Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:18 pm

Can much of 'pseudoscience' (or alt if you prefer) meaningfully be divided into a liberal and conservative wing?

Since Conservatism has roots in Christianity and being more skeptical of government than big business: climate change skepticism, new world order conspiracies, exorcism, faith healing, prophesy, flat earth and young earth creationism would be part of the conservative wing, whereas, since liberalism, since at least the 1960s, at least in part, has taken root in the new age movement and is more skeptical of big business than government: alternative medicine, astrology, parapsychology, witchcraft, fairy lore, spiritualism and ufology would be part of the liberal wing.

I suppose some beliefs, like the Antediluvian period, cryptozoology and hollow earth, could go either way.

However, fascists and Nazis, who reject Christianity, would be more inclined to believe in the brand of pseudoscience liberals believe in.

Hitler himself was mired in the occult.

Of course fascists and Nazis would be the most inclined to 'anti-Semitic' conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific ideas about race.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:04 am

I've never pondered the eventualities stemming from mistrust of business vs government.

I'm not sure I see the mechanism that the skepticism of government causes theism, and the belief in faith healing, though the two seem to correlate.

And is Alex Jones selling alt medicine? Yeah because I looked into his Brainforce+ and found Bacopa to be the main ingredient, so bought a bottle of that for 10 bucks instead of whatever ridiculous price he's charging. I haven't tried it yet and I guess that's a measure of how well I expect it to work lol!

I don't think alt med correlates. I know too many christians into alt med or alt-anything really because of a general distrust of the elites. Actually, if there is any correlation, it's to the right since the only sort of person I can imagine who'd not be interested in alt-meds are the scientific types who are mostly liberals.

So, in the liberal category, we're left with "goofy religious beliefs".

Reminds me of an Alan Watts bit:

The sergeant would call out, “Catholics to the right, Protestants to the left, fancy religions in the middle."

https://books.google.com/books?id=AS6GA ... ht&f=false

Then he said "to the degree that intelligent people in our culture have any religion at all, it tends to be a fancy religion."
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:00 pm

Serendipper wrote:I don't think alt med correlates. I know too many christians into alt med or alt-anything really because of a general distrust of the elites. Actually, if there is any correlation, it's to the right since the only sort of person I can imagine who'd not be interested in alt-meds are the scientific types who are mostly liberals.
I came in contact with a lot of conservatives during a family members catastrophic illness who were into alt. med, some Christians. But you need to relook at this conflating convervatism with anti-science. The neo-cons are all over technology and science. There is the Christian right, and there is the rest of the right.

I would guess that more lefties, especially green ones and hippies are more open to alt. meds, but there is a strong rural tradition of keeping herbalism and other 'folk remedies'. And from what I noticed, I think conservatives, with less education, are more willing to try alternative approaches, especially when the mainstream med stuff does not work. Why? My guess is they have no fear of appearing fooling or gullible, while the educated liberal or conservative could die for their ego.



The sergeant would call out, “Catholics to the right, Protestants to the left, fancy religions in the middle."
I can't see how Catholicism is not a fancy religion. The Pope, the Vatican, eating and drinking Jesus, organs, confessions, weird processions and more. And I'd put Mexican Catholicism up against even the gaudier circuses the HIndus can put on. Not sure what Watts means here. Protestantism I get. And maybe he doesn't count Buddhism as a religion, but Zen, say, just don't seem that fancy to me. Shamans can put on a show, I suppose, but it's got nothing on the day of the dead.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 24, 2019 1:26 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I don't think alt med correlates. I know too many christians into alt med or alt-anything really because of a general distrust of the elites. Actually, if there is any correlation, it's to the right since the only sort of person I can imagine who'd not be interested in alt-meds are the scientific types who are mostly liberals.
I came in contact with a lot of conservatives during a family members catastrophic illness who were into alt. med, some Christians. But you need to relook at this conflating convervatism with anti-science. The neo-cons are all over technology and science. There is the Christian right, and there is the rest of the right.

Who are the neo-cons?

All I know are hillbillies and christians, except for dad who is neither. Dad was an AM radio junkie for at least 30 years, maybe more. Now he listens to AM radio online lol. Other than listening to people talking on mono, his favor thing is to sit in the shade devouring books. He always always always has a big thick book with him and even dated a library manager for a decade or two. He's also very good with mental arithmetic and generally strikes folks as intelligent. I don't think he believes in conspiracy theories, but he's very distrustful of the government, pharma, and doctors. But dad doesn't represent any stereotype I can conceive, except AM radio junkie or Dittohead. He likes the city and is in no way religious, so he doesn't fit. But the fact that dad is an exception to my own generalization isn't going to deter me because I'm bombarded by the other two varieties, who I think warrant particular focus in order to exhibit the lack of justification for their arrogance.

Kid Rock said "it ain't bragging if you back it up." I disagree, but it's somehow worse if we can't even back it up. What I want to know is, for instance, why someone would have an opinion on climate change if they don't understand the underlying physics? The problem with appeals to authority is that one must be an authority to judge an authority, so how is anyone qualified to pick sides in a climate debate? It's like choosing a favorite football team.

Same with economics. The minimum wage has been raised 21 times in 80 years and each time the newspapers filled with concerns that the sky would fall and yet, nothing but more jobs created and much more prosperity resulted. Then some guy with nothing more than a high school education, probably with no particular distinction, mediocre grades, and no specific reason to suspect he may be any smarter than any of his peers; and on top of that, never even being in the same room with an economics book, starts threads and leaves comments asserting with as much braggadocio as he can muster regarding the stupidity of the minimum wage. On what are these people predicating their arrogance?

As far as I can tell, it's prerequisite of conservatism to regard Paul Krugman as an idiot. Nobel laureate and author of textbooks. Where do they get their balls?

Found this on zerohedge:

republicans1.jpg
republicans1.jpg (41.35 KiB) Viewed 6798 times


I would guess that more lefties, especially green ones and hippies are more open to alt. meds, but there is a strong rural tradition of keeping herbalism and other 'folk remedies'. And from what I noticed, I think conservatives, with less education, are more willing to try alternative approaches, especially when the mainstream med stuff does not work. Why? My guess is they have no fear of appearing fooling or gullible, while the educated liberal or conservative could die for their ego.

You associate education with ego? I was going the other way with it.

