but the truth is that CNN is slightly right on issues of defense and economics, and slightly left on social issues. It's only the far right who declare CNN as liberal, because their own baseline is "far right", which makes CNN appear "far left", when in reality, it is pretty central.
Oct 8, 2021
0
#315
People are probably going to hate me for saying this, but Al Jazeera is often more impartial and less biased than Fox News.
blueemu wrote:
People are probably going to hate me for saying this, but Al Jazeera is often more impartial and less biased than Fox News.
Hey I watched richard dawkins come on there a while back!
Anyhow I don't watch al jazeera... read some articles on the ethiopian civil war though
Oct 8, 2021
0
#318
It would be nice if people got this worked up over the dangers of tobacco and alcohol.
nighteyes1234 wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Still, more women than ever -- some 300% more than in 1992 -- are going under the knife to obtain larger>>
It ought to reinforce natural selection but they may be over the age for that.
300% more than when?
What so special about 1992?
You were born that year?
I mean where were you in 1992?
Name me a top10 song, something...that you would say 30 years ago.
Good grief...can you imagine. The number of people on Facebook...30 years ago.
I tell you what there was more than 300% murder rate increase in Chicago.
But at least its not 1991 or 1993.
More mad people now though. 500% increase.
Then you are unlikely to be able to do good research.