Topic: "Calling out racism on Richard Dawkins' website."

[Johnny Slick]

Wha? The "hardness" of modern physics, with string theory that can't be tested at all yet, much less tested with classic experimentation? I'm not about to call that "soft" or "pseudo" but let's be realistic here: not all of the so-called "hard" sciences are nearly as hard as folks make them out to be.

[goodthink]

All sciences are plastic. None of them are 'hard'.

[Lukas]

Wha? The "hardness" of modern physics, with string theory that can't be tested at all yet, much less tested with classic experimentation? I'm not about to call that "soft" or "pseudo" but let's be realistic here: not all of the so-called "hard" sciences are nearly as hard as folks make them out to be.

Strawman much? Physics has these concepts of testing and confirming or refuting theories. For now string theory is just hypothetical, and no serious physicists claims otherwise, even though some of them have high confidence in it. Take general relativity or the standard model instead, and compare it with any theory in the social sciences regarding accuracy of predictions.

[Citizen Skeptic]

Wha? The "hardness" of modern physics, with string theory that can't be tested at all yet, much less tested with classic experimentation? I'm not about to call that "soft" or "pseudo" but let's be realistic here: not all of the so-called "hard" sciences are nearly as hard as folks make them out to be.

Strawman much? Physics has these concepts of testing and confirming or refuting theories. For now string theory is just hypothetical, and no serious physicists claims otherwise, even though some of them have high confidence in it. Take general relativity or the standard model instead, and compare it with any theory in the social sciences regarding accuracy of predictions.

Yeah, I agree. Chemistry and biology make and prove some pretty hard claims too.

[Jeremy's Sea]

I'm not saying that there isn't a black or "African-American" culture or identity.  I'm just saying there's nothing specifically "African" about it...and it doesn't apply to someone simply based on the color of their skin or their location.

The "African" connection is that it involves the descendants of people who came from some part of Africa.

We all descend from people who came from Africa.

Oh, so it was called Africa when my ancestors came out?

I have no idea.  Neither do most people I know.  The average person in America can't name anyone in their family before their grandparents.

Well my point was it wasn't and you made a false equivalency between your situation and the situation of descendants of slaves.

First, how is it a false equivalency?

Second, how do you know I'm not a descendant of slaves?  I don't know that I was or wasn't...how can you?  However, if I had more melanin, I would be lumped in with people that were and be told that I share their culture....whether or not it was true.  As it is, I could easily be descendant from slaves and have been lumped in with rednecks instead...strictly based on melanin content.

You know we've been around the block on this shit before and your style on race discussions is about as dense as it gets. It points to your forced ignorance that you can equivocate the fact that you don't know who your grandparents are with the fact that black people in America may not be able to say for certain where in Africa they came from, even though they live with the legacy of slavery and you do not. The fact that your skin is white erases any legacy you may or may not have had in connection to slavery (including ownership), but if you were dark skinned and looked as if you may have come from Africa (whether you actually did or not) you would still be treated accordingly.
I'm sure you have some boneheaded comeback to absolve yourself and reassert your position that it shouldn't matter to other people who have to continuously live with the consequences because it doesn't matter to you, but you can save yourself the keystrokes because I'm done with intellectually dishonest people on this forum. Enjoy your post racial America. Oh wait you actually can indulge in that illusion because you're white. 

[Johnny Slick]

Wha? The "hardness" of modern physics, with string theory that can't be tested at all yet, much less tested with classic experimentation? I'm not about to call that "soft" or "pseudo" but let's be realistic here: not all of the so-called "hard" sciences are nearly as hard as folks make them out to be.

Strawman much? Physics has these concepts of testing and confirming or refuting theories. For now string theory is just hypothetical, and no serious physicists claims otherwise, even though some of them have high confidence in it. Take general relativity or the standard model instead, and compare it with any theory in the social sciences regarding accuracy of predictions.

"Hey, stop comparing the soft aspects of this science! Compare the hard aspects instead! That makes them harder!"

Look, my point here isn't that there are just as many avenues for classic experimentation with chemistry, for instance, as there are with sociology. That's clearly false. My point is that a. classic experimentation is hardly the only way to gather data, and b. the use of the terms "hard" and "soft" seem to be mostly tools for people not terribly familiar with the social sciences to talk of their inferiority. If my argument is a straw man, which I don't believe it is, your argument is post facto reasoning. You're starting out with things that chemistry and physics have in common and making those traits out to be empirically better than the ones that, for instance, sociology and economics have in common.

[Calinthalus]

(click to show/hide)

I'm not saying that there isn't a black or "African-American" culture or identity.  I'm just saying there's nothing specifically "African" about it...and it doesn't apply to someone simply based on the color of their skin or their location.

The "African" connection is that it involves the descendants of people who came from some part of Africa.

We all descend from people who came from Africa.

Oh, so it was called Africa when my ancestors came out?

I have no idea.  Neither do most people I know.  The average person in America can't name anyone in their family before their grandparents.

Well my point was it wasn't and you made a false equivalency between your situation and the situation of descendants of slaves.

First, how is it a false equivalency?

Second, how do you know I'm not a descendant of slaves?  I don't know that I was or wasn't...how can you?  However, if I had more melanin, I would be lumped in with people that were and be told that I share their culture....whether or not it was true.  As it is, I could easily be descendant from slaves and have been lumped in with rednecks instead...strictly based on melanin content.