The sergeant would call out, “Catholics to the right, Protestants to the left, fancy religions in the middle."
I can't see how Catholicism is not a fancy religion. The Pope, the Vatican, eating and drinking Jesus, organs, confessions, weird processions and more. And I'd put Mexican Catholicism up against even the gaudier circuses the HIndus can put on. Not sure what Watts means here. Protestantism I get. And maybe he doesn't count Buddhism as a religion, but Zen, say, just don't seem that fancy to me. Shamans can put on a show, I suppose, but it's got nothing on the day of the dead.

Those were the two most popular religions in the UK, so his point was that the smart people are usually found outside the herd, practicing the fancy religions.

It's like republicans, democrats, and the fancy party (independents). Independents are usually smarter.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:31 pm

Serendipper wrote:Who are the neo-cons?
Their public face is people like Kissinger and Cheney. Project for a New Century was one think tank of theirs.

All I know are hillbillies and christians, except for dad who is neither. Dad was an AM radio junkie for at least 30 years, maybe more. Now he listens to AM radio online lol. Other than listening to people talking on mono, his favor thing is to sit in the shade devouring books. He always always always has a big thick book with him and even dated a library manager for a decade or two. He's also very good with mental arithmetic and generally strikes folks as intelligent. I don't think he believes in conspiracy theories, but he's very distrustful of the government, pharma, and doctors. But dad doesn't represent any stereotype I can conceive, except AM radio junkie or Dittohead. He likes the city and is in no way religious, so he doesn't fit. But the fact that dad is an exception to my own generalization isn't going to deter me because I'm bombarded by the other two varieties, who I think warrant particular focus in order to exhibit the lack of justification for their arrogance.
I don't know what your dad is, but the neo-cons use people like him, just as they use the Christian right.

Kid Rock said "it ain't bragging if you back it up." I disagree, but it's somehow worse if we can't even back it up. What I want to know is, for instance, why someone would have an opinion on climate change if they don't understand the underlying physics? The problem with appeals to authority is that one must be an authority to judge an authority, so how is anyone qualified to pick sides in a climate debate? It's like choosing a favorite football team.
Sure, most people are gut choosing their teams.

As far as I can tell, it's prerequisite of conservatism to regard Paul Krugman as an idiot. Nobel laureate and author of textbooks. Where do they get their balls?


You associate education with ego? I was going the other way with it.
I associate education with have certain specific kinds of ego fears. The last thing they want to admit is they followed their gut or went against scientific or expert knowledge. Mainstream expert knowledge. I think there egos are more hinged to that. Conservatives - each of the various kinds - will have their own ego fears, but I think educated people and perhaps liberals are expert lovers and think rationality is hinged on following experts. And they experts. If experts are wrong - and since experts disagree this has to happen - it calls into question their own heuristics and expertise.

Those were the two most popular religions in the UK, so his point was that the smart people are usually found outside the herd, practicing the fancy religions.

It's like republicans, democrats, and the fancy party (independents). Independents are usually smarter.
OK, I took 'fancy' too literally. I do think that the independents will include a higher percentage of the people (per capita) with either better intuition or higher intelligence or both, but the word 'include' must be stressed. We all have seen hordes of alternative morons.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:22 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
You associate education with ego? I was going the other way with it.
I associate education with have certain specific kinds of ego fears. The last thing they want to admit is they followed their gut or went against scientific or expert knowledge. Mainstream expert knowledge. I think there egos are more hinged to that. Conservatives - each of the various kinds - will have their own ego fears, but I think educated people and perhaps liberals are expert lovers and think rationality is hinged on following experts. And they experts. If experts are wrong - and since experts disagree this has to happen - it calls into question their own heuristics and expertise.

I'll concede there are educated dogmatists who accept scientific fashion like scripture. They were probably the studious kids in school whose parents made them study, so they have the education, but might not be any smarter than average. They're followers by nature: they obey parents, school rules, and want to do what is expected of them.

To shake off the ego, I think one has to leave the realm of the amygdala and venture into structures that haven't been part of evolutionary history for quite as long.

Reminds me of this youtube comment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9R6jgE7SQ

Eric Ling
An honest person asks to be corrected about a wrong assumption.
An idiot is offended by being corrected about a wrong assumption.
1 month ago
682 upvotes


Most idiots could be smarter if they didn't already know everything. I'm not even sure stupidity exists, but is arrogance instead.

Max Planck said science progresses funeral by funeral and he was talking about scientists being unable to change their minds.

Here is the full context:

Planck’s book “Wissenschaftliche Selbstbiographie” appeared in German in 1948, the year after his death. A translation by Frank Gaynor titled “A Scientific Autobiography” appeared in 1949. Planck discussed the opposition to novel scientific theories:

"This experience gave me also an opportunity to learn a fact-a remarkable one, in my opinion: 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."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/25/progress/

And

In the future, employers may well begin to start testing these abilities in place of IQ; Google has already announced that it plans to screen candidates for qualities like intellectual humility, rather than sheer cognitive prowess. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015041 ... ing-clever
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:37 am

Serendipper wrote:I'll concede there are educated dogmatists who accept scientific fashion like scripture.
I would say this is the norm.
When I did alternative medicine for a very serious disease and stopped with the conventional, I got most of the shit from very well educated liberals. That's one example amongst many.

But, again, that's their blindspot, or one of them. Less educated have others. Perhaps more. But they ain't running the world. My problems are mainly with education, highly intelligent morons.


They were probably the studious kids in school whose parents made them study, so they have the education, but might not be any smarter than average. They're followers by nature: they obey parents, school rules, and want to do what is expected of them.
I have similar issues with the ones who up in the high percentiles also.

It's a group, with a paradigm, or set of paradigms, and these are religiously clung to.

To shake off the ego, I think one has to leave the realm of the amygdala and venture into structures that haven't been part of evolutionary history for quite as long.
I have precisely the opposite approach. The thinky bits of the brain, work with words, have too much faith in deduction. It's not like I let the amygdala decide everything. But I set that mother free, so the thinky parts are INFORMED by my whole life and all my intuition. The thinky parts have been trained to think they don't need the amygdala to think. Oops.

Most idiots could be smarter if they didn't already know everything. I'm not even sure stupidity exists, but is arrogance instead.

Max Planck said science progresses funeral by funeral and he was talking about scientists being unable to change their minds.
Yes, and that includes the smart ones.

