by cofty 99 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The earth is not flat - that is not a political statement.
Women bear children, men do not - that is also not a political statement.
The sun appears to rise in the East and set in the west - this is not political.
Appealing to the perspective of worms, Japanese myths and dancing hyenas is bullshit.
If you want to talk about the ethical implications of science then that is an interesting conversation.
cofty: The earth is not flat - that is not a political statement.
Women bear children, men do not - that is also not a political statement.
The sun rises in the East and sets in the west - this is not political.
Appealing to the perspective of worms, Japanese myths and dancing hyenas is bullshit.
Well...technically...the sun doesn't rise. The earth moves, not the sun. That is semantics. Exactly what the structuralists are credited with giving to postmodernism - language as the signifier of political positioning.
If you want to talk about the ethical implications of science then that is an interesting conversation.
No. Not ethics. Not at all. Political positioning isn't about ethics...not really.
I am surprised that you are using Gaad as a proponent for your position, Cofty. I did a quick look at his bio and I wouldn't use him as a spokesperson for hard science. His discipline is soft science at best - soft science with a heavy dose of cultural bias worked into it.
Gaad studied under Russo at Concordia University in Montreal. It took me a while to pull that name out of my memory but I remember critiquing his studies in research methodology class when I took my psychology degree. His studies did not hold up to the rigorous examinations that my professor put them through. Russo's studies were incredibly culturally biased.
Not only that, but there was a graduate student doing his masters in social psych at the time too (he did his undergrad at Concordia). He was always getting his proposals rejected by the faculty because he refused to give up Russo's theories. Russo was not respected in the psych department I attended. It was generally thought that he gave science a bad name. But...I did have some hard core professors who were unforgiving and idealistically motivated.
*nicely done, cofty...edit function is marvelous, isn't it? :)
Gad Saad is an intellectual. He is not some internet jockey poking fun at things he can't understand. He has read lots of postmodern literature and isn't afraid to point out the Emperor's dangling genitalia.
What makes you say Gad Saad has read lots of postmodern literature? He states the opposite in the first video. He says he can't vouch for the quotes personally because he found them "very quickly" and that others could investigate the context if they wish. He also says he doesn't know who Husserl is! From this information it's doubtful that he's read any postmodern literature beyond some quotes he found online that he believes makes them look silly. If his interaction with postmodernism goes any further than that then he gives no evidence of it anywhere in clip. In fact if anything he seems proud of his ignorance.
nicely done, cofty...edit function is marvelous, isn't it? - OP
I edited "the sun rises in the East" before you posted because I know how much pomo disciples like to argue about tedious semantics.
What makes you say Gad Saad has read lots of postmodern literature?
He specifically said so - 2nd video 5:30
Typical of you to make this about the credentials of Gad Saad. I think he is a very clear thinking and entertaining social commentator. His observations of modern feminism and the regressive left are spot on.
He states the opposite in the first video
Actually he did not.
cofty:...I know how much pomo disciples like to argue about tedious semantics.
Yeah...those damn pomos and their obsession with precise language.
It is a good thing that good science is based on precise measurements.
Mmm he says he's read "or attempted to read" many postmodern texts. In the previous video he described using google scholar to skim texts and that he found absurd passages very "easily" this way. When he read the quotes he didn't sound like he understood what he was reading: hesitating, pausing in the wrong places, mispronouncing, stating he has no idea who Husserl is, and so on.
But maybe despite all that his rejection of postmodernism is a result of some deep consideration of the topic. People can draw their own conclusions.
To quote you again, because it's such a great quote:
Craeationists proudly display their ignorance because they think it is a virtue.
those damn pomos and their obsession with precise language.
Normal conversation - The earth is not flat.
pomo - Depends what you mean by earth, and it depends what you mean by flat. What about the perspective of a worm, that's just as valid as the perspective of a man. - SBF
Normal conversation - Only women bear children - Gad Saad
pomo - Absolutely not. There is a Japanese tribe who have a spiritual narrative in which men bear children
Normal conversation - From a human perspective on earth the sun always appears to rise in the east - Gad Saad
pomo - What do you mean by east and west? What do you mean by sun. That which you call sun I may choose to call dancing hyena.
Gibberish posturing as intellectualism.
I think Orphan Crow has nailed it. What you seem to be objecting the use of precise language or the use of technical language outside the hard sciences.
Whether a distinction is important or pedantic really depends on the situation.
For example someone might say:
The light of the moon is shining brightly tonight.
And a physicist might respond:
Actually the moon is not a source of light, it is reflecting light emitted by the sun.
Whether that response is pedantic, helpful, playful, annoying or whatever probably depends on a complex set contextual considerations. But whatever the intent or reception, it is nevertheless a meaningful distinction that is being made.
It's similar when a theorist responds to a statement such as "only women bear children" with the observation that it depends what you mean by "woman" and it depends what you mean by "bear children". You may find these precise distinctions and technicalities annoying, pedantic or whatever. But they are meaningful distinctions nonetheless.
Whether a distinction is important or pedantic really depends on the situation.
Exactly.
When I say to someone that the fact of common descent is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat your intervention "Why is the worm's view worth less than human?" is literally ridiculous.
I just had a buddy of mine listen to the video in the OP..
He has a Masters in Linguistics..
His conclusion..
1)..Saad couldn`t be bothered to put in anything more than the absolute minimal research possible,into the academic subject he was critiquing..
2)..Saad doesn`t have the academic qualifications to comprehend what was being said..
3)..Saad`s uneducated comments would be "torn to shreds" in an academic setting..
4)..Saad is so petty,as to put down something he doesn`t understand..