You know we've been around the block on this shit before and your style on race discussions is about as dense as it gets. It points to your forced ignorance that you can equivocate the fact that you don't know who your grandparents are with the fact that black people in America may not be able to say for certain where in Africa they came from, even though they live with the legacy of slavery and you do not. The fact that your skin is white erases any legacy you may or may not have had in connection to slavery (including ownership), but if you were dark skinned and looked as if you may have come from Africa (whether you actually did or not) you would still be treated accordingly.
I'm sure you have some boneheaded comeback to absolve yourself and reassert your position that it shouldn't matter to other people who have to continuously live with the consequences because it doesn't matter to you, but you can save yourself the keystrokes because I'm done with intellectually dishonest people on this forum. Enjoy your post racial America. Oh wait you actually can indulge in that illusion because you're white. 

Straw Man.  I haven't said a damn word about how someone is treated based on their skin color.

 I said the assumption of culture based on someones skin color is wrong.  You can't assume someone who has dark skin was raised in a culture that you define as "black" or not.  Therefore, the label of "African-American", which is based solely on skin color, is a poor label.  That has nothing to do with racism or how someone is treated in modern America.

[Beη]

Wha? The "hardness" of modern physics, with string theory that can't be tested at all yet, much less tested with classic experimentation? I'm not about to call that "soft" or "pseudo" but let's be realistic here: not all of the so-called "hard" sciences are nearly as hard as folks make them out to be.

Strawman much? Physics has these concepts of testing and confirming or refuting theories. For now string theory is just hypothetical, and no serious physicists claims otherwise, even though some of them have high confidence in it. Take general relativity or the standard model instead, and compare it with any theory in the social sciences regarding accuracy of predictions.

"Hey, stop comparing the soft aspects of this science! Compare the hard aspects instead! That makes them harder!"

Look, my point here isn't that there are just as many avenues for classic experimentation with chemistry, for instance, as there are with sociology. That's clearly false. My point is that a. classic experimentation is hardly the only way to gather data, and b. the use of the terms "hard" and "soft" seem to be mostly tools for people not terribly familiar with the social sciences to talk of their inferiority. If my argument is a straw man, which I don't believe it is, your argument is post facto reasoning. You're starting out with things that chemistry and physics have in common and making those traits out to be empirically better than the ones that, for instance, sociology and economics have in common.

"Soft science" is not meant to imply inferiority.  A science is usually considered "hard" if it has easily quantifiable variables and if its experiments can be easily controlled, resulting in strong conclusions.  It's a continuum, with physics and chemistry definitely on the "hard" end.

Given this definition, your comment about string theory kind of misses the point, I think.

[azinyk]

As for my issue with the British Museum... come on. ... It has the Rosetta Stone in there as well and won't give that back to Egypt.

I actually think of the Rosetta Stone as a European artifact.  I mean, by Egyptian standards, it's a pretty prosaic object - not like a pyramid or a sphinx or something.  It was Europeans who realized its potential and then used it to decipher hieroglyphs.  To me, the stone represents the triumph of decoding a dead language, not the minutia of which ancient priests got to avoid taxes and how many days they should wear celebratory garlands.  The Egyptians had a nearly 2000-year head start, and the benefit of a lot more source material, but it was Europeans who figured out the hieroglyphs.  For that, their descendants deserve to display the rock.

[GodSlayer]

I dislike hate speech but I dislike muzzled speech even more. I think it is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater. If any harm comes from it, you pay the consequences. If no harm comes from it, you probably should just be thrown out. Are we going to make it illegal for someone to call me hispanic? I hate it when people do that.

what does "harm comes from it" mean? (think of the heckler's veto; think of radical Muslim responses to newspaper comic strips. does the speaker get any blame for the violence that happened in response to their words in this scenario of 'paying for the consequences'?)

[GodSlayer]

I also don't like the notion of "ethnic" societies or groups. How are those not racist?

I, for one, would love it if US cities had 'Englandtown', where everything was in metric, and you could buy Cadbury chocolate and fish n' chips.

is that racist of me?

[GodSlayer]

You can't assume someone who has dark skin was raised in a culture that you define as "black" or not.  Therefore, the label of "African-American", which is based solely on skin color, is a poor label.  That has nothing to do with racism or how someone is treated in modern America.

is there really a lot of racism/skincolorism in the US? I mean, like, the guy who shot the black teen would have been as keen to shoot a black cop? in other words, one guy being in law enforcement, the other being suspicious in as much as teens running around the neighbourhood is suspicious, is a negligible difference in their eyes?
are there people who really think more highly of some pale meth addict thief than Barack Obama? of a white atheist criminal than a black Christian preacher? etc.

when you say 'how someone is treated in modern America', how prevalent is this? I mean, again, suppose these two guys walk into a cinema or cafe or book store or whatever...

would it really be skin color rather than the cultural display* that influences the response they get?

*business suit, friendly face, vs. moody skinhead-looking thuggish urban culture appearance.

[GodSlayer]

"Soft science" is not meant to imply inferiority.  A science is usually considered "hard" if it has easily quantifiable variables and if its experiments can be easily controlled, resulting in strong conclusions.

so, it's not superior to be able to produce strong conclusions rather than merely perspectives/paradigms that may just be structurally bound rather than objectively reliable?

[GodSlayer]

As for my issue with the British Museum... come on. ... It has the Rosetta Stone in there as well and won't give that back to Egypt.

apparently they don't want to set a dangerous precedent. ...apparently the RS is but one in a string of their cultural crimes

[Caffiene]

so, it's not superior to be able to produce strong conclusions rather than merely perspectives/paradigms that may just be structurally bound rather than objectively reliable?

It is superior only if the strong conclusion and the weaker conclusion are in the same domain. If the two conclusions come from two different "types" of science then it would require some sort of objective value to be placed on those types before we can compare their worth. Without a comparison point of the value of the fields, you cant judge whether something is superior.