In the future, employers may well begin to start testing these abilities in place of IQ; Google has already announced that it plans to screen candidates for qualities like intellectual humility, rather than sheer cognitive prowess. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015041 ... ing-clever
[/quote]A good idea, but they'll produce some kind of test, because their own intuitive systems are so damaged, they need to make a test. Of course some parts of their intuition are still functioning, don't get me wrong. Coding takes creative leaps. But so many other types of intuition they have shortcircuited.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Sun Jan 27, 2019 3:04 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I'll concede there are educated dogmatists who accept scientific fashion like scripture.
I would say this is the norm.
When I did alternative medicine for a very serious disease and stopped with the conventional, I got most of the shit from very well educated liberals. That's one example amongst many.

But, again, that's their blindspot, or one of them. Less educated have others. Perhaps more. But they ain't running the world. My problems are mainly with education, highly intelligent morons.

Ok, I'll agree with you there. I used to carry that flag, but I'm on a different crusade now and once the victory is behind me, I'll return to focus on my former enemies, no doubt. Doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/me ... _in_the_us And I'll probably never go to another vet unless I know the person personally because I'm assuming they're all too dumb to be a real doctor, not like that's saying much.

My mission now requires I ignore all that for the time being and I'll worry about women in power and educated idiots later after we've secured a decent standard of living for the poor. First things first.

They were probably the studious kids in school whose parents made them study, so they have the education, but might not be any smarter than average. They're followers by nature: they obey parents, school rules, and want to do what is expected of them.
I have similar issues with the ones who up in the high percentiles also.

It's a group, with a paradigm, or set of paradigms, and these are religiously clung to.

I know what you mean.

To shake off the ego, I think one has to leave the realm of the amygdala and venture into structures that haven't been part of evolutionary history for quite as long.
I have precisely the opposite approach. The thinky bits of the brain, work with words, have too much faith in deduction. It's not like I let the amygdala decide everything. But I set that mother free, so the thinky parts are INFORMED by my whole life and all my intuition. The thinky parts have been trained to think they don't need the amygdala to think. Oops.

The thinky parts include subgroups as well. I've noticed folks who are excellent in language usually aren't that bright otherwise, but their language ability is intimidating, so they push people around that way. My hillbilly friend calls them "well-read" as a denigration. There is something to that. One part of the brain sucks up resources from the others and we get various flavors of idiot savants who are good at one particular thing, but near retarded in other ways.

There are at least 9 types of intelligence https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-inte ... fographic/

In my Creativity and Problem Solving class in college, we took a test which mapped our ability in 4 quadrants: logical (A), organized (B), spiritual (C), creative (D). Mine looked like a kite since I did well in A and D, but not so well in B and C. The professor said ceos often do equally well in each without doing exceptionally well in any, so they are the square shapes (not kites).

Here it is http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Herrmann.htm
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 5:13 am

@Serendipper

I've never pondered the eventualities stemming from mistrust of business vs government.

I'm not sure I see the mechanism that the skepticism of government causes theism, and the belief in faith healing, though the two seem to correlate.

People got to worship something I guess, if not God, than celebrities, science, technology, laws or the state.

And is Alex Jones selling alt medicine? Yeah because I looked into his Brainforce+ and found Bacopa to be the main ingredient, so bought a bottle of that for 10 bucks instead of whatever ridiculous price he's charging. I haven't tried it yet and I guess that's a measure of how well I expect it to work lol!

I think most of that stuff is bunk.

Just eat a variety of whole foods, exercise your body, mind and reduce stress and exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

I don't think alt med correlates. I know too many christians into alt med or alt-anything really because of a general distrust of the elites. Actually, if there is any correlation, it's to the right since the only sort of person I can imagine who'd not be interested in alt-meds are the scientific types who are mostly liberals.

Right, like Karpal said, both alt right and alt left hillbillies, hippies and conspiracy theorists buy into alt med.

So, in the liberal category, we're left with "goofy religious beliefs".

There's some pretty goofy beliefs about gender, race, iQ and personality differences having little-no basis in biology circulating among liberals as well, that all culture is equal, that people are altruistic, that it's the institutions alone that make us selfish.

Again, if conservatives and libertarians are paranoid, liberals prefer to see everything through a rose colored prism.

Reminds me of an Alan Watts bit:

The sergeant would call out, “Catholics to the right, Protestants to the left, fancy religions in the middle."

https://books.google.com/books?id=AS6GA ... ht&f=false

Then he said "to the degree that intelligent people in our culture have any religion at all, it tends to be a fancy religion."

Yea, Alan Watts preferred the fun, extravagant religions to the dour, puritanical ones.

If you're going to believe a bunch of bullshit, it might as well be fun bullshit *shrugs.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:41 am

@Serendipper

I've never pondered the eventualities stemming from mistrust of business vs government.

I'm not sure I see the mechanism that the skepticism of government causes theism, and the belief in faith healing, though the two seem to correlate.

I would think that theism is an authority that is not the state. If you have authorities that are not the state, you are likely to be critical of the state, unless you live in a theocracy. You will also see a tension between scripture or God and the state. Governments are run on compromises, even dictatorships. Now, you can be a theist and believe in compromise, but generally the organized religion theists are deontological and absolutist (at least about something).
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Jan 29, 2019 11:51 am

Serendipper wrote:The thinky parts include subgroups as well. I've noticed folks who are excellent in language usually aren't that bright otherwise, but their language ability is intimidating, so they push people around that way.
Sure. And there can be people like, shit, that guy no longer at Fox News who was a real bully. He combined emotional intelligence - how to push people's buttons, how to indicate status - with some language ability. That combination is deadly. Especially if you are close to - in both senses - the control room.

My hillbilly friend calls them "well-read" as a denigration. There is something to that. One part of the brain sucks up resources from the others and we get various flavors of idiot savants who are good at one particular thing, but near retarded in other ways.
I think the general denigration of intuition by the educated is a problem. They use it, but they often don't want to admit it. So when they face it in others, they condescend to it.



In my Creativity and Problem Solving class in college, we took a test which mapped our ability in 4 quadrants: logical (A), organized (B), spiritual (C), creative (D). Mine looked like a kite since I did well in A and D, but not so well in B and C. The professor said ceos often do equally well in each without doing exceptionally well in any, so they are the square shapes (not kites).
C is probably my strongest. I am not organized. Here's a funny story. I got a personality test type thing around personality qualities. It was a list of about 100 positive traits. I was supposed to pick out 10 and get a friend and a family member to check off my top ten as they saw it.

My wife misunderstood the task - a cross language messup - and she just checked everything that fit me. Well, before I noticed the problem she had already checked everything in the first couple of columns - 50 items - except a word meaning both 'thorough' and 'organized'. The psychologist looking at the test paper, saw that and laughed. She got a great bit of insight into me from that misunderstanding. I can be logical, but I vastly prefer lateral thinking. Spiritual, well, not by the usual standards, but who knows. That seems like an odd four categories. I feel like either spiritual should be left out or many other categories should come in.

Good to see Watts is working on your weak areas.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:52 pm

Not only do Christians worship their God, an authority outside of the state, but Christians are explicitly warned to be very skeptical of the state.

I mean Jews were persecuted by the largest states of their day: the Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek states, and both Jews and Christians were persecuted by Rome, their messiah himself was crucified by them.

There's all sorts of talk in the bible about how men are sinful by nature, and that God has given them over to the devil and their wickedness.

The bible is full of conspiracy theories about how the anti-Christ and false prophet will deceive and unite the nations of the world against Christians.

While Jews were very religious, and religion is often used to justify the state, because they were often persecuted wherever they wandered and cynical about humanity, this gave their religion a sort of anti-authoritarian bent most religions didn't really have.

Being a small, but ultra-clannish, religious and stubborn people who refused to assimilate, made them antagonistic to the world and the powers within it.

It's very peculiar how this little, eccentric people's religion became universalized and spread all over the world to become the world's largest, and retained its cynicism.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:52 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

I've never pondered the eventualities stemming from mistrust of business vs government.

I'm not sure I see the mechanism that the skepticism of government causes theism, and the belief in faith healing, though the two seem to correlate.

People got to worship something I guess, if not God, than celebrities, science, technology, laws or the state.

Appeal to Bob Dylan eh? Gotta Serve Somebody lol

https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/gotta-serve-somebody/

And is Alex Jones selling alt medicine? Yeah because I looked into his Brainforce+ and found Bacopa to be the main ingredient, so bought a bottle of that for 10 bucks instead of whatever ridiculous price he's charging. I haven't tried it yet and I guess that's a measure of how well I expect it to work lol!

I think most of that stuff is bunk.

Just eat a variety of whole foods, exercise your body, mind and reduce stress and exposure to electromagnetic radiation.

We need electromagnetic radiation to live.

I don't think alt med correlates. I know too many christians into alt med or alt-anything really because of a general distrust of the elites. Actually, if there is any correlation, it's to the right since the only sort of person I can imagine who'd not be interested in alt-meds are the scientific types who are mostly liberals.

Right, like Karpal said, both alt right and alt left hillbillies, hippies and conspiracy theorists buy into alt med.

Ok but who does not? I can only think of the scientific types who shun what isn't supported by science and they are liberals.

So, in the liberal category, we're left with "goofy religious beliefs".

There's some pretty goofy beliefs about gender, race, iQ and personality differences having little-no basis in biology circulating among liberals as well, that all culture is equal, that people are altruistic, that it's the institutions alone that make us selfish.

Goofy beliefs go hand in hand with goofy beliefs I guess.

Again, if conservatives and libertarians are paranoid, liberals prefer to see everything through a rose colored prism.

I guess so.

Reminds me of an Alan Watts bit:

The sergeant would call out, “Catholics to the right, Protestants to the left, fancy religions in the middle."

https://books.google.com/books?id=AS6GA ... ht&f=false

Then he said "to the degree that intelligent people in our culture have any religion at all, it tends to be a fancy religion."

Yea, Alan Watts preferred the fun, extravagant religions to the dour, puritanical ones.

If you're going to believe a bunch of bullshit, it might as well be fun bullshit *shrugs.

Well, fun doesn't have a purpose and therefore isn't righteous. So the more fun a religion, the less it seeks to accomplish anything and the less harmful it can be.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 4:47 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:The thinky parts include subgroups as well. I've noticed folks who are excellent in language usually aren't that bright otherwise, but their language ability is intimidating, so they push people around that way.
Sure. And there can be people like, shit, that guy no longer at Fox News who was a real bully. He combined emotional intelligence - how to push people's buttons, how to indicate status - with some language ability. That combination is deadly. Especially if you are close to - in both senses - the control room.

My hillbilly friend calls them "well-read" as a denigration. There is something to that. One part of the brain sucks up resources from the others and we get various flavors of idiot savants who are good at one particular thing, but near retarded in other ways.
I think the general denigration of intuition by the educated is a problem. They use it, but they often don't want to admit it. So when they face it in others, they condescend to it.

But can't intuition be used to underpin anything? Matt Dillahunty's point about faith is that it's not a reliable guide since faith can be used to substantiate anything. Intuition seems similar.

My deer hunter friend has some remarkable intuition and seems to operate on it exclusively (since, being poor, he didn't go far in school and doesn't have much else to go on). Two of us thought the neighbor had killed the lame buck he was after, but he said "I just don't feel like they shot that buck." Sure enough, a month later he killed the buck himself. Then a cat I haven't seen in 2 years suddenly returned and hung around for a while, but then vanished on the same day as buzzards are flying around and I caught a coyote on the trail cam. He said "I just don't feel like a coyote got your cat." Sure enough, the cat returned. It could be coincidental, but maybe not and after 65 years of life I'd figure he knows what works and what doesn't.

I've also read research into women's intuition, but they chalk it up to subconscious processing. However, my friend seems to be consulting a divine continuum or something. I won't disregard it, but can we really allow intuition in science? "All the evidence is pointing this way, but I feel like the evidence is wrong." Is that a valid objection?

In my Creativity and Problem Solving class in college, we took a test which mapped our ability in 4 quadrants: logical (A), organized (B), spiritual (C), creative (D). Mine looked like a kite since I did well in A and D, but not so well in B and C. The professor said ceos often do equally well in each without doing exceptionally well in any, so they are the square shapes (not kites).
C is probably my strongest. I am not organized. Here's a funny story. I got a personality test type thing around personality qualities. It was a list of about 100 positive traits. I was supposed to pick out 10 and get a friend and a family member to check off my top ten as they saw it.

My wife misunderstood the task - a cross language messup - and she just checked everything that fit me. Well, before I noticed the problem she had already checked everything in the first couple of columns - 50 items - except a word meaning both 'thorough' and 'organized'. The psychologist looking at the test paper, saw that and laughed. She got a great bit of insight into me from that misunderstanding. I can be logical, but I vastly prefer lateral thinking. Spiritual, well, not by the usual standards, but who knows. That seems like an odd four categories. I feel like either spiritual should be left out or many other categories should come in.

Good to see Watts is working on your weak areas.

Yes, I'm trying to become more like a square lol

I actually am organized, but it appears as clutter to anyone else. All my computers are crammed full and my desktops are filled with icons, but I can find anything I want to find, it just appears disorganized because it isn't filed away neatly. I've been meaning to find time to organize everything, but I've been meaning to do that for years and just can't seem to get to it. I'd rather come here and talk than do that. And I have so many webpages open and open for so long that the memory eventually fills up which requires a restart. Luckily chrome remembers everything, even the text I type in here. I actually have a post half-constructed to Gloominary from months ago still sitting there and each time I restart, it comes back with the text I typed.

Organization seems to me too much like worrying about appearance which is egoic I think. As with language because why must I know all sorts of fancy words unless it be to impress someone, so I never paid much attention in school to vocabulary and writing. Little did I know the internet would require me not to seem like a bumpkin lol, so now I have to catch up :techie-studyingbrown:

And the category of C is more than just spiritual. That's just how I remember it. Check the link http://www.kheper.net/topics/intelligence/Herrmann.htm

And I cohabited with a woman who nurtured compulsions to "hide everything" in drawers, nooks, crannies, cubbyholes just to maintain appearance in case someone came by who would give a shit. Consequently, we could never find anything and her solution was to buy another. So we had like 10 staplers. Organization sacrificed on the altar of vanity. Anyway, we were diametrically opposed and after she moved out, I was finding things for years that I hadn't seen in years. After which I formulated theories of "form over function" and "function over form" types of people only to later discover it was about the ego.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 5:13 am

Gloominary wrote:Not only do Christians worship their God, an authority outside of the state, but Christians are explicitly warned to be very skeptical of the state.

I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

Jesus' opinion:

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Paul's opinion:

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Peter's opinion:

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Jesus said:

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

In other words, stfu and be humble as the dirt you're made of.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How can one fight the gov in observance of that?

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

How does hating on welfare jibe with that?

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There is no ambiguity about it.

Ghandi said "I like you christ but not your christians." They're the most hypocritical bunch who flatter themselves for a religion they don't even practice.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:45 am

Serendipper wrote:But can't intuition be used to underpin anything? Matt Dillahunty's point about faith is that it's not a reliable guide since faith can be used to substantiate anything. Intuition seems similar.
A couple of responses: 1) even if this is the case, there is no avoiding intution. There is no pure deduction, no pure empirical research. As corporeal, limited perspective beings in time, we always use intuition in all our work and processes. And we all wake up in the morning with intuitive guesses about how good our memory is, how well we thought through X and so on. And very rational analysis has hundreds of microsteps using intuition. Shit, just think about all the intuition about semantic issues you and I are depending on in this interaction. 2) Some people simply have better intuitions about specific issues (and even in general) and this can be measured. Some detectives will get gut feelings that are more dependible than others. You can measure this shit. Psychologists, gamblers, animal trainers, teachers...you can measure intuitive abilities in many fields.

My deer hunter friend has some remarkable intuition and seems to operate on it exclusively (since, being poor, he didn't go far in school and doesn't have much else to go on). Two of us thought the neighbor had killed the lame buck he was after, but he said "I just don't feel like they shot that buck." Sure enough, a month later he killed the buck himself. Then a cat I haven't seen in 2 years suddenly returned and hung around for a while, but then vanished on the same day as buzzards are flying around and I caught a coyote on the trail cam. He said "I just don't feel like a coyote got your cat." Sure enough, the cat returned. It could be coincidental, but maybe not and after 65 years of life I'd figure he knows what works and what doesn't.
Right, he may have an intuitive skill related to animals.

I've also read research into women's intuition, but they chalk it up to subconscious processing.
I black box it and I don't care, in regard to the issues here, what it is.
However, my friend seems to be consulting a divine continuum or something. I won't disregard it, but can we really allow intuition in science? "All the evidence is pointing this way, but I feel like the evidence is wrong." Is that a valid objection?
1) intuition is already in science. And the better scientists are better at it. They are betting at choosing ripe lines of reseach. It is used in problem solving protocols...and I could go on. But here you are concerned about collective conclusions. Should we throw away the results of research because of someone's gut feeling. I haven't suggested anything like that.

What one could do as a base is not assume that if something is not accpeted by consensus science it isn't true. The educated classes (in an inconsistant and often arbritrary way) dismiss things they should be agnostic about, becuase they act like science is complete, like there are no paradigmatic blind spots and they know this, that they themelves never use intution or believe in things based on non-empirical processes and so on. It's like a kind of class issues, where the rich thing the poor are all morons, but it's not really a class issue, since these attitudes and assumptions can relate to anyone deemed irrational.


Yes, I'm trying to become more like a square lol
In my own way I am working on this also.

I actually am organized, but it appears as clutter to anyone else. All my computers are crammed full and my desktops are filled with icons, but I can find anything I want to find, it just appears disorganized because it isn't filed away neatly. I've been meaning to find time to organize everything, but I've been meaning to do that for years and just can't seem to get to it. I'd rather come here and talk than do that. And I have so many webpages open and open for so long that the memory eventually fills up which requires a restart. Luckily chrome remembers everything, even the text I type in here. I actually have a post half-constructed to Gloominary from months ago still sitting there and each time I restart, it comes back with the text I typed.
I just read someone saying clutter was a sign of some positive trait. Can't remember the someone or the trait, but it was a bit of solace.

And I cohabited with a woman who nurtured compulsions to "hide everything" in drawers, nooks, crannies, cubbyholes just to maintain appearance in case someone came by who would give a shit. Consequently, we could never find anything and her solution was to buy another. So we had like 10 staplers. Organization sacrificed on the altar of vanity. Anyway, we were diametrically opposed and after she moved out, I was finding things for years that I hadn't seen in years. After which I formulated theories of "form over function" and "function over form" types of people only to later discover it was about the ego.
I think one could make the case that she was neat but not well organized.

Organization is very useful. And I sympathize with your urge to denigrate it, since I am not strong on that. But I want my surgeon and my bureaucrat organized and anal. I'm just not like them and I can't help looking down on them, especially if they are assholes.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:40 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:But can't intuition be used to underpin anything? Matt Dillahunty's point about faith is that it's not a reliable guide since faith can be used to substantiate anything. Intuition seems similar.
A couple of responses: 1) even if this is the case, there is no avoiding intution. There is no pure deduction, no pure empirical research.

Yes that's Watts' point too. He says we take all the variables into account that we can for as long as we can and when the time comes to make a decision, we make a snap judgment. That means we stress and stress looking for certainty and we end up guessing anyway.

As corporeal, limited perspective beings in time, we always use intuition in all our work and processes. And we all wake up in the morning with intuitive guesses about how good our memory is, how well we thought through X and so on. And very rational analysis has hundreds of microsteps using intuition. Shit, just think about all the intuition about semantic issues you and I are depending on in this interaction. 2) Some people simply have better intuitions about specific issues (and even in general) and this can be measured. Some detectives will get gut feelings that are more dependible than others. You can measure this shit. Psychologists, gamblers, animal trainers, teachers...you can measure intuitive abilities in many fields.

Yep, you're onto something. Pursue it!

My deer hunter friend has some remarkable intuition and seems to operate on it exclusively (since, being poor, he didn't go far in school and doesn't have much else to go on). Two of us thought the neighbor had killed the lame buck he was after, but he said "I just don't feel like they shot that buck." Sure enough, a month later he killed the buck himself. Then a cat I haven't seen in 2 years suddenly returned and hung around for a while, but then vanished on the same day as buzzards are flying around and I caught a coyote on the trail cam. He said "I just don't feel like a coyote got your cat." Sure enough, the cat returned. It could be coincidental, but maybe not and after 65 years of life I'd figure he knows what works and what doesn't.
Right, he may have an intuitive skill related to animals.

I think he applies it to everything. He developed skills of survival that were not taught in school. Alan says to go into the woods and stop putting labels and words on thoughts. My friend could be doing that naturally because he doesn't know the words in the first place or how to articulate how he knows something.

Researchers wanted Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley to take LSD because they were the best equipped humans to describe what they experienced. Most people can't put words to it, but they still have the experience. Maybe that's intuition.

I've also read research into women's intuition, but they chalk it up to subconscious processing.
I black box it and I don't care, in regard to the issues here, what it is.
However, my friend seems to be consulting a divine continuum or something. I won't disregard it, but can we really allow intuition in science? "All the evidence is pointing this way, but I feel like the evidence is wrong." Is that a valid objection?
1) intuition is already in science. And the better scientists are better at it. They are betting at choosing ripe lines of reseach. It is used in problem solving protocols...and I could go on. But here you are concerned about collective conclusions. Should we throw away the results of research because of someone's gut feeling. I haven't suggested anything like that.

I see what you mean now.

What one could do as a base is not assume that if something is not accpeted by consensus science it isn't true. The educated classes (in an inconsistant and often arbritrary way) dismiss things they should be agnostic about, becuase they act like science is complete, like there are no paradigmatic blind spots and they know this, that they themelves never use intution or believe in things based on non-empirical processes and so on. It's like a kind of class issues, where the rich thing the poor are all morons, but it's not really a class issue, since these attitudes and assumptions can relate to anyone deemed irrational.

I think they are coming around though. We have published research claiming most publish research is wrong. And there's something new going on about publishing mistakes and being proud of them.

Yes, I'm trying to become more like a square lol
In my own way I am working on this also.

The zen of self-improvement lol. Now that's a book that needs written :)

I actually am organized, but it appears as clutter to anyone else. All my computers are crammed full and my desktops are filled with icons, but I can find anything I want to find, it just appears disorganized because it isn't filed away neatly. I've been meaning to find time to organize everything, but I've been meaning to do that for years and just can't seem to get to it. I'd rather come here and talk than do that. And I have so many webpages open and open for so long that the memory eventually fills up which requires a restart. Luckily chrome remembers everything, even the text I type in here. I actually have a post half-constructed to Gloominary from months ago still sitting there and each time I restart, it comes back with the text I typed.
I just read someone saying clutter was a sign of some positive trait. Can't remember the someone or the trait, but it was a bit of solace.

The positive trait mentioned was probably not memory lol

And I cohabited with a woman who nurtured compulsions to "hide everything" in drawers, nooks, crannies, cubbyholes just to maintain appearance in case someone came by who would give a shit. Consequently, we could never find anything and her solution was to buy another. So we had like 10 staplers. Organization sacrificed on the altar of vanity. Anyway, we were diametrically opposed and after she moved out, I was finding things for years that I hadn't seen in years. After which I formulated theories of "form over function" and "function over form" types of people only to later discover it was about the ego.
I think one could make the case that she was neat but not well organized.

That's putting it mildly.

Organization is very useful. And I sympathize with your urge to denigrate it, since I am not strong on that. But I want my surgeon and my bureaucrat organized and anal. I'm just not like them and I can't help looking down on them, especially if they are assholes.

Well there's a difference in organization and narcissism.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:02 am

Serendipper wrote:
Yes that's Watts' point too. He says we take all the variables into account that we can for as long as we can and when the time comes to make a decision, we make a snap judgment. That means we stress and stress looking for certainty and we end up guessing anyway.
In an ultimate sense, sure. Though I wouldn't generally go that far. IOW we don't experience it this way. There are some decisions where analysis really helps - I know this via intuition, ha. Some not.
Yep, you're onto something. Pursue it!
Malcolm Gladwell already did a nice overview job of it.

I think he applies it to everything. He developed skills of survival that were not taught in school. Alan says to go into the woods and stop putting labels and words on thoughts. My friend could be doing that naturally because he doesn't know the words in the first place or how to articulate how he knows something.
Sure. The educated classes conflate learning with sitting in classrooms. Look at Iamb. He wants people to prove stuff to him - things that involve paradigmatic shifts - via posts made of words online. No experiential component. Like one could even learn to ride a bike this way and that, generally, does not involve a pardigm shift.

Researchers wanted Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley to take LSD because they were the best equipped humans to describe what they experienced. Most people can't put words to it, but they still have the experience. Maybe that's intuition.
We shift stuff to the unconcious and what is not conscious is also always learning on its own. We learned language, the core of it, without trying. Intuition likely has experiential components and build in ones. Professionals and amateurs develop intuition around what they focus on. Soem people seem gifted off the bat. There are ways to intentionally improve intuition. Big life experiences give us foci that then train us. I went through a severe trauma as a child. This led to me focusing on body language, tone of voice, changes in interpersonal dynamics and the like. Without decided I watch and listen to this stuff whereever I am. That has given me a skill set. Some of it I can articulate. IOW sometime I can explain how I know X about someone while others in the room had no idea. Sometimes I cannot.

What one could do as a base is not assume that if something is not accpeted by consensus science it isn't true. The educated classes (in an inconsistant and often arbritrary way) dismiss things they should be agnostic about, becuase they act like science is complete, like there are no paradigmatic blind spots and they know this, that they themelves never use intution or believe in things based on non-empirical processes and so on. It's like a kind of class issues, where the rich thing the poor are all morons, but it's not really a class issue, since these attitudes and assumptions can relate to anyone deemed irrational.

I think they are coming around though. We have published research claiming most publish research is wrong. And there's something new going on about publishing mistakes and being proud of them.
There has been a shift. I wonder sometimes if women in science has been part of it. It cannot be a coincidence for example that animals were granted consciousness in a period where woman scientists - especially in zoology - had a larger presence. There is no way to prove consciousness, but in 70s women had more power and say in that field - primatology for example. And suddenly science stopped punishing people for thinking animals were like us in having emotions, intentionals, subjective experience. UP till then science either viewed them as machines or enforced an agnostic stance on the issue. I am sure there are other trends that are making people more open to intution. Or better put, making the educated classes more aware that intuition is not in some binary contrast with rationality.



I actually am organized, but it appears as clutter to anyone else. All my computers are crammed full and my desktops are filled with icons, but I can find anything I want to find, it just appears disorganized because it isn't filed away neatly. I've been meaning to find time to organize everything, but I've been meaning to do that for years and just can't seem to get to it. I'd rather come here and talk than do that. And I have so many webpages open and open for so long that the memory eventually fills up which requires a restart. Luckily chrome remembers everything, even the text I type in here. I actually have a post half-constructed to Gloominary from months ago still sitting there and each time I restart, it comes back with the text I typed.
I just read someone saying clutter was a sign of some positive trait. Can't remember the someone or the trait, but it was a bit of solace.

The positive trait mentioned was probably not memory lol

Well there's a difference in organization and narcissism.
Sure, though I was confessing something a bit uglier. I think I view people who are not creative as damaged. This comes up less when dealing with people who have not had opportunities to be created. But a well educated person who is not creative in some arty farty way - including bands, traditional arts, etc. - I look down on. Or there is some tendency on my part to do this. Now I know many of them look down on for my antics and disorganization, and in the work world they have all sorts of advantages, but still I'd prefer not to participate in the 'my talents are the right talents and you are lesser people' crap. So even the not narcissistic surgeon or the not little hitler bureaucrat is gettting some of my snootiness.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:51 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, though I was confessing something a bit uglier. I think I view people who are not creative as damaged. This comes up less when dealing with people who have not had opportunities to be created. But a well educated person who is not creative in some arty farty way - including bands, traditional arts, etc. - I look down on. Or there is some tendency on my part to do this. Now I know many of them look down on for my antics and disorganization, and in the work world they have all sorts of advantages, but still I'd prefer not to participate in the 'my talents are the right talents and you are lesser people' crap. So even the not narcissistic surgeon or the not little hitler bureaucrat is gettting some of my snootiness.

I think there is a difference in merely recognizing you have abilities that others don't have without being condescending or whatever word I mean. Either you are gifted and the other people are normal or you are normal and other people are damaged. I think it depends on which perspective you choose to take. Chris Langan has 200iq, so is he gifted or are we damaged idiots?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:05 am

Serendipper wrote:
Gloominary wrote:Not only do Christians worship their God, an authority outside of the state, but Christians are explicitly warned to be very skeptical of the state.

I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

Jesus' opinion:

15 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Paul's opinion:

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Peter's opinion:

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

And Jesus said:

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

In other words, stfu and be humble as the dirt you're made of.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

How can one fight the gov in observance of that?

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

How does hating on welfare jibe with that?

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

There is no ambiguity about it.

Ghandi said "I like you christ but not your christians." They're the most hypocritical bunch who flatter themselves for a religion they don't even practice.

Okay the bible doesn't exactly teach you to be skeptical of government.
Libertarian conservatives cherry-pick the bible to try to make it seem that way.
They focus on the book of revelation, how the anti-Christ and false prophet takeover government and organized religion respectively.
They focus on how Satan offered Jesus all the world's kingdoms, as if they were his to give.

If I remember correctly, the Jews supposedly lived in a state of semi-organized anarchy for several centuries before they demanded a monarchy, against the warnings of Elohim, who recommended they remained in anarchy.

Libertarian conservativism is more like OT morality + Greco-Roman ideas about democracy, and Anglo-Saxon ideas rights and work ethic.
They're not really into Jesus and his ideas about charity and forgiveness, they just pay lip service.
That being said, Jesus wasn't liberal either, he was apolitical.
He wanted people to give out of the goodness of their own hearts, or out of the holyspirit which gives without expectation, not by force.
Last edited by Gloominary on Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:52 am

Wrong thread, please delete.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:00 am

Gloominary wrote:Okay, the bible doesn't exactly teach you to be skeptical of government.
Libertarian conservatives cherry-pick the bible to try to make it seem that way.
They focus on the book of revelation, how the anti-Christ and false prophet takeover government and organized religion respectively.

Yes that's where globalization comes in. The antichrist is the globalist. I remember when Bush Sr mentioned "new world order" in a speech and everyone thought the antichrist was coming soon. That was about 1988 which was 40 years after israel became a state and everyone made a big deal out of that too, like the end of the world was near. Undaunted by failed predictions, they're still waiting for a one-world government and the mark of the beast that everyone will have to get in their right hand or forehead lest they be not able to buy or sell. I thought that was really going to happen for many years.

They focus on how Satan offered Jesus all the world's kingdoms, as if they were his to give.

They are his to give. All denominations that I'm aware of consider satan to be ruler of this world. The world fell with adam.

As a matter of fact, my stepdad recently used the book of Job to argue for other worlds that god created:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.


"Sons of God" is plural, and if satan is a son of God who rules earth, then there must be other earths with other sons of God as rulers.

So then at the Armageddon, God will dethrone Satan and cast him into the bottomless pit, then judge everyone not covered in the blood of christ, then destroy the earth and "all elements will burn with fervent heat", then create a new world where sin can't happen, which will be the eternal habitat for all those saved from the destruction.

If I remember correctly, the Jews supposedly lived in a state of semi-organized anarchy for several centuries, before they demanded a monarchy, against the warnings of Elohim, who recommended they remained in anarchy.

I don't know much about that topic.

Libertarian conservativism is more like OT morality + a bit of scientism, Greco-Roman ideas about democracy and Anglo-Saxon ideas rights and work ethic.

The thing about christianity is forgiveness and faith rather than "right action". "We're saved by faith, not of works, lest any man should boast." Paul specifically said "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Works are evidence of salvation and not the cause of salvation. So there is no moral code to stick to, but if you're saved, you are a "new creature" that displays moral evidence of the salvation. Judaism is opposite of that and they believe works cause salvation. Jesus went on a lengthy tirade calling the jews "hypocrites" and asking them how they will escape the damnation of hell:

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

They're not really into Jesus, and his ideas about charity and forgiveness, they just pay lip service.

Yes I know, christians are anything but.

That being said, Jesus wasn't liberal either, he was apolitical.
He wanted people to give out of the goodness of their own hearts, or the holyspirit which gives without expectation, not by force.

He wanted people to give everything they had and go follow him.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Elsewhere he said:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Just charitable donations won't cut it.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:28 am

Serendipper wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, though I was confessing something a bit uglier. I think I view people who are not creative as damaged. This comes up less when dealing with people who have not had opportunities to be created. But a well educated person who is not creative in some arty farty way - including bands, traditional arts, etc. - I look down on. Or there is some tendency on my part to do this. Now I know many of them look down on for my antics and disorganization, and in the work world they have all sorts of advantages, but still I'd prefer not to participate in the 'my talents are the right talents and you are lesser people' crap. So even the not narcissistic surgeon or the not little hitler bureaucrat is gettting some of my snootiness.

I think there is a difference in merely recognizing you have abilities that others don't have without being condescending or whatever word I mean. Either you are gifted and the other people are normal or you are normal and other people are damaged. I think it depends on which perspective you choose to take. Chris Langan has 200iq, so is he gifted or are we damaged idiots?
He's probably gifted, would be my take, in those areas he is gifted.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2445
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Gloominary » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:54 am

@Serendipper

Yes that's where globalization comes in. The antichrist is the globalist. I remember when Bush Sr mentioned "new world order" in a speech and everyone thought the antichrist was coming soon. That was about 1988 which was 40 years after israel became a state and everyone made a big deal out of that too, like the end of the world was near. Undaunted by failed predictions, they're still waiting for a one-world government and the mark of the beast that everyone will have to get in their right hand or forehead lest they be not able to buy or sell. I thought that was really going to happen for many years.

I'm not a theist, but I share the bible's pessimism about globalism.

As a matter of fact, my stepdad recently used the book of Job to argue for other worlds that god created:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

"Sons of God" is plural, and if satan is a son of God who rules earth, then there must be other earths with other sons of God as rulers.

It'd be a boring waste if (the) Elohim only created one inhabited world.

The thing about christianity is forgiveness and faith rather than "right action". "We're saved by faith, not of works, lest any man should boast." Paul specifically said "All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient." Works are evidence of salvation and not the cause of salvation. So there is no moral code to stick to, but if you're saved, you are a "new creature" that displays moral evidence of the salvation. Judaism is opposite of that and they believe works cause salvation. Jesus went on a lengthy tirade calling the jews "hypocrites" and asking them how they will escape the damnation of hell:

33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

Right, they do good deeds for their own sake, not for the sake of salvation, which comes from faith in Jesus's sacrifice for their sins alone.

Yes I know, christians are anything but.

There are unhypocritical Christians, who practice love and forgiveness, but few and far in between.

Broad is the road to hell.

He wanted people to give everything they had and go follow him.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

Elsewhere he said:

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Just charitable donations won't cut it.

Right, but none of that is how they earn their salvation, which comes from faith in Jesus's sacrifice alone, all of the above is voluntary, not obligatory.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Liberal & Conservative 'Pseudoscience'

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:13 am

Gloominary wrote:I'm not a theist, but I share the bible's pessimism about globalism.

I don't think the bible is asserting that globalism is necessarily bad because after all god is the ultimate globalist. Watts said it puzzled him that people of a republic would have a monarchical theory of the universe. Looks like a bit of cognitive dissonance going on.

It'd be a boring waste if (the) Elohim only created one inhabited world.

Watts pointed out that nature is really wasteful and it's evidence that the universe is merely having fun (expending energy just for the sake of expending energy).

The universe is too silly and inefficient to be anything we could have made lol

Right, they do good deeds for their own sake, not for the sake of salvation, which comes from faith in Jesus's sacrifice for their sins alone.

Well, doing good for its own sake isn't a religion. As a religion, they do things they think will help ensure a seat in heaven. I mean, if I'm nice to joe because I want him to be nice to me, I'm not practicing a religion. But if I'm nice to joe because I think god will kick my ass, then that's religion.

Would you rather be friends with the kid who's only nice to you because his parents threatened to beat his ass or the kid that just wanted to be nice because it's a sensible thing to do? Where is the moral foundation here?

Yes I know, christians are anything but.

There are unhypocritical Christians, who practice love and forgiveness, but few and far in between.

Broad is the road to hell.

The bullseye is always the smallest part.

Right, but none of that is how they earn their salvation, which comes from faith in Jesus's sacrifice alone, all of the above is voluntary, not obligatory.

It's obligatory if it's considered evidence of salvation. It's obligatory that a plant not be a weed if it wants to live. There is nothing you can do, but your action is still required. It's required as an effect of salvation. If the good works aren't there, then the salvation probably isn't there.

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

My understanding of judaism has always been the obverse of christianity in that right-action can somehow influence salvation.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Next

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